Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 60 (9209 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Skylink
Post Volume: Total: 919,486 Year: 6,743/9,624 Month: 83/238 Week: 83/22 Day: 24/14 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   General discussion of moderation procedures - Part οκτώ
AdminOmni
Inactive Member


Message 196 of 302 (365144)
11-21-2006 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by crashfrog
11-21-2006 11:02 AM


Re: Request for moderator review
crashfrog writes:
Before we martyr NWR can we all be very clear on the sort of thing Percy was replying to?
If my private reason for not accepting BB is that I don't like the color of your avatar, that would be reason enough. I don't need to provide a public justification for my private decision. You have no right whatsoever to tell me what to think or how to think. You say "you're as qualified to have an opinion about the Big Bang as many creationists are to have an opinion about evolution". Sure. And I am as qualified to have an opinion about BB as you are to have an opinion about what color socks to wear in the morning. I am fully qualified to have an opinion, because it is my opinion. I am qualified to have a private opinion because all humans are qualified to have private opinions.
Please note that passage you quote is not something that Percy was replying to--this is where NWR declared his refusal to continue the discussion.
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.
NWR did not "show up in front" of anyone to "vociferously...object to the conclusions of science" or to "devalue the life's-work of scientists." He expressed a lingering skepticism about the Big Bang theory, while acknowledging the evidential strengths of that theory, noting that he would remain skeptical until further confirmation. Skepticism is also an essential part of science; arm-twisting demands to submit are not.
Percy's comparison of NWR's skepticism to creationism, and his resort to terms like "ignorant" were, in my opinion, unfair, invalid, and counterproductive--as are yours. These tactics represent an ad hominem turn from debate to scorn: neither science, nor the pursuit of truth, nor the seeking of mutual understanding, are well served by tactics that smack of orthodoxy prosecuting heresy.
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.
We all have different thresholds for retaining skepticism; science has benefitted many times from a stubborn refusal to yield to the prevailing winds. Right or wrong, skepticism does science no harm and often does it good, as fresh evidence and more persuasive arguments are sought.
Address the argument, not the person: that is a founding principle of good debate and this forum. There are many varieties of bad faith, but skepticism is much further from it than scornful replies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by crashfrog, posted 11-21-2006 11:02 AM crashfrog has not replied

AdminModulous
Administrator (Idle past 239 days)
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 197 of 302 (365153)
11-21-2006 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by crashfrog
11-21-2006 11:02 AM


A sticky wicket
After some consideration I'm siding with nwr on this one. However, both parties puzzled me.
It started with nwr simply commenting he was skeptical of the BB. Percy asking to discuss it further, and nwr agreeing. Nwr made it clear he was not trying to refute BB, just that the evidence he had seen hadn't been enough to convince him.
Percy continued to debate nwr as if he were trying to refute the BB, and it went around for a while with nwr trying to explain this wasn't the case. Eventually Percy concluded that nwr was letting his ignorance shine through.
I'm puzzled as to why nwr thought it was a good to idea to put his opinion forward in a debate board without the opinion being...debated.
On reflection though, Percy was less civil than he could have been and it discoloured the flavour of debate. If his purpose was to show that two evolutionists debate the same as an evolutionist versus a creationist - then all he really achieved was showing that creationists get given a hard time around here.
If Percy succeeds in making this debate style the norm, I'd be very disappointed. We all like to see people that make grand declarations about how their opinion of science is Truth get taken down a notch and shown to be the arrogant ignoramuses they are. However, I don't think I want to be part of a culture where tentative skepticism is met with criticism and accusations of ignorance.
If a creationist says 'I'm not convinced by the evidence of macroevolution' then I'd rather see a discussion along the lines of 'Let's look at the evidence and discuss what you think of it.'

I don't think it warranted suspension personally. Though I suppose it shows that even the board's administrator can be rebuked by other mods - so that equivalence thing is working. Still - I think the best thing for nwr to have done is called an end to his discussion with Percy and concentrated on the discussions with the cosmologists.
Not a perfect solution, but I don't think suspension was quite necessary.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by crashfrog, posted 11-21-2006 11:02 AM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by AdminOmni, posted 11-21-2006 2:23 PM AdminModulous has not replied

AdminOmni
Inactive Member


Message 198 of 302 (365170)
11-21-2006 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by AdminModulous
11-21-2006 1:14 PM


Re: A sticky wicket
AdminModulous writes:
I don't think it warranted suspension personally. Though I suppose it shows that even the board's administrator can be rebuked by other mods - so that equivalence thing is working. Still - I think the best thing for nwr to have done is called an end to his discussion with Percy and concentrated on the discussions with the cosmologists.
Not a perfect solution, but I don't think suspension was quite necessary.
I realize that I may have left an erroneous impression: I agree that the suspension was not strictly necessary. I often disagree with brief suspensions in both directions--those I would not have imposed and those I would have.
We generally treat a 24-hour suspension as a relatively minor thing. Though I wouldn't have imposed one here regardless of who the member was, it does not seem wildly inappropriate either. In other words, it seems within the normal range of diverse admin perspectives.
Edited by AdminOmni, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by AdminModulous, posted 11-21-2006 1:14 PM AdminModulous has not replied

AdminBuzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 199 of 302 (365243)
11-21-2006 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by crashfrog
11-21-2006 11:02 AM


Re: Request for moderator review
Crashfrog writes:
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.
Regardless of anyone's assessment of the arguments made regarding anyone or anything, my judgement had solely to do with the conduct of the poster. As I suggested, compare the conduct and manner of communicating of NWR's other counterparts, NWR himself and that of Percy relative to personal attacks and I think you will see the problem that I was addressing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by crashfrog, posted 11-21-2006 11:02 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by crashfrog, posted 11-22-2006 11:39 AM AdminBuzsaw has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1721 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 200 of 302 (365366)
11-22-2006 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by AdminBuzsaw
11-21-2006 7:57 PM


Re: Request for moderator review
I did compare them. I saw Percy growing more and more frustrated with NWR's consistent bad faith in the debate. If NWR wanted his opinion to be private, he should have kept it private. When he spoke about it, it became public. If he wanted his opinion to be immune from response, he shouldn't have brought it to the debate.
Nobody twisted NWR's arm to join the debate. I see NWR's conduct as much, much more consistently against the forum rules than anything Percy said. Almost from the beginning of the thread NWR is arguing in bad faith, but predictably, science's defenders are held to a higher standard on EvC than anybody else. Well, fair enough. Percy wants it that way. But let's not act like NWR is some kind of innocent aggreived party here, ok?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by AdminBuzsaw, posted 11-21-2006 7:57 PM AdminBuzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by AdminBuzsaw, posted 11-22-2006 5:39 PM crashfrog has not replied

AdminBuzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 201 of 302 (365480)
11-22-2006 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by crashfrog
11-22-2006 11:39 AM


Re: Request for moderator review
I call the shots as I see them, Crashfrog and I'm afraid you haven't confinced me that I've made the wrong judgement. Imo, it's about how you communicate your argument to another. This statement in Forum Guidelines, item 10 is what I've based my judgement on.
item 10 statement writes:
Argue the position, not the person.
Abe: Unlike the other participants of the discussion, Percy was making personal demeaning statements either implied or outright spoken in presenting his arguments regarding science aimed at the his counterpart in the debate. Others were making the same arguments and agreeing without doing it in a demeaning manner. If we all avoid this personal stuff, things hum along much better here at EvC.
Edited by AdminBuzsaw, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by crashfrog, posted 11-22-2006 11:39 AM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by Percy, posted 11-22-2006 8:32 PM AdminBuzsaw has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22947
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 7.0


Message 202 of 302 (365509)
11-22-2006 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by AdminBuzsaw
11-22-2006 5:39 PM


Re: Request for moderator review
Well, I guess I can't let my lone defender go it alone like this. Suffice to say that there's an avid discussion on this topic going on right now in the private admin forum, so I'm not sure why Buzsaw saw the need to make further public comment while the admin discussion is still in progress, but anyway:
Buzsaw writes:
Unlike the other participants of the discussion, Percy was making personal demeaning statements either implied or outright spoken...
I think it would be illuminating for you and any other interested moderators to present some actual passages of me doing this, naturally being sure to provide any context necessary to making an accurate presentation.
Insight and understanding develops out of discussion, so I see this as healthy. It should help us all reach a better understanding of what constitutes constructive discussion.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by AdminBuzsaw, posted 11-22-2006 5:39 PM AdminBuzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by crashfrog, posted 11-22-2006 10:13 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 204 by AdminBuzsaw, posted 11-23-2006 12:12 AM Percy has replied
 Message 206 by Silent H, posted 11-23-2006 8:32 AM Percy has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1721 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 203 of 302 (365521)
11-22-2006 10:13 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by Percy
11-22-2006 8:32 PM


Re: Request for moderator review
Well, I guess I can't let my lone defender go it alone like this.
Well, I don't know that the guy that runs the place needs to be defended by the likes of me; I just thought it was a little ridiculous how at least 3 people were bending over backwards to defend a guy's right to argue in bad faith without being called on it.
I would have closed the thread or tried to redirect it to a topic that would have supported a greater signal/noise ratio, maybe? Seems like the topic was fruitless from the get-go.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Percy, posted 11-22-2006 8:32 PM Percy has not replied

AdminBuzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 204 of 302 (365526)
11-23-2006 12:12 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by Percy
11-22-2006 8:32 PM


Re: Request for moderator review
Percy writes:
Well, I guess I can't let my lone defender go it alone like this. Suffice to say that there's an avid discussion on this topic going on right now in the private admin forum, so I'm not sure why Buzsaw saw the need to make further public comment while the admin discussion is still in progress, but anyway:
Buzsaw writes:
Unlike the other participants of the discussion, Percy was making personal demeaning statements either implied or outright spoken...
I think it would be illuminating for you and any other interested moderators to present some actual passages of me doing this, naturally being sure to provide any context necessary to making an accurate presentation.
Insight and understanding develops out of discussion, so I see this as healthy. It should help us all reach a better understanding of what constitutes constructive discussion.
First, it was five Moderators including myself who posted public messages here advising that you were debating in bad form. Why do you single me out as bringing this public when NWR called for a review in this thread? I was responding to his call for moderation in this public thread where, as I understand he was suppose to do.
Likely folks out here are wondering what NWR's problem was. (Btw I did not call for a suspension nor would I have, though I don't fault Adminnemouseous for making the questionable call). I assumed that this is where we we as moderators were suppose to respond. Am I mistaken in this?
So far as going to the work of citing all of the offensive stuff, it's all public and I advised that interested parties do a comparison of the debate style of others supportive of your position and compare that to your style to make their own judgement. I don't see it as productive to delve into it in detail, but if you really want me to I'll oblige. Do you still want me to do that?
I'll recap some of how other moderators assessed your conduct. In AdminOmni's comment I'm not sure what he was referring to when he add, "as are yours," but he nevertheless cited the offence.
Adminnemooseus writes:
Percy is putting on a show of bad debate form.
http://EvC Forum: General discussion of moderation procedures - Part -->EvC Forum: General discussion of moderation procedures - Part
AdminModulous writes:
On reflection though, Percy was less civil than he could have been and it discoloured the flavour of debate. If his purpose was to show that two evolutionists debate the same as an evolutionist versus a creationist - then all he really achieved was showing that creationists get given a hard time around here.
If Percy succeeds in making this debate style the norm, I'd be very disappointed. We all like to see people that make grand declarations about how their opinion of science is Truth get taken down a notch and shown to be the arrogant ignoramuses they are. However, I don't think I want to be part of a culture where tentative skepticism is met with criticism and accusations of ignorance.
http://EvC Forum: General discussion of moderation procedures - Part -->EvC Forum: General discussion of moderation procedures - Part
AdminOmni writes:
Percy's comparison of NWR's skepticism to creationism, and his resort to terms like "ignorant" were, in my opinion, unfair, invalid, and counterproductive--as are yours. These tactics represent an ad hominem turn from debate to scorn: neither science, nor the pursuit of truth, nor the seeking of mutual understanding, are well served by tactics that smack of orthodoxy prosecuting heresy.
http://EvC Forum: General discussion of moderation procedures - Part -->EvC Forum: General discussion of moderation procedures - Part
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Changed the "m=" numbers (which had all been "m=181") to be the same as the "#" numbers. Since different members are set up to display different numbers of messages per page, not having those numbers the same may result in not getting to the correct message. For example, my setup is 15 messages per page, and thus the "m=181" page contains messages 181 thru 195.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Percy, posted 11-22-2006 8:32 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by Adminnemooseus, posted 11-23-2006 12:48 AM AdminBuzsaw has not replied
 Message 208 by Percy, posted 11-23-2006 8:57 AM AdminBuzsaw has replied

Adminnemooseus
Inactive Administrator


Message 205 of 302 (365531)
11-23-2006 12:48 AM
Reply to: Message 204 by AdminBuzsaw
11-23-2006 12:12 AM


Re: Request for moderator review - Adminnemooseus final statement (I hope)
Adminnemooseus writes:
Percy is putting on a show of bad debate form.
http://EvC Forum: General discussion of moderation procedures - Part -->EvC Forum: General discussion of moderation procedures - Part
When I saw NWR's review request, I skimmed the series of messages he cited. Not a careful, in depth analysis by any means.
At the time I posted the above quoted (and I was soon going to be off-line for many hours), there seemed to be an admin consensus that Percy was indeed in serious violation of guidelines. Thus I decided to do the suspension deed. Basically, I was presuming that Percy was shooting for a demonstration that not even the site owner was immune to suspensions.
Upon further reflection (but not after re-reading the messages), my recollection is that there was a lot of smoke with little substance. In such a mess, it can require (at least for me) a lot of work to determine who is at fault for the blather. In the past, I have sometimes just declared such a topic to be terminal mess and then close it.
In summary, it was a strange thing to have two members (of admin status no less) who I have such high regard for to be involved in such a mess.
Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by AdminBuzsaw, posted 11-23-2006 12:12 AM AdminBuzsaw has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 6073 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 206 of 302 (365565)
11-23-2006 8:32 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by Percy
11-22-2006 8:32 PM


sweet irony
When I made a request like NWR just did, I got criticized by him. His admonition to just get over it is not good enough for himself apparently.
Insight and understanding develops out of discussion, so I see this as healthy. It should help us all reach a better understanding of what constitutes constructive discussion.
I essentially made quite a similar argument to you a while ago, as well as nwr. You both dismissed it out of hand.
Perhaps a little less hubris and a little more sympathy/empathy in dealing with others (when problems in discussion arise) might be a suggestion for the both of you.
Heheheh... you were both "wrong". Technically nwr opened the point for debate by posting his opinion, and he then reopened it after you (percy) had agreed to close it. You made a side comment to cavediver but it wasn't sufficient reason for him to reopen it with the rather large protest post he made in response to your one line.
But you definitely engaged in name-calling as well as treating him poorly. Unfortunately it is the kind of treatment which creos get around here which gives me the creeps. For all the talk of being scientific high minded, there is a dogmatic defence of it which is really uncalled for and unhelpful. Not to mention somewhat erroneous.
As much as I might disagree with nwr's position (apparently both metaphysically and epistemologically) he didn't deserve the name calling and twisting of his position.
Anyway, I'm putting in my two cents to note that ironically you both just fell into the same pair of shoes I have worn, the toes of which you both stepped on. Hope they are as uncomfortable for you as they were for me, and out of this more empathy for others is squeezed. No need to reply.
Edited by holmes, : tense
Edited by holmes, : not have

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Percy, posted 11-22-2006 8:32 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by Buzsaw, posted 11-23-2006 8:45 AM Silent H has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 207 of 302 (365567)
11-23-2006 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by Silent H
11-23-2006 8:32 AM


Re: sweet irony
Holmes, IDist creationist EvC members have lived with this atmosphere for years while they last. Imo that it is coming to a head is providential. The irony of it all is that it took an encounter of Christian Percy vs athiest NWR to bring it about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Silent H, posted 11-23-2006 8:32 AM Silent H has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22947
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 7.0


Message 208 of 302 (365569)
11-23-2006 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 204 by AdminBuzsaw
11-23-2006 12:12 AM


Re: Request for moderator review
Buzsaw writes:
First, it was five Moderators including myself who posted public messages here advising that you were debating in bad form. Why do you single me out as bringing this public...
I didn't single you out for bringing this public. I was just wondering why you saw the need to make *further* public comment while there was an active discussion in progress in the admin forum.
Btw I did not call for a suspension nor would I have, though I don't fault Adminnemouseous for making the questionable call
Neither do I. He called it as he saw it. This is what I ask all administrators to do. He acted in good faith. But as has been pointed out in the admin forum, there are a couple very fundamental issues critical to the nature of debate here at EvC Forum which perhaps didn't receive adequate attention. Or any attention at all, actually, which has me perplexed. But more on that when the discussion is concluded.
So far as going to the work of citing all of the offensive stuff, it's all public...
Yes, of course it's all public. But I do request that if you're going to continue making characterizations of offensive and demeaning behavior while the admin discussion is ongoing that you support these assertions with specific citations that include sufficient context to accurately characterize things.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by AdminBuzsaw, posted 11-23-2006 12:12 AM AdminBuzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by AdminBuzsaw, posted 11-23-2006 11:31 AM Percy has replied

AdminBuzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 209 of 302 (365591)
11-23-2006 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 208 by Percy
11-23-2006 8:57 AM


Re: Request for moderator review
Percy writes:
I didn't single you out for bringing this public. I was just wondering why you saw the need to make *further* public comment while there was an active discussion in progress in the admin forum.
1. As I said, NWR brought it public, asking for moderation review. I assumed he did not intend for that review to be private. That's not how we do other members who have no access to PAF. Why should you as a participating member be treated other than others in this respect?
2. Including AdminPhat, NWR and myself, three other admins made comments also while the discussion in PAF was getting underway. Actually that makes six.
3. AdminOmni and AdminModulous both made public comments after mine, yet you chose to single mine out for whatever reason.
Percy writes:
Neither do I. He called it as he saw it. This is what I ask all administrators to do. He acted in good faith. But as has been pointed out in the admin forum, there are a couple very fundamental issues critical to the nature of debate here at EvC Forum which perhaps didn't receive adequate attention. Or any attention at all, actually, which has me perplexed. But more on that when the discussion is concluded.
If the fundamental issues of the nature of debate are violated in discussion and debate, the rule of thumb is, as I understand, to take those violations to the proper moderator forum rather than to take it upon yourself as a posting member and apply the violations amidst the discussion/debate in a personal manner so as to antagonize your debate counterpart. This, imo, is what inflamed the dissention in the affair and a was a violation of Forum Guidelines #10 on your part.
Percy writes:
Yes, of course it's all public. But I do request that if you're going to continue making characterizations of offensive and demeaning behavior while the admin discussion is ongoing that you support these assertions with specific citations that include sufficient context to accurately characterize things.
Give me some time and I will do so. In the meantime I'll begin by advising you that the way to inflame, humiliate, insult and infuriate an articulate science minded secularistic highly intelligent scientifically apprised and studied athiest on the world wide web, who has also been a very efficient and useful asset to your website, is to liken that member to the creationists whom you've consistently been so very critical of and who for the most part are portrayed as simpleton nonothings, including creationist PHD grade ID scientists who you contend don't even do science in their IDist research papers and who you falsly allege do not provide evidence when in fact their evidence is largly the same as yours interpreted supportive of their own hypothesis.
You clearly implicated NWR repeatedly during the discussion as doing equally as poorly as you consider creationists to be doing rather than addressing your problem with his manner of debate in the proper forum.
Edited by AdminBuzsaw, : Fix a gramatical error

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Percy, posted 11-23-2006 8:57 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by Percy, posted 11-23-2006 12:23 PM AdminBuzsaw has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22947
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 7.0


Message 210 of 302 (365597)
11-23-2006 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by AdminBuzsaw
11-23-2006 11:31 AM


Re: Request for moderator review
Buzsaw writes:
3. AdminOmni and AdminModulous both made public comments after mine, yet you chose to single mine out for whatever reason.
After your Message 201, which is the message I was responding to? No they didn't.
Yours was the only public comment after the discussion in the admin forum began. That's what I just finished saying: "I was just wondering why you saw the need to make *further* public comment while there was an active discussion in progress in the admin forum."
My only point is that in the interests of fairness I don't think it right to keep repeating things along the lines of "demeaning and offensive comments" without providing some substantiation. I think serious issues have been raised concerning such a characterization in the admin forum. Perhaps in the end we'll conclude that my behavior was offensive, in which case I'll take full responsibility, but the other outcome is possible, too, so I think this it inappropriate to keep repeating the charge publicly while the issue is still being discussed privately.
But if you want to continue repeating it, I think it only fair that it be substantiated by citing the relevant portions in context and making clear what is wrong with them in light of the Forum Guidelines.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by AdminBuzsaw, posted 11-23-2006 11:31 AM AdminBuzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by PaulK, posted 11-23-2006 12:55 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 212 by Silent H, posted 11-23-2006 1:37 PM Percy has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024