Too much moderation on these boards?

But the modding here isn't I hold, extreme. Its not that breaking of forum guidelines doesn't happen all the time. 'Extreme' modding would result in a site where forum guidelines were held all the time by everyone. In which case the modding wouldn't be 'extreme' as such - but would only lead the site to be one where the rigors that might prevail in say, scientific peer review, would hold true. This wouldn't make it bad - just different than it is. Less free-flow of ideas and more rigor.Whatever modding level is employed simply determines the nature and feel for the site. Less or no modding would make it one way and more would make it another. Whatever flavour is achieved is whatever flavour is achieved. There is no bad or good about it. Its about whether you enjoy the flavour or not.

when one has an argument taken on faith in authority, what use is debate? i'm right, you're wrong, end of story. questioning is only useful to one side of this debate; it is dangerous to the other.

---

Does the fact that you have observed this mean what you hold to be the case is merely interpretation of the evidence. Or is it objectively the case like you seem to assert here

haha touche.

If I could just briefly toot my own horn for a minute regarding bias, here are some excerpts from the Forum Terms & Rules page over at Evolution Fairytale:

• It is intellectually dishonest to claim that micro-evolution (something everyone agrees occurs) proves that all life originates from a common ancestor.
  ​
• Disallowed: Complaining about board moderation.
  ​
• Since Evolution Fairytale is a Christian-based ministry, only Christians will be accepted as Moderators and Admins for the forum.

For a particularly biased statement, see Christian Warning.Some viewpoints are simply disallowed, see An Example Of What Won't Be Preached Here.The only thing that can affect participation at EvC Forum is violations of the Forum Guidelines, which are neutral regarding viewpoint.Rgb's issue is with over-moderation, I think, not bias.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

From An Example Of What Won't Be Preached Here: My guess is that admin3 is Fred Williams (that is another plus for - We make explicit which admin is also which member). True - His extreme version of creationism does not at all go together with evolutionary considerations. But that is the essence of most of the creation/evolution debate. If you totally suppress such considerations then you have no debate at all.The two extremes of moderation are:1) None - Pretty much have chaos with what quality input there is being buried in the blather.2) Extreme moderation (example: the so called "Baptist Board", which I don't offhand have a link for) - All messages are submitted to the moderator(s) and are not even seen unless approved, and then they are often heavily moderator edited/censored. Debate input from one side is heavily suppressed.Here at we try to achieve something in the middle. With very rare exception (and such is mostly for spam) moderators do not edit messages for content, and messages and topics are not deleted. We try for total transparency in what happens here.Re: Spam - I would love to wipe the spam topics/messages from the record as they are totally irrelevant clutter. But to do such would be to leave gaps in the topic or message listings, which could raise questions about "what was deleted?". Thus, to totally document our lack of censorship, we must preserve the garbage.Re: Promoted or rejected "Proposed New Topics". Again, total disclosure and preservation. The PNT's remain as clutter in the forum topic listings. BTW, one feature that I really liked in the pre-dBoard version of the forum, was the "Proposed New Topics" archive. There the promoted or rejected topics could be removed from normal view, but would be preserved elsewhere in case someone wanted to look at them. Percy, does that archive still exist? If so, link please.Re: Why the "Proposed New Topics" (PNT) forum. - We have decided that in order to aid in a quality debate happening, we should at least try for extra care in that there is a reasonably quality topic title and initial message. Without the PNT process, we would at least sometimes have redundant to other current topics topics, misplaced (wrong forum) topics, garbage topics, and most importantly, poorly defined topics.We have seen such topics started, that have vague or not relevant topic titles. Then the initial message may actually have a good topic theme presented, only to have the originater shoot-off somewhere else later in the same message. Unmoderated, we can have massive topic drift within the message 1 of a new topic.Bottom line in regards to the PNT - We are trying to at least get the topic off to a good start. Ideally (and it is rather a fantacy) this will help the contributing members do quality messages down thread, and will make moderating easier and better. After all, it's pretty hard to do a good topic if no one can really figure out what the topic is about.Adminnemooseus (running in the babble mode?)

If I were a creationist, I could now abuse you visciously, break all of the forum guidelines for daring to question me, and be tolerated by moderators.But, as it is, I am not a creationist, so a higher standard of behavior is expected of me.I feel as though such requirements ultimately serve me better than they serve the creationist.

In my previous message (to which this message is a reply) I stated that we strive for total transparency and disclosure at .There is a significant exception to this policy. It is the existence of the "Private Administration Forum" (PAF), which is not only "topics and messages by admin only", but also is totally hidden from the view of the general membership. This forum is an alterative and improvement to the previous "admins needing to communicate by e-mail". The reasons for it's private nature are:1) It gives the admins a place to discuss moderator procedures and issues, free from the clutter of non-admin input. This, in itself, could be achieved via a public forum with "topics and messages by admin only", but...2) Keeping it non-public eliminates it's content from triggering non-admin comments in the various public "Suggestions and Questions" topics.Trust me, there are heated debates about moderation issues in the PAF. But I do think the general forum interests are best served by keeping some of such out of sight of the general membership. It's not that we don't also have public versions, such as the General discussion of moderation procedures series of topics. As you can see via the cited, such public discussion (and other non-relevant blather?) is now approaching a total of 1800 messages. And there is also no shortage of other public moderation issue topics.If you want to be able to see and post at the PAF, volunteer to become an moderator/admin. If we find you to be workable as such, your into the PAF. Please make any such offers via e-mail, either to me or one of the other admins. My e-mail address is available at the bottom of this and any other Adminnemooseus or Minnemooseus message/moosage.All considerations of possible new moderators are kept private, discussion of such being either in the PAF or by e-mail. If you are accepted to become a moderator/admin, then a public announcement will be made. If you are rejected, there will be no public announcement unless you choose to do such yourself.Adminnemooseus

I'm a creationist and I don't go around viciously abusing people and breaking all forum guidelines - including the ad hom implied by your painting all creationists with the same brushSure, I've only be suspended once since I came here and that fairly recently. Proof positive if proof were necessary

I'm sorry but I have never seen anyone except the fundamentalist Christians suggest that those who disagree with them should be shot.Such behavior is in my experience to be expected from fundamentalists aand evangelicals whether they are Christian, Muslim, Hindu or any other stripe.We tolerate and allow them to behave in that fashion where we would not accept such behavior from Atheists, "evos", Agnostics or any other grownups because we realize that they are handicapped and unable act differently.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Somewhere in the distant past (3 years ago?), probably somewhere in the Change in Moderation? topic (recommended reading, BTW), there was discussion of "is lax forum guideline enforcement for creationists actually an anti-creationist bias?". In other words, are we being unfair to the general creationist perspective if we alow certain creationists be behave like idiots, when we don't alow such of the evolution side?Such is where quality creationist moderators can be most useful. To moderate bad creationist behaviour without such being interpreted as anti-creationist bias.Adminnemooseus

I'm pretty sure this breaks a forum guideline Jar. And coming from an Admin-level member no less!ps: it wasn't for reasons of you disagreeing with me that I posted that post - it was for what I percieve to be the underhanded way you go about your business here. For example: the above breaking of forum guidelines will unlikely bring down the wrath of an admin on you. And you know it.(Although no doubt I may be surprised - just don't place the STOP sign there yourself - that would be self defeating. LOL)

If a mod should object to what I say, they have the capability to sanction my behavior. However, I was simply pointing out to you why it is we hold members such as yourself to lower standards of behavior than others.I have not and would not suggest that someone who says they are a Christian is not one. You have.I have not and would not suggest that you not be allowed to support your position to the best of your ability. Fundamentalist Evangelical Christians here at EvC have petitioned that I not be allowed to post on Faith & Belief.I have not and will not suggest that someone should be taken out and shot. You have.I believe that it is essential that you and others who believe as you do be allowed to post your messages.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Na, when jar does it, as he does in his answer to you, where he commits many more violations of the rules as well, they aren't REALLY violations, because they are TRUE. Didn't you know that? Let a creationist claim the same, however, and it doesn't fly.

There's a fine line between not abusing people and cheerleading for those who do.The anonymity of the Internet prompts some people to post things that they would never dare to say to the person in real life. For myself, I never post anything that I wouldn't say to your face. (In fact, I might be even tougher on you if others weren't listening. )It's sad that so many professing "Christians" don't understand "By their fruits ye shall know them."

quote:

---

Joh 15:6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.

---

That's why we need the moderators - to cast the unproductive branches into the fire.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC