Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 13.0
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 181 of 312 (435211)
11-19-2007 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by jar
11-18-2007 9:27 PM


Re: The 24/7 In Your Face One
1. I've cited the problematics & no need to repeat.
2. Honor item 10 of the guidelines and we'll get along fine. This is not the place to debate the topic issues of the cited thread so Im not going there. I'm on the road tomorrow and don't know when the next opportunity for login will be. So Long.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by jar, posted 11-18-2007 9:27 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by jar, posted 11-19-2007 7:51 PM Buzsaw has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 182 of 312 (435212)
11-19-2007 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by Buzsaw
11-19-2007 7:49 PM


Re: The 24/7 In Your Face One
So as always you have NOTHING to support your assertions and accusations.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Buzsaw, posted 11-19-2007 7:49 PM Buzsaw has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 183 of 312 (435278)
11-20-2007 7:19 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by AdminPD
11-18-2007 12:17 PM


Re: AdminPD
If he doesn't want to respond, then nothing in the world can force him to, right?
quote:
That's easy for an antagonist to say. At some point people will try to defend themselves especially if they wish to continue on this board and the issue is brought up in unrelated threads and hinders discussion.
So, what?
Does that mean that the person being asked to address rebuttals, that they have thus far avoided can do so indefinitely, and nobody is allowed to call them on it lest AdminPD suspend them?
Doesn't this simply allow people to simply repeat their position over and over again instead of addressing rebuttals, thus making any discussion impossible?
Doesn't this, in fact, encourage posters to simply ignore rebuttals altogether, as a debate tactic? We see it all the time here, and moderators rarely step in, even though such behavior violates rule #4:
Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.
Shouldn't such avoidant tactics be subject to moderator censure?
Shouldn't posters who wish to continue on this board without having their avoidant debate tactics pointed out to them be encouraged to debate honestly instead of protected from those who try to shine the bright light of free open debate upon their claims?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by AdminPD, posted 11-18-2007 12:17 PM AdminPD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by Admin, posted 11-20-2007 7:48 AM nator has replied
 Message 186 by AdminPD, posted 11-20-2007 10:54 AM nator has replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 184 of 312 (435285)
11-20-2007 7:47 AM


Forum Guidelines Change
This is probably the right time to announce a small change to the Forum Guidelines. Rule 10 has been modified. It originally read:
  1. Always treat other members with respect. Argue the position, not the person. Avoid abusive, harassing and invasive behavior. Avoid needling, hectoring and goading tactics.
It now reads:
  1. Keep discussion civil and avoid inflammatory behavior that might distract attention from the topic. Argue the position, not the person.
I don't believe there's any way to make the Forum Guidelines perfect, and there's a tendency for modifications to address the problem of the moment, but the original formulation seemed to be encouraging too many complaints involving respect.
If over the years EvC Forum had produced a history telling us that serious examinations of ridiculous ideas produce positive results then it would be well to continue this approach, but history tells a different story. The vast majority of the time, those pushing ridiculous ideas do not in any substantive way address the counter-arguments and/or counter-evidence.
I think the challenge for the moderator team is to keep threads on a consistent plain. Those who show a willingness and ability to constructively respond to rebuttals should be defended from ridicule and abuse, no matter how ridiculous or indefensible their ideas might appear to be.
But those who for whatever reason fail to engage the debate constructively will probably never do so, and I would suggest that moderators waste little of their time attempting to coax such members along - it almost never proves successful. Maintaining order in such threads is always challenging, but since they often degenerate into various forms of the complaint "you're not addressing or even understanding the rebuttals" moderators might want to encourage participants to address their posts to the lurker audience, or even just close the thread.
This Forum Guidelines change wasn't motivated by the Jar/Buz dust-up discussed in the exchange above, but it occurs during Thanksgiving vacation week where I have more time, and so it makes a convenient example of application of the modified guidelines.
Whether he's aware of it of not, I think that Jar far, far too often posts in order to maximize annoyance. This tends to distract attention from the topic and focus attention on him, as the many mentions of Jar's name in complaints from creationists make clear. As such, in my view it constitutes a violation of the Forum Guidelines and should be discouraged.
Taken in isolation, the particular post from Jar that Buz complains about barely registers at all as offensive with its rhetorical "Have you read the Bible Buz?" question, but when placed in the context of the larger body of all Jar's posts it does form part of a pattern of behavior that should, I think, be discouraged. His reply also ignores Buz's clear statement that days were not 24-hours long before creation of the sun and moon. In other words, Buz was not denying that there was day and night before the sun and moon, but only that the length of the day was not established before the sun and moon. The interpretation itself can be argued, but clearly Buz has read his Bible.
But there's a flip side to this. Jar seems to save his attention for those posts of a certain type or style, and while generalizing in this instance isn't easy, I would say such posts are often illogical, inconsistent, poorly thought out, or spun from whole cloth (i.e., made up). Jar's responses are often cutting but rarely receive any moderator attention, and this is probably why Jar is perceived by many creationists as getting a free ride here. My response is to suggest that if you don't want to feel the barb of Jar's tongue, stop making assertions that are easy targets. I'm not going to put much time into encouraging the moderator team to defend promoters of bad thinking or ideas. While ideally all ideas would be treated with respect, I can't say it any better than Jefferson:
Thomas Jefferson writes:
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.
Nebulous expressions of questionable ideas are magnets for the ridicule that simple human nature always produces in response, and this site doesn't want to make too great a habit of going against human nature.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 185 of 312 (435286)
11-20-2007 7:48 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by nator
11-20-2007 7:19 AM


Re: AdminPD
Have you visited the admin forum recently?

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by nator, posted 11-20-2007 7:19 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by nator, posted 11-20-2007 8:18 PM Admin has not replied

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 186 of 312 (435306)
11-20-2007 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by nator
11-20-2007 7:19 AM


Re: AdminPD
I'm addressing the specific moderator warning you questioned, which was based on the Forum Guidelines rule #10 as it was written at that time.
The moderator action was based on your behavior since the rude behavior in the thread had already been addressed by AdminPhat.
I outlined what I considered to be harassing behavior.
You weren't the only one to respond to Petro's Message 47.
Anglagard had already asked him about his skills a day before you addressed his skills. He also responded to that inquiry in Message 49 and to the subsequent questions.
Your post #55 was rather redundant considering what he had already answered for anglagard and that line of questioning did take the thread off course for a bit. If he had continued to respond, it might have needed moderator action. I do believe Petro was debating in good faith and did address reasonable rebuttals.
Given your response in Message 67 of the original thread, you already knew he hadn't been tested and your opening post in the mind reading thread shows that you knew what others had asked him and should have already read his answers. IOW, before your first reminder in post #95, you already knew he hadn't been tested.
I really don't see the rationale in nagging him for a response and starting the mind reading thread and needling him to respond since you already had an answer to your question.
I still feel that your behavior was a violation of rule #10 as it was written at the time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by nator, posted 11-20-2007 7:19 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by nator, posted 11-20-2007 8:27 PM AdminPD has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 187 of 312 (435422)
11-20-2007 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by Admin
11-20-2007 7:48 AM


Re: AdminPD
quote:
Have you visited the admin forum recently?
Yes.
Why do you ask?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Admin, posted 11-20-2007 7:48 AM Admin has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 188 of 312 (435424)
11-20-2007 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by AdminPD
11-20-2007 10:54 AM


Re: AdminPD
quote:
Given your response in Message 67 of the original thread, you already knew he hadn't been tested and your opening post in the mind reading thread shows that you knew what others had asked him and should have already read his answers. IOW, before your first reminder in post #95, you already knew he hadn't been tested.
Well, no, that's not accurate.
He provided an example of what he thought was a test with a positive outcome; the story of "reading the mind" of his 9 year old son. He presented this as evidence.
I pointed out some flaws of this test. He ignored my post.
Again, PD, you failed to actually address anything in the post you are replying to and are simply restating what you already said.
Does that mean that the person being asked to address rebuttals, that they have thus far avoided can do so indefinitely, and nobody is allowed to call them on it lest AdminPD suspend them?
Doesn't this simply allow people to simply repeat their position over and over again instead of addressing rebuttals, thus making any discussion impossible?
Doesn't this, in fact, encourage posters to simply ignore rebuttals altogether, as a debate tactic?
The irony is deep.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by AdminPD, posted 11-20-2007 10:54 AM AdminPD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by AdminPD, posted 11-21-2007 6:58 AM nator has not replied

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 189 of 312 (435487)
11-21-2007 6:58 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by nator
11-20-2007 8:27 PM


Re: AdminPD
quote:
Again, PD, you failed to actually address anything in the post you are replying to and are simply restating what you already said.
As I said in my post, I'm only addressing the specific situation I moderated.
I did not address the rest because you are getting into general policy discussion which is currently being discussed in the PAF and since you are also an admin, there is no point in also carrying on the discussion here.
quote:
I pointed out some flaws of this test. He ignored my post.
As was pointed out earlier, AdminQuetzal agreed with Petro in Message 122 that addressing your observations would be off topic.
AdminQuetzal writes:
Petro:
I agree that a detailed discussion of an investigation into telepathy, etc, bears only an extremely limited relation to the topic. This particular discussion should likely be taken to another thread. If either you or nator wish to propose one, I will give it favorable consideration.
Good call on your part.
Quite frankly the Mind Reading thread seemed to be started out of spite as opposed to a genuine interest in investigating telepathy.
I still see no reason to change the moderation post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by nator, posted 11-20-2007 8:27 PM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by CK, posted 11-27-2007 11:33 AM AdminPD has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 190 of 312 (435539)
11-21-2007 3:21 PM


Suggestion
Perhaps moderators might consider their time better spent on reigning in the distruptive and dishonest behavior that represents an obstacle to debate, rather than reigning in the posters who complain in appropriate threads about how moderators are ignoring that behavior.
You know? If you guys spent half the time moderating that you spent defending yourself against complaints and suspending those who raise issues, a lot less posters would be running rampant, derailing threads with their personal pet issues.

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by Buzsaw, posted 11-22-2007 1:45 AM crashfrog has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 191 of 312 (435624)
11-22-2007 1:45 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by crashfrog
11-21-2007 3:21 PM


Re: Suggestion
crashfrog writes:
distruptive and dishonest behavior that represents an obstacle to debate,
What is dishonest and what constitutes an obstacle is usually relative as per ideology so for the message to become meaningful or productive, you need to specify specific behavior which you have in mind.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by crashfrog, posted 11-21-2007 3:21 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by PaulK, posted 11-22-2007 2:13 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 193 by nator, posted 11-22-2007 8:21 AM Buzsaw has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 192 of 312 (435625)
11-22-2007 2:13 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by Buzsaw
11-22-2007 1:45 AM


Re: Suggestion
According to the purpose of this group, progress would be encouraging understanding and getting to the truth - where the truth is whatever really IS the case and not what ideology would say. Are you admitting that creationism is opposed to this ?
And lets take an example of dishonesty. Beretta is currently boasting of having lots of evidence for creationism. Evidence he wants taught in schools. He says that he wants everyone to know the evidence for both sides and weight it up. Yet - while the evolution side was happy to discuss the evidence Beretta is not. He steadfastly refuses to reveal any of it. Is there anything ideological in considering this behaviour dishonest ? If he really has the evidence he claims and if he really wants everyone to know about then why not tell us what it is ? That would produce progress - as I describe it above - and would be in keeping with his stated goals. But he doesn't do it. Can you offer an honest reason why he might want to hide this great evidence which he wants everyone to know ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Buzsaw, posted 11-22-2007 1:45 AM Buzsaw has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 193 of 312 (435643)
11-22-2007 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by Buzsaw
11-22-2007 1:45 AM


Re: Suggestion
quote:
What is dishonest and what constitutes an obstacle is usually relative as per ideology so for the message to become meaningful or productive, you need to specify specific behavior which you have in mind.
Er, so a lie, or a statement that is in direct opposition to known facts can suddenly become the truth, or not contradict known facts if the person stating them holds a particular ideology?
Like, the Earth actually becomes flat if someone's idealogy states that it is?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Buzsaw, posted 11-22-2007 1:45 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by Buzsaw, posted 11-22-2007 12:12 PM nator has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 194 of 312 (435688)
11-22-2007 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by nator
11-22-2007 8:21 AM


Re: Suggestion
nator writes:
Er, so a lie, or a statement that is in direct opposition to known facts can suddenly become the truth, or not contradict known facts if the person stating them holds a particular ideology?
Like, the Earth actually becomes flat if someone's ideology states that it is?
........Or like some secularists who allege that the Bible contains no fulfilled prophecies.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by nator, posted 11-22-2007 8:21 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by PaulK, posted 11-22-2007 2:00 PM Buzsaw has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 195 of 312 (435708)
11-22-2007 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by Buzsaw
11-22-2007 12:12 PM


Re: Suggestion
quote:
.......Or like some secularists who allege that the Bible contains no fulfilled prophecies.
That's not a matter of ideology - at least not on the secularist side. The repeated failure of "Biblicists" to offer anything of significance speaks for itself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Buzsaw, posted 11-22-2007 12:12 PM Buzsaw 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