Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Changes at EvC Forum
anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 76 of 191 (451207)
01-26-2008 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by nator
01-26-2008 5:35 PM


Re: Brief Answers
nator writes:
You should feel bad, because banning people from a debate board for being divisive is a pretty nonsensical thing to do.
And I'm not surprised that people like Buzsaw, ICANT, and to some extent, Moose, would be in support of your actions.
Buzsaw is apparently on our side here specifically regarding the pogrom as best I can tell. Please don't drive our allies away, only a mentally challenged president would do that.
Edited by anglagard, : be more specific concerning positions

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon
The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by nator, posted 01-26-2008 5:35 PM nator has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 77 of 191 (451210)
01-26-2008 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Buzsaw
01-26-2008 6:11 PM


Re: Brief Answers
They all lean towards the dictatorial, Authoritarian mindset, and now it seems that you have embraced this way of solving problems as well.
quote:
Nator you have absolutely no evidence supportive of your charges.
Of course I do:
quote:
Please, Nator, don't become part of the problem Admin's trying to fix.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Buzsaw, posted 01-26-2008 6:11 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 78 of 191 (451213)
01-26-2008 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Buzsaw
01-26-2008 5:17 PM


Re: Re-Uproar
My heart sank when it looked as though you were a goner. Many of us do indeed value your input.
Thanks so much old friend.
Tell me what decision you think that I should take. Do you think I'm being too supportive to one side or the other? Speaking of valued input, I value yours, so lay it on me.
It appears that Admin concurs.
Even though he and I disagree on most things, I think he has some respect for me. Surely he knows that I reciprocate that back to him unhesitatingly. He's a good guy. Whatever decision he makes, I will accept. But I may do so grudgingly, and I may still leave as a result -- but I will respect it.
Time tends to heal wounds. Perhaps we will be back and running in no time, where we all can despise each other in love. Maybe we're just all in a dysfunctional relationship with one another.
Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : typo

“There is something which unites magic and applied science while separating both from the 'wisdom' of earlier ages. For the wise men of old the cardinal problem had been how to conform the soul to objective reality, and the solution had been knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue. For magic and applied science alike the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men: the solution is a technique; and both, in the practice of this technique, are ready to do things hitherto regarded as disgusting and impious" -C.S. Lewis

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Buzsaw, posted 01-26-2008 5:17 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Buzsaw, posted 01-26-2008 11:54 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 79 of 191 (451214)
01-26-2008 7:05 PM


suggesting considering this is debate site
My suggestion is quite simple but would greatly inflame, I suspect, many long-term evos here: namely let there be 2-3 moderators and one of them be as strongly opinionated on the creationist and ID side as percy and perhaps another admin are on the evo side(probably need at least 2 just for the time's sake).
Regardless of how unfair the creationist moderator appears to evos here, let him or her decide as they genuinely see fit and be prepared that evos are going to think they are unfair.
It's apparent that most evos think creationist's arguments are wrong and illogical and likewise, most IDers and creationists feel the same about evo arguments. The purpose of the site, or at least the stated purpose, is not to empower one side over the other. However, one side is likely to feel the other side's arguments are avoiding the topic, breaking the rules, biased, etc,.....
That's reality.
If you want to attract and maintain posters from the various sides of the debate, you cannot have one side dominating the moderation of the site, as has been the case. Opening up more equality with the moderation will create a backlash and anger, imo, from many evos, but at the same time, it will create a situation where people wanting civil debate will come here and debate the issues, and that's what it is all about, right?
Keep in mind that the vast majority of non-evos have stated they don't think the moderation of non-evos is fair, and it's evident that if not the vast majority, a great many evos, think the opposite, that non-evos are getting a pass. These opinions are no more likely to change than democrats are gonna think Karl Rove is a good guy, or Republicans are going to agree with Hillary that the Clinton's problems are a vast right wing conspiracy or that James Carville speaks the objective truth.
Might as well get used to it and put up with what will appear "unfair" moderation to many.....just give equal power or near equal power to both sides of the debate and let it roll.
There are exceptions.......I think keeping it civil is one of them. There is perhaps the ability to agree on that point, but then again, there are those that think using a word like evolutionism is uncivil, but starting whole threads disparaging the motives of non-evos and IDers is fine. So even there, the 2 sides probably won't see eye to eye.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by GDR, posted 01-26-2008 7:42 PM randman has replied
 Message 86 by arachnophilia, posted 01-26-2008 11:30 PM randman has replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 80 of 191 (451217)
01-26-2008 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by randman
01-26-2008 7:05 PM


Re: suggesting considering this is debate site
It is really great to see your name on this site again randman. Welcome back.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by randman, posted 01-26-2008 7:05 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by randman, posted 01-26-2008 7:52 PM GDR has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 81 of 191 (451220)
01-26-2008 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by GDR
01-26-2008 7:42 PM


Re: suggesting considering this is debate site
thanks, GDR
Edited by randman, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by GDR, posted 01-26-2008 7:42 PM GDR has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Buzsaw, posted 01-27-2008 12:09 AM randman has replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 82 of 191 (451228)
01-26-2008 8:32 PM


Re-Final Remarks
Guys and Gals,
I think it is time to put this puppy to rest.
I have not taken sides I just think it is time to end it.
One of my most admired debaters is on the sideline I hate the thought of not being able to pick his brain for knowledge.
He is there by his own choice. I have to respect him for that.
Will I ask Percy to reinstate him no that is not my call it is his.
Should Nem leave no way unless Percy so desired.
Should any of those banned be reinstated?
Only if they can convince Percy they are worthy.
I would like to remind everyone this is not like a company, customer relationship here.
This is a man that is graciously providing us with a soap box to preach our beliefs from. There are no customers we are all guests.
I am done I will not answer any replies or post in this thread again.
See you in the debate threads.

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 83 of 191 (451257)
01-26-2008 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Buzsaw
01-26-2008 3:27 PM


Re: Brief Answers
3. Perhaps it behooves those who've gone and those of us who remain
to examine ourselves as to how we fit into Admins program. If one hopes to return, one might consider the possible need to adjust ones MO. If one hopes to remain one also might consider the possible need to adjust one's MO.
percy has said no one is coming back. frankly, the only difference between myself and those banned is that i held my tongue, probably more out of fear that wisdom. and even then, what was jar's crime? he held his tongue too.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Buzsaw, posted 01-26-2008 3:27 PM Buzsaw has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 84 of 191 (451259)
01-26-2008 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by ICANT
01-26-2008 3:39 PM


Re: Re-Uproar
arach I ran a business for 40 years. Nobody told me in 40 years how to run my business. If it was an employee he was informed he was and employee and if he did not agree with the way I did things he could go elsewhere. The second time he told me how to run my business he was looking for a job.
indeed, everyone is welcome to go elsewhere if they do not like percy's way of doing things, including the random bans. but which would you prefer, a board where people fight for fairness in moderation, or a board with nobody on it?
granted, the outcome will be somewhere in the middle. but look at all we've lost. for the record, the company that does not listen to its lowest level of employees, the people on the floor, is bound for corporate suicide. they're the backbone, and the people in touch with the actual customers. maybe you hold the corporate mentality where new workers are easy to find and high turnover is a good thing. but i think you'll find that the company that treats its workers with respect tends to do better than the company that does not, simply on the merit of having people who are enthusiastic and enjoy their jobs. the last company i worked for that did not understand this very basic principle no longer has any stores in my state.
too bad you can't fire me.
No you do not have to agree with anything anyone does. But you don't go into a mans house and tell him how to run it.
if my friends and i go into a man's house, and the man shoots my friend, what claim do i have? should i just say, "oh, well, it's his house, he can do what he wants. i'll just leave."
Some have made some good suggestions. That is fine.
Some have made demands on Percy. Demands is telling him how to run his business.
That is unacceptable behaviour period.
i have begged percy, out of my concern for the board, to rethink his unilateral and unwarranted bans. is that wrong?
Many probably did not realize that what they were and are saying comes over as demands but go back and read them.
Nem demanded to be banned. All he had to do was delete the link on the desktop.
ringo asked for a ban too.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by ICANT, posted 01-26-2008 3:39 PM ICANT has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 85 of 191 (451261)
01-26-2008 11:18 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by anglagard
01-26-2008 4:15 PM


Re: Re-Uproar
As I already stated in regard to subordinates, I take all constructive suggestions seriously. Are you saying that a business should not listen to it's customers? If so, I think you have a lot more to learn despite any 63 years.
indeed. a business that does not meet the customer's needs will surely fail.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by anglagard, posted 01-26-2008 4:15 PM anglagard has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 86 of 191 (451263)
01-26-2008 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by randman
01-26-2008 7:05 PM


Re: suggesting considering this is debate site
randman! holy shit, welcome back.
My suggestion is quite simple but would greatly inflame, I suspect, many long-term evos here: namely let there be 2-3 moderators and one of them be as strongly opinionated on the creationist and ID side as percy and perhaps another admin are on the evo side(probably need at least 2 just for the time's sake).
one of the things i always appreciated was that we had admins on both sides of the issue. this has now been changed. my opinion on this is still out, but my suspicions are that it may be a bad thing at least for the reputation. remember, people such as yourself were always accusing the site of bias. the question, i suppose is, "benevolent dictator or democracy?" either way you run the risk of leadership by not-so-benevolent forces. and judging by the "pogrom" as people are calling it... well, i'm worried.
Opening up more equality with the moderation will create a backlash and anger, imo, from many evos,
this is startling to say, but i've actually agreed with most of your post until this line. equality in moderation would not anger me in the slightest. i think it was a good thing, and would be a good thing, and it's something i've argued for in the past. i think many "evos" here would agree, too. it's the only real way to ensure fairness in moderation. so long as the moderators follow the rules themselves and don't go, you know, randomly banning people they disagree with.
Keep in mind that the vast majority of non-evos have stated they don't think the moderation of non-evos is fair, and it's evident that if not the vast majority, a great many evos, think the opposite, that non-evos are getting a pass.
remember randman, you're speaking to a forum that spoke out against your own banishment (and apparently effectively enough that you have regained some posting priveledges), as well as faith's. you'll notice that she's come up a few times in the discussion of this, too.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by randman, posted 01-26-2008 7:05 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by randman, posted 01-26-2008 11:58 PM arachnophilia has replied
 Message 89 by randman, posted 01-27-2008 12:01 AM arachnophilia has replied
 Message 102 by PaulK, posted 01-27-2008 3:15 AM arachnophilia has not replied
 Message 109 by nator, posted 01-27-2008 8:13 AM arachnophilia has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 87 of 191 (451267)
01-26-2008 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Hyroglyphx
01-26-2008 6:59 PM


Re: Re-Uproar
I see you as like most of the rest of us, quite stunned relative to losing long time members. I can't tell you how you should react. My only advice is to go about the business of working with admins and others to make a good site even better.
Randman is back. Cool! He hung in there and worked on improvement. Perhaps we will see some or all of the departed ones back by and by. Imo a couple need to make some adjustments in their MO if they do make it back, but they likely thought the same about me the two times I was abruptly permanently banned back yonder in the archives of EvC. I've worked to improve my MO, but alas, not many of my antagonists appear to think so.
I do hope you hang in here and continue to bless us all with your articulate intelligence and wisdom.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-26-2008 6:59 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-27-2008 12:06 AM Buzsaw has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 88 of 191 (451268)
01-26-2008 11:58 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by arachnophilia
01-26-2008 11:30 PM


Re: suggesting considering this is debate site
"many evos" is not all evos, but you cannot deny whether it was me, buzz, Christianadmin (who reinstated me but was over-ruled in a matter of days) were frequently taken to task any time they dared cross evos here, the accusation being they were biased towards non-evos. Moreover, the sentiment has been loudly and frequently asserted, quite incorrectly imo, that non-evos were being given a pass and evos held to a greater standard. This, in fact, seemed to be a majority opinion among evos here whereas the non-evos held the exact opposite view of the matter, that evos were being given a pass for all sorts of rude behaviour, public insults of creationists, diverting topics, etc,....
My point is not to rehash the matter. My opinion is very clear. The point is that the 2 camps (an overly broad generalization to be sure) don't see eye to eye on these things and probably never will. If we are to have equality in debate and moderation so that people from both camps are attracted (by both I mean Darwinists on the one side and creationists, IDers and saltionists on the other), then the forum is going to have put up with an equality or near equality of moderation that ticks the heck out of the other side because their ideas of what is fair are so divergent.
In other words, the differences in opinion on the EvC debate are also reflected in differences in opinion on moderation. I think expecting equal reasoning on interpretation and enforcement of the rules among people that disagree on the debate has probably been unrealistic and that just as people disagree on logic, what constitutes science, evidence, reason, etc,.....they generally disagree on what is acceptable civil argument and what is not, usually with one side seeing the other's comments as outside of the bounds while giving a pass to their own.
Obviously, I think one side so to speak is more fair, but then again, it's my side. Perhaps it's best just to accept that there will likely not be agreement on interpreting and enforcing the rules, make it equal, and let it roll. I do think at least some consensus is possible, but if it's weighted towards evos, you will continually find non-evo posters and moderators less likely to engage in debate, and moreover, you will find the ones most likely to stick around to be generally the more combative ones when I would think one goal would be to attract posters and scientists that are not so combative.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by arachnophilia, posted 01-26-2008 11:30 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by arachnophilia, posted 01-27-2008 12:37 AM randman has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 89 of 191 (451269)
01-27-2008 12:01 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by arachnophilia
01-26-2008 11:30 PM


Re: suggesting considering this is debate site
One note: I have not regained some posting privileges to my knowledge. There are very few forums I can comment on. I lost my password for awhile and the site wouldn't allow me to request it, apparently based on some glitch, but it's not like I've been "reinstated."
Of course, I would welcome reinstatement and have some ideas stewing for awhile that I'd like to bring up......maybe I can still post in Showcase or something, but I think I am pretty much restricted from debating evolution topics here. I just saw this stuff and thought I'd comment. Hopefully, it's helpful.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by arachnophilia, posted 01-26-2008 11:30 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Buzsaw, posted 01-27-2008 12:21 AM randman has not replied
 Message 96 by arachnophilia, posted 01-27-2008 12:38 AM randman has replied
 Message 116 by Admin, posted 01-27-2008 2:30 PM randman has replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 90 of 191 (451270)
01-27-2008 12:06 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Buzsaw
01-26-2008 11:54 PM


Re: Re-Uproar
My only advice is to go about the business of working with admins and others to make a good site even better.
I suppose so. Best case scenario is to have all the improvements without leaving people in the dust.
I can tell you this much: I have been challenged by a number of people concerning my equity as a moderator. I am laying my own life on the line for those who don't even like me. I better never hear another word about my impartiality I took moderating very seriously, and I know you did too!
I've worked to improve my MO, but alas, not many of my antagonists appear to think so.
We all need to work on something. None of us are so amazing that we needn't an improvement.
I do hope you hang in here and continue to bless us all with your articulate intelligence and wisdom.
I hope to stay too. Thanks for the kind words

“There is something which unites magic and applied science while separating both from the 'wisdom' of earlier ages. For the wise men of old the cardinal problem had been how to conform the soul to objective reality, and the solution had been knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue. For magic and applied science alike the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men: the solution is a technique; and both, in the practice of this technique, are ready to do things hitherto regarded as disgusting and impious" -C.S. Lewis

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Buzsaw, posted 01-26-2008 11:54 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by arachnophilia, posted 01-27-2008 12:42 AM Hyroglyphx 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