General discussion of moderation procedures - Part οκτώ

I don't know. He hasn't been back to the "Knowing God" thread either.He has been in the chat room lately. Maybe you can catch him there and see if he really wants to get serious about learning.Take care
PD

I just want to put a word in that I do like the idea of making run on OT posts invisible. AdminMod used this in the Coffee House and that's a nice way of "weeding" a thread.Earlier I think someone had mentioned the possibility of collapsing OT posts (by vote or something) so that only the relevant posts appear with a personal option to see all of them.That might also be a nice option.

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Thanks AdminPD. I'll wait to see how serious he is about talking. I'm not a fast thinker and not comfortable with chat where you don't have much time to think before speaking.

"the possibility of collapsing OT posts (by vote or something) so that only the relevant posts appear with a personal option to see all of them" = more work.I think Percy said somewhere before that he who proposes implements.

---

Place yourself on the map at http://www.frappr.com/evc

​

The thread about this map can be found here.

I'm just curious. It has become apparent that some people, whether they're spammers or just trolls, continue to come back with new usernames. Is there a reason why you guys don't IP ban?

---

Place yourself on the map at http://www.frappr.com/evc

​

The thread about this map can be found here.

In some cases we do. However most ips are dynamically assigned anyway. Even if they are static, the kid can just register from a friends or at work or at school which will show as a different ip.We try to be fair to the majority. And usually we catch folk pretty quickly using other methods. It does not seem to be fair to ban a dynamic ip that might actually be yours after the next lease.

I am requesting a review of the dialog between Percy and me in No Big Bang--Just gentle whisper. The dialogue begins at Message 34 and continues to at least Message 89.The reason for the review is to determine whether Percy has violated rule 10.Edited by nwr, : include link to rules

---

Just say no to McCain 2008; he abandoned principle when he caved on habeus corpus

Well, maybe, but if so, it's subtle and difficult for my limited analytical abilities. Now, AdminPD could probably properly analyze the situation. Discussion of what is the nature of the big bang ("the position") sure does seem to be pretty scarce. Therefore, it would seem to be at least some basis for your complaint. But is the rule violation going both directions?(The feeble minded) AdminnemooseusAdminnemooseusEdited by Adminnemooseus, : Change ID to admin mode.

NWR, I'm not sure which rule Rule 10 is--from the main page, I find a link to a Forum Rule #10 that applies to cut-and-paste jobs.No matter.If what you are asking is whether or not Percy's posts and replies to you in this thread have been unnecessarily offensive, insulting, and condescending, then my answer is, simply, yes.Percy seems to feel that this was necessitated by a concern for the appearance of integrity. I don't understand why offensive and insulting behavior constitutes integrity merely because it is imposed on friend and foe alike, but there you are.I'm not going to engage in the absurdity of cautioning or sanctioning the owner of the site, but my own notions of integrity won't let me sit silently by, either.I think your indignant refusal to carry on any further in that thread was more than justified, and I offer you my sympathy.

Thanks. Much appreciated.Sorry about the confusion over rules. I should have included a link (done now with editing). On the top of most forum pages, there is a line of links "Profile | FAQ | Rules | ...". The rules are listed in a different order on the front page link.

In my opinion, Percy was staging a debate for the benefit of showing proper form to creationists (as to what not to say)As for personal attacks, both of you got rather into it.I would forget about it and move on.

I have just finished reading nearly all of the thread. I see this bully pulpit arrogance being put upon you with a typical pattern of ever increasing personal attacks either repeatedly insinuated or outright spoken. All one needs do is compare Percy's conduct with Son Goku and Cavediver's where they presented their views in a congenial manner void of the personal attacks.Percy seems to have this attitude that anyone who dares question mainline thinking in science is out of order and he's not going to stand for it. He owns this site and how dare you question what he sees as truth.I'm sorry you needed to be the brunt of this kind of treatment, but in a way I think this has surfaced a festering problem here at EvC which has made it so unbalanced in the science forums.Percy, I don't like saying this about you but NWR asked for a review and as one of the moderators I'm saying it like I see it. I do believe you are often in violation of your own Forum Guidelines #10 and this is a classic example.

I strongly suspect you are correct. Percy is putting on a show of bad debate form. I wonder how much of it was pre-orchestrated with NWR?Anyhow, I'll wrap of the afair by giving Percy a 24 hour suspension.Adminnemooseus

---

Think it is about time that Percy was Showcased since he is demonstrating the same type of behaviour as our resident nutball creationists.The guy is unstable, never listens to advice either. The last piece of advice I gave him he ignored and it resulted in the disappearance of 2 mods and three members!Lock him up! Brian.

Before we martyr NWR can we all be very clear on the sort of thing Percy was replying to? If somebody showed up in front of me and defended, vociferously, their right to object to the conclusions of science - to devalue the life's-work of scientists - on the most spurious grounds, or no grounds whatsoever, I would describe that person as "ignorant", too. "Irrational" would also be an apt description.For all that NWR complains about his right to state publically his "private" opinion, he seems to have a right old pity party when Percy makes plain his private opinion that NWR is employing no more intellectual rigor than a creationist.And I agree. Sorry that NWR finds that so outrageous, but he opened the door when he asserted a right to think whatever he wants and state whatever he wants about his thinking but remain insulated from criticism of those ideas. If NWR has a right to reject science because he doesn't like a certain color, then Percy has a right to hold an opinion about NWR.And I think it's wrong that Percy should suffer repercussions when it's been NWR that has been debating in bad faith all along. Taking a position and then demanding that it be elevated beyond all criticism is the very definition of a debate in bad faith.