Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Changes at EvC Forum
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 91 of 191 (451271)
01-27-2008 12:09 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by randman
01-26-2008 7:52 PM


Re: Randman
Hey good bud, a hearty welcome back!! I've been hoping to see this for a long time.
Now if we could get Faith back, the evolutionists would have their work cut out keeping the growing army of counterparts at bay.
Then none of us would have idle time on our hands to heckle bicker and fuss at one another over trivialities.

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 81 by randman, posted 01-26-2008 7:52 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by randman, posted 01-27-2008 12:12 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 98 by arachnophilia, posted 01-27-2008 12:44 AM Buzsaw has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 92 of 191 (451272)
01-27-2008 12:12 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Buzsaw
01-27-2008 12:09 AM


Re: Randman
Hear, hear..and thank you for those comments......but just keep in mind, I am not back yet, nor free to debate the topics (at least that's my understanding). This just happens to be one of the few areas I can post and so I threw in my 2 cents.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Buzsaw, posted 01-27-2008 12:09 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Buzsaw, posted 01-27-2008 12:28 AM randman has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 93 of 191 (451273)
01-27-2008 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by randman
01-27-2008 12:01 AM


Re: suggesting considering this is debate site
Randman writes:
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.
I know it irritates the heck out of hosts who's guests do a lot of complaining. Imo if you keep your nose to the grindstone and focused on the debates hopefully things will get better for you. I find it best to count the blessings we have here and work around what we see as obstacles for the most part. God bless!

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 89 by randman, posted 01-27-2008 12:01 AM randman has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 94 of 191 (451274)
01-27-2008 12:28 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by randman
01-27-2008 12:12 AM


Re: Randman
Well then anyhow you've got your foot in the door. That's progress.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by randman, posted 01-27-2008 12:12 AM randman has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 95 of 191 (451276)
01-27-2008 12:37 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by randman
01-26-2008 11:58 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.
and vice versa.
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,...
personally, the "pass" i consistently argued for was one regarding the rule about evidence. sort of runs contrary to a position of faith. keeping the science fora separate from the faith fora wasn't a good step either, because rather obviously, we have a position of faith versus a position of science.
[editted, removed a point that was factually incorrect. creationists are indeed arguing for "evos"]
Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by randman, posted 01-26-2008 11:58 PM randman has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 96 of 191 (451277)
01-27-2008 12:38 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by randman
01-27-2008 12:01 AM


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."
my impression was that you have been banned outright on at least one occassion. am i mistaken? i seem to recall arguing on your behalf.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by randman, posted 01-27-2008 12:01 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by randman, posted 01-27-2008 1:04 AM arachnophilia has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 97 of 191 (451278)
01-27-2008 12:42 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Hyroglyphx
01-27-2008 12:06 AM


Re: Re-Uproar
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 certainly percieved bias in neither you nor buzsaw. maybe on one or two small occassions, but we're all human, and nothing big enough to be memorable.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-27-2008 12:06 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 98 of 191 (451279)
01-27-2008 12:44 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Buzsaw
01-27-2008 12:09 AM


Re: Randman
Now if we could get Faith back, the evolutionists would have their work cut out keeping the growing army of counterparts at bay.
faith pops into chat now and then. i didn't ask her last time, but the time before that, i seem to recall that she stated she wasn't particularly interested in coming back. likes having her own forum.
i dunno, she still lurks about here. i'll keep arguing her case simply on principle alone.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Buzsaw, posted 01-27-2008 12:09 AM Buzsaw has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 99 of 191 (451281)
01-27-2008 1:04 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by arachnophilia
01-27-2008 12:38 AM


Re: suggesting considering this is debate site
I was banned and then allowed to post on Showcase. I think that allowed me to post on suggestions or something like that, but don't recall.
Not too many wanted to debate on Showcase, however, and now I can't start threads on Showcase (maybe I can via proposed topics?) and like I said, I lost my password and couldn't obtain it for awhile.
I am not really sure why I can post on this thread, nor where else I can post, but yesterday tested and saw I couldn't post on regular threads and public announcement thread says I am pretty much limited.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by arachnophilia, posted 01-27-2008 12:38 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by arachnophilia, posted 01-27-2008 1:16 AM randman has replied
 Message 110 by RAZD, posted 01-27-2008 10:02 AM randman has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 100 of 191 (451283)
01-27-2008 1:16 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by randman
01-27-2008 1:04 AM


Re: suggesting considering this is debate site
Not too many wanted to debate on Showcase, however, and now I can't start threads on Showcase
showcase is dead.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by randman, posted 01-27-2008 1:04 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by randman, posted 01-27-2008 1:26 AM arachnophilia has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 101 of 191 (451284)
01-27-2008 1:26 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by arachnophilia
01-27-2008 1:16 AM


Re: suggesting considering this is debate site
well, that explains that......btw, no need to make this thread about me. I appreciate the kind comments however. I just wanted to throw my 2 cents in there.
If you are going to have a partisan evo, or however you want to say it, moderating, and we will because percy owns the site and argues for the evo side (not denigrating percy or anyone in case it comes off that way), the best way to attract people for evos to debate with, imo, is to have someone equally as partisan or opinionated or whatever that is a creationist or IDer moderating the site. That doesn't mean their moderation will necessarily be biased, at least in their minds. My point is that both sides will see the other side as biased at times, even as moderators, but at least there will be a sense EvC welcomes all to debate and all be treated equally and so forth.
I know there are many non-evos that don't post or quit posting because they don't see this place as evenhanded, and whether people here agree with that assessment, it really doesn't matter. What matters is that the kind of non-evos EvC wants to attract feel that way. Some of these posters, some of whom I have exhanged emails with, are the kind of less combative, highly educated scientific types that can add a lot to the debate and the site, imo.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by arachnophilia, posted 01-27-2008 1:16 AM arachnophilia has not replied

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


Message 102 of 191 (451289)
01-27-2008 3:15 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by arachnophilia
01-26-2008 11:30 PM


Re: suggesting considering this is debate site
The point of having creationist moderators was to have them moderate the creationists. That's the only way to avoid the accusations of bias. But they were not doing a good job of that at all. If creationist admins are to be appointed that will have to change.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by arachnophilia, posted 01-26-2008 11:30 PM arachnophilia has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by randman, posted 01-27-2008 3:28 AM PaulK has replied
 Message 111 by Buzsaw, posted 01-27-2008 10:41 AM PaulK has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 103 of 191 (451292)
01-27-2008 3:28 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by PaulK
01-27-2008 3:15 AM


Re: suggesting considering this is debate site
So they weren't suppossed to moderate evos, just creationists?
Do you see any problems with this line of thinking?
Wouldn't a fairer, objective view be that we need creationist moderators to step in to moderate evos so that there is genuine objectivity in moderation? That non-evos see that they won't be subjected to just people arguing against their view interpreting their actions within an evo bias?
If it's just all about creating an appearance of objectivity and not the real thing, your comment makes sense. You want someone that's not an evo to do your dirty work essentially, at least that's how it comes off to non-evos.
Not trying to be offensive, but your comment is astounding to me in it's lack of awareness of what genuine evenhanded moderation and appearances would look like.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by PaulK, posted 01-27-2008 3:15 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by PaulK, posted 01-27-2008 3:43 AM randman has replied

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


Message 104 of 191 (451297)
01-27-2008 3:43 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by randman
01-27-2008 3:28 AM


Re: suggesting considering this is debate site
quote:
So they weren't suppossed to moderate evos, just creationists?
Do you see any problems with this line of thinking?
I didn't say that they were ONLY to moderate creationists.
quote:
Wouldn't a fairer, objective view be that we need creationist moderators to step in to moderate evos so that there is genuine objectivity in moderation?
No, Even if it did lead to genuine objectivity (unlikely) it would still lead to a perception of bias. Exactly like the accusations of bias made when evolutionist moderators take action against creationists.
quote:
Not trying to be offensive, but your comment is astounding to me in it's lack of awareness of what genuine evenhanded moderation and appearances would look like.
Given the fact that moderation involves taking actions against posters who are perceived as going against the rules naturally there will be a lesser perception of bias if the person handing out sanctions is seen to be on the "same" side.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by randman, posted 01-27-2008 3:28 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by randman, posted 01-27-2008 3:53 AM PaulK has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 105 of 191 (451298)
01-27-2008 3:53 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by PaulK
01-27-2008 3:43 AM


Re: suggesting considering this is debate site
Even if it did lead to genuine objectivity (unlikely)
So is the goal here to try for genuine objectivity in moderation or just to create a mere appearance of objectivity? Your comments come off as saying, hey, the whole point was just to try to discourage the appearance of bias, not actually make the site less biased.
Can you see that?
Given the fact that moderation involves taking actions against posters who are perceived as going against the rules naturally there will be a lesser perception of bias if the person handing out sanctions is seen to be on the "same" side.
Maybe so, but at the same time, having more and overwhelmingly more evos moderating also creates a perception of bias if not bias in reality as well. Moreover, when the purpose of having creationist moderators is seen as just to keep creationists in line and so forth, it really comes off as if the view that this site is our site, meaning for evos, instead of a sense that the site is for both sides equally to make their arguments. The whole tone of your comments suggests that. Creationists are the visitors and we own this place, eh?
It also seems patronizing to say the whole point of creationist moderators is to moderate creationists, as if no bias exists within the evo camp. Isn't it at least possible if not likely, in your assessment of human experience, that a site dominated by moderators from one side will moderate in a biased fashion even if unconsciously?
Do you think, for example, if we had debates between Democrats and Republicans totally controlled by Republicans, that no bias would come in, or vice versa?
Edited by randman, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by PaulK, posted 01-27-2008 3:43 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by PaulK, posted 01-27-2008 4:16 AM randman has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024