Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 49 (9181 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: joebialek123
Post Volume: Total: 918,275 Year: 5,532/9,624 Month: 557/323 Week: 54/143 Day: 16/11 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consequtive Consecution Sequel
AdminModulous
Administrator (Idle past 102 days)
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 18 of 302 (292400)
03-05-2006 1:53 PM


mark24 and Moderator Bias
mark24 writes:
Modulus,
She called my position idiotic, where were the mods then?
Mark
1) I agree with your general position, but disagree with the way it was worded.
I disagree with Faith's position and the way it was worded.
It would have been stronger bias to call Faith on it than to call you on it. So why didn't I call both of you? Reason two...
2) A lot of what is said here isn't particularly respectful, but there is definite area that is across the gray fuzzy line. Calling someone's idea 'idiotic' is on the border, and I'd be loath to be so heavy handed as to jump in right there. However, it is my opinion that mark's post was beyond simply calling someone's idea idiotic. I thought for the sake of not wanting the topic to degrade into a slanging match such a post should be commented on.
mark24 writes:
Who's the idiot, Faith? Me, who knows what it is, or you, who are so ignorant of logic you are still misciting circular arguments?
mark24 writes:
What a stupid, stupid thing to say. What you need, Faith, is a sense of shame.
In my opinion this is far beyond saying that someone has had an idiotic idea but is calling them an idiot ignorant of logic who says very stupid things. I consider this a worse offense of disrespect than Faith's.
It appears that Faith did respond, but had second thoughts, so my fears that the thread could get out of hand were, I believe, confirmed. Mark didn't help matters by refusing to take the matter to this thread, but instead taking the opportunity for a cheap shot at both Faith and moderator impartiality.
mark24 writes:
I would, if I thought pointing out Faith's favoured position would help. That she can evade, dodge, claim evidence at the same time saying she doesn't need it, be a hypocrite, unashamedly illogical, insult their opponents position, & then their opponents get admonished when they do a fraction of that.
Faith responded in kind.
The "dodging" around here is being done by the evos who can't think their way out of a paper bag but lord it over the creos though they can't follow the simplest point.
In my opinion Faith went from walking on thin ice to falling right through It would probably be on equal footing with mark24's post had it been as long.
3) I had already entered into the debate as my non-moderator alias, and am loathe to do any moderating actions against somebody in a thread I am participating in.
4) Faith was making overtures to leave the thread.

I do consider that some moderator action might be considered to those involved, but I also accept that my interjection may have made the situation worse. As such I'll defer to the other Admins. Also, I have a hot dinner waiting

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Faith, posted 03-05-2006 2:03 PM AdminModulous has replied

AdminModulous
Administrator (Idle past 102 days)
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 20 of 302 (292407)
03-05-2006 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Faith
03-05-2006 2:03 PM


Re: mark24 and Moderator Bias
In my opinion that thread was a bit of a disaster. Issues that you may have on that thread really should have been left there, and not dragged (by either party) into a coffee house thread.
This message has been edited by AdminModulous, Sun, 05-March-2006 07:41 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Faith, posted 03-05-2006 2:03 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Faith, posted 03-05-2006 2:50 PM AdminModulous has replied

AdminModulous
Administrator (Idle past 102 days)
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 22 of 302 (292412)
03-05-2006 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Faith
03-05-2006 2:50 PM


Re: mark24 and Moderator Bias
I took the moderator action in the thread where the hard feelings seemed to have spilled over into. (Message 146)
This message has been edited by AdminModulous, Sun, 05-March-2006 07:57 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Faith, posted 03-05-2006 2:50 PM Faith has not replied

AdminModulous
Administrator (Idle past 102 days)
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 36 of 302 (299611)
03-30-2006 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Faith
03-30-2006 2:29 PM


moderating logic?
*switching to Admin mode*
You want us to moderate people who are not being logical? I'm not sure you fully appreciate how that would affect the nature of debate here. In the thread we are talking about, should an Admin have moderated RR on the lack of logic of equivocating a Creator with 'robinrohan's definition of the Christian God'? A conception of the Christian God that you yourself have had problems with in the past.
You think RR's argument was perfection? If that is the case, then you are not a Christian - since believing God can do apparantly nasty things for the Greater Good is not logical according to rr's argument (see Message 16). Perhaps I should moderate you on your logic skills too? I should probably ban everybody on the entire forum and finally myself for that matter.
Let me also remind you that we have two anti-evo Admins, and had you not turned it down, you could also have been one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Faith, posted 03-30-2006 2:29 PM Faith has not replied

AdminModulous
Administrator (Idle past 102 days)
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 148 of 302 (304147)
04-14-2006 4:25 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by Cold Foreign Object
04-13-2006 1:35 PM


My thoughts on how to deal with liars
It is fundamentally wrong to have in place a rule which protects liars and shields them from paying any consequence while shifting their guilt onto those who report the lie. The laws of this country are designed to punish liars and not protect them.
I have been here nearly a year now, I have no memory of a single person I spoke with having lied. I have heard empty boasts, which later turned out as such, I have hear exaggeration and seen misleading. Never a real lie though, most of the time its simply a case of correct and incorrect. Where I believe my opponents have been wrong, I have tried to demonstrate this.
Randman accused me of lying yet I told no untruth. He said that I had never accepted x despite several posts where I explicitly stated that I accepted x. Does that make randman a liar? No - it makes him wrong. Instead of calling him a liar, I simply pointed out he was wrong.
It is very difficult to be sure that someone is lying over the internet. It could be that someone is denying having ever held a position - but it could be that you misunderstood their original position, or they communicated it badly. It makes debate run ever so more smoothly if you don't paint the term 'liar' on someone even if you think they are deliberately telling an untruth.
Here is how we deal with 'liars':
If they are inconsistent, tell them
If they are saying something which is untrue, correct them.
Its a simple formula that has worked very well. Consider nwr's suspension. This is what he was responding to:
You hardly have the best interests of the children in mind when you want to force them into an inferior education system (and an environment of social ills in a number of cases).
I'm calling you a liar, in spite of rule 10. I'll withdraw the accusation if you can demonstrate where I ever did what you state.
A better response would be 'It seems you misunderstand my position, here is a different explanation, do you understand this?'. TimesChange did not appear to me to be lying, but rather wrong about nwr's position.
This brings me on to your central point re: The Bible. If you want to use your Holy Book to call the opposition liars, its never going to happen. The only way you can even try to get away with the liar accusation is by demonstrating that the untruth was intended to mislead (and not a mistake). A difficult task, possibly impossible to do fairly, so it makes life easier if we encourage members to always assume that your opponent is honest, no matter how absurd or dishonest their position looks.
You cannot use a Bible passage, that accuses animal worshippers of changing the truth of God into a lie to call all people that accept evolution as an explanation for the diversity of life. Its not ever going to happen.
The rule does not void the Bible. It insists that the only way to demonstrate a lie, is to demonstrate that an intentional act of dishonesty occurred. It accepts that this is not something particularly trivial to do, and requires a judgement that we are not able to make with confidence. You cannot call someone a liar using a source, only by showing intent to deceive.
Your boycott will have to continue ad infinitum if you insist on using Romans to at will accuse others of lying. Perhaps if randman was reinstated you will drop the boycott? I'm not sure which condition needs to be met since you are unclear. Either way, the point remains, accusing someone of lying is a pathway to uncivil debate. Nobody likes to be called a liar and in most circumstances nobody is lying, just somebody being wrong. Randman has way back in, if he chooses to take it.
On that note, and with my tongue in my cheek, you are a liar Ray. I can provide a source for it too, so it should be justifiable:
Romans 3:4 writes:
God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written (Psa 116:11), That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.
Take care Ray, I look forward to seeing your devastating paper, I certainly hope I don't see pride in your words, Ray. Such things defile a man.

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 04-13-2006 1:35 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 04-14-2006 1:48 PM AdminModulous has replied

AdminModulous
Administrator (Idle past 102 days)
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 155 of 302 (304317)
04-14-2006 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Cold Foreign Object
04-14-2006 1:48 PM


Re: My thoughts on how to deal with liars
Well, goodbye Ray, I hope we'll see the paper.
You are also confused. Randman was suspended for allegedly calling you a liar. I suggest you do less drugs
That's why I said that Randman accused me of lying - perhaps you should join the same drug rehab as me? We can also work on your seeming obsession with my face
Because you are an atheist/Darwinist this secures the fact that I am not as you say.
Next time, should I be more explicit when I say something tongue in cheek? Perhaps I should explicitly write that what I say is actually intended to be taken as a tongue in cheek comment?
Your entire post shows deep frustation caused by my irrefutable points in previous messages.
I wasn't trying to refute your points, but rather give my thoughts on how to deal with liars, hence the title.
Imagine that...a Bible verse and its application censored on an Internet debate board....the truth obviously hurts.
But it's not. You have been at liberty to post your opinion and the Bible verse in question in this very thread.
As for the forum guidelines, you are entitled to post something like 'according to Paul, you are a liar', just like someone could post 'According to one of the Psalms, all men are liars'. That's fine, but accusing someone of lying is against the forum rules regarding respect - and, unless intent to deceive is provable it should not be done. In most cases I've seen where someone is accused of lying, its actually that they are just 'wrong' (according to the accuser) or there has been a misunderstanding. nwr and randman's suspension reasons basically cover these varieties, as I highlighted in my previous post.
The cost of allowing accusations of lying to be part of the debate is greater than the profit of exposing the occasional person who is intentionally misleading. Especially in this medium where previous posts can be referenced to show any inconsistency.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 04-14-2006 1:48 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by arachnophilia, posted 04-15-2006 12:35 AM AdminModulous has not replied

AdminModulous
Administrator (Idle past 102 days)
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 232 of 302 (314147)
05-21-2006 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by Faith
05-20-2006 11:55 PM


Re: Robinrohan given 1 week suspension
I agree Faith. I've restored Robin's privelages. I've looked for any form of justification for giving him any suspension, but found nothing but 'he's a whiner'. I'm not sure suspending someone for 'whining' in the 'discussion of moderation procedures' thread is a good precedent to be setting (especially not for a week!). In a sense, that is precisely the purpose of this thread.
Maybe Moose has another (valid) reason for suspending Robin, if that is the case he can re-suspend him and provide a clear and open reason as to why.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Faith, posted 05-20-2006 11:55 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by Admin, posted 05-21-2006 5:07 PM AdminModulous has not replied
 Message 234 by iano, posted 05-21-2006 5:12 PM AdminModulous has not replied

AdminModulous
Administrator (Idle past 102 days)
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 247 of 302 (315631)
05-27-2006 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by macaroniandcheese
05-27-2006 2:49 PM


Re: admin pd
peek works fine for me. She said only one line which can be read between the div tags. It's so short it is easy to overlook, so maybe that's why you didn't see it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by macaroniandcheese, posted 05-27-2006 2:49 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by macaroniandcheese, posted 05-27-2006 3:00 PM AdminModulous 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