Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Changes at EvC Forum
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 44 of 191 (451117)
01-26-2008 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Quetzal
01-26-2008 9:30 AM


Re: Brief Answers
I agree, fully.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Quetzal, posted 01-26-2008 9:30 AM Quetzal has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-26-2008 1:44 PM PaulK has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


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

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


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

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 106 of 191 (451300)
01-27-2008 4:16 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by randman
01-27-2008 3:53 AM


Re: suggesting considering this is debate site
quote:
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.
Both are important. However in terms of running the site a small bias that is not perceived will be less disruptive than a perception of bias - even if that perception is false. And since I do not believe that appointing creationist moderators will reduce actual bias (nor that there is a significant problem of bias that needs to be reduced) there is no need to appoint creationist moderators on that basis.
quote:
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?
PERCY owns this site and all the rest of us are just visitors.
And I don't see why encouraging creationists to do their own policing implies that they have any lesser status here.
quote:
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?
How does having creationists moderate creationists imply that there is no bias in the evolutionist camp ? And why introduce the question of one side "dominating" the site ? It has no bearing on the question we are discussing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by randman, posted 01-27-2008 3:53 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by randman, posted 01-27-2008 4:34 AM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 108 of 191 (451302)
01-27-2008 4:59 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by randman
01-27-2008 4:34 AM


Re: getting back to the site's stated purpose
quote:
You may believe that, but non-evos believe the opposite.
So the problem is a perception of bias.
quote:
...you are not going to do that having a token creationist moderator that is there "to moderate creationists" as you suggest
I am not suggesting that creationist moderators should be "tokens" in any way.
quote:
Unless there is genuinely equal weight given to creationist/IDer/saltationist's perception and opinion on moderation, you cannot create an appearance of a lack of bias because, frankly, there probably is bias.
Since I am not suggesting that creationist moderators should have any lower status than any other moderator (excepting Percy as site owner) this simply has no bearing on my point. The issue is the division of labour. I suggest that creationist moderators should take primary responsibility for moderating creationists. You think that they should largely ignore creationists in favour of taking action against evolutionists.
Perhaps you should try discussing that rather than trying to misrepresent my point as reducing creationist moderators to "tokens" or having some sort of lesser status - neither of which I have suggested.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by randman, posted 01-27-2008 4:34 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by randman, posted 01-27-2008 3:45 PM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 113 of 191 (451344)
01-27-2008 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by Buzsaw
01-27-2008 10:41 AM


Re: suggesting considering this is debate site
quote:
No, that's not how I understood it. How would that balance out ideology in admin?
I don't remember anyone else saying that "balancing out ideology" was a requirement.
quote:
My understanding was that we were there also to call on some things the other side were getting by with and not being called on for. That's where the imbalance existed relative to moderating imo. Creationists were being suspended on violation sometimes which the other side were sliding by on. I was involved with some of that discussion especially behind the scene in PAF where much of my involvement as admin occurred.
It's pretty easy to find cases where creationists were getting away with it, too. And you know that there were complaints about that happening. I've seen no evidence of any systematic imbalance favouring evolutionists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Buzsaw, posted 01-27-2008 10:41 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Buzsaw, posted 01-27-2008 12:06 PM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 115 of 191 (451354)
01-27-2008 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Buzsaw
01-27-2008 12:06 PM


Re: suggesting considering this is debate site
quote:
I didn't say requirement. It was for fairness and balance. Ideology factors in.
In other word's it's just your opinion that you were appointed for "ideological balance".
quote:
Likeminded members have a natural tendency to favor their own kind. That's a known logical given which was my point.
So having creationists handle their own moderation should tend to produce more lenient moderation towards creationists. Is that a problem ?
quote:
Randman weighed in on that as well. If you can't understand that you're not thinking objectively.
I understand what you are saying. The question is where is the conflict ? Why is your idea of "ideological balance" at odds with the idea that creationists should moderate creationists ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Buzsaw, posted 01-27-2008 12:06 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by johnfolton, posted 01-27-2008 5:22 PM PaulK has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 124 of 191 (451404)
01-27-2008 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by randman
01-27-2008 3:45 PM


Re: maybe it's not clear to you?
quote:
Never said, nor implied that. You are the one that stated creationist moderators were there to moderate creationists to avoid an appearance of bias.
You (wrongly) interpreted my comment that they should be moderating creationists as meaning that they should only moderate creationists. Why is it wrong then to take your comment that they should moderate evolutionists as meaning that they should only moderate evolutionists ?
The rest of your post simply does not connect to what I've been saying. Apparently you still think that I am suggesting that creationist moderators should be placed in an inferior role. I made no such suggestion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by randman, posted 01-27-2008 3:45 PM randman 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