General discussion of moderation procedures - Part 7

This is the place to comment on moderation procedures.I wanted to get this started before AdminJar came up with another one of his topic titles. At the moment, the previous version (see bottom of list below) has just hit 300 messages, and thus will soon be closed.The previous "General discussion..." topics, from earliest to most recent:
Change in Moderation?
General discussion of moderation procedures
General discussion of moderation procedures: The Sequel
General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consecution
General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consequtive Consecution
General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consequtive Consecution SequelEdited by Adminnemooseus, : Added updated version of "signature", to have "General..." link point to this topic.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Added sentence above topic list.

---

There is a serious fly in the ointment of your position Adminmoose. And it is this: In inviting John A. Davison, Admin is formally acknowledging ("formally" I say - Percys opinion may be the same as yours) that the soundness or otherwise of Johns ideas has YET to be decided.Yet you agree with Crashs comments (and presumably similar comments in the closed thread under discussion) which say the case is already closed. You are in effect accusing Admin of having scored an own goalThis is why I asked for Admins comment. I am not trying to be a pain in the ass. The request stands.
.
.
.
.
.To Admin:My case for having the the "Lets get this PEH show on the road" thread re-opened goes as follows. In the OP of that thread there is nothing which suggests that the wisdom or otherwise of my suggestion is an issue for debate. Suggestions on how to improve the attempt at petition were all that was asked for. Patently, any individual could choose or choose not to take up on my suggestion.http://EvC Forum: Let's get this PEH show on the road. A Petition -->EvC Forum: Let's get this PEH show on the road. A PetitionThereafter a number of posters partake in off-topic knocking of the idea on the basis that the case for PEH is already closed. Given the stated goal of the Showcase thread as it pertains to PEH, their comments run counter to the formal Admin line (as outlined above in my response to Adminmoose). Whilst everyone is entitled to an opinion, their opinion runs counter to a decision made by yourself on the soundness or otherwise of PEH on promoting it in the Showcase forum.A few problems with the Administrator response in closing the thread:The anti-PEH comment received no warning to say that the official EvC line held that the soundness or otherwise of PEH was open to question. And no warning that such opinion was not a grounds for objecting to an OP dealing obliqely with PEH. It was left to me to point out that there was a place to debate PEH if that is what they felt like doing.No one received a warning that the soundness or otherwise of PEH was not an issue which dealt with the OP. Such comments were miles off topic.The decision to close was made at message 15 by AdminJar. The rationale given "This thread seems about as pointless as any we have had in awhile." was patently bogus. The point of the thread was as obvious as the nose on your face. Subsequent enquiry brought out various AdminJar/Moose opinion which never dealt with the subject of the OP nor the official line taken on PEH by Admin.I hold that there were no adequate grounds to close the thread and that Admin action was inappropriate. I request that the thread be re-opened so that the issues actually contained within the OP can be dealt with further.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : getting Admin/Percy balance rightEdited by iano, : Case for re-opening thread directed at Admin

There's an "or" in there that maybe you didn't notice. Percy may merely be saying that the semi-meiotic hypothesis is simply unusual.For that matter, to say that it is controversial hardly means that we don't know that it's wrong. Disproven ideas are often controversial - often more so for being unsupported or even contradicted. Wrong ideas are very compelling.Moroever, the very nature of the forum itself - participation by invitation only - would seem to indicate that the "Showcase" threads are not for the purpose of submitting ideas to challenge and open debate, but rather, as a kind of museum - a nature preserve, perhaps - for cranks and pseudoscience.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

See modifed post above with reasons for the modification. That is my last comment to you here Crash. This is not a general discussion forum.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Since you mentioned me at the start of this - I feel some clarification is required from me - . I've put on record that I feel that showcase was just a zoo for people to point and laugh at nutcases - I still feel that way.The reasons that I'm against asking Dawkin's here are technical rather than anything to do with JAD's "theory". The simple fact of the matter is that people in the showcase forum are unable to interact in any meaningful way with normal rational people - it's been proven again and again in the general forums here.They are suspended, they return, they are suspended, they return they are banned, they are asked back. On and on. Anyone with a long history here (and in fact anyone who's posted at Talkorigins or similar such sites) know the personalities and what we are dealing with.In such a context, your suggestion is a complete trap - WHATEVER Dawkin's says (in our fictional "pigs might fly" EVCforum of fantasy), JAD will not shift one inch, not at all. Dawkins would then quickly become bored with dealing with such a person (and ray in the background screaming "inability to refute! Atheist bias!!") and leave.This would then allow JAD to run all over the internet saying he "beat" Dawkins in a debate. I'd be ashamed to be part of a site that tried to facilitate such a sorry spectacle and would allow more credence to the creationist lie that what occurs in such debates is as valid as the actual work of science.Edited by CK, : No reason given.

1) The "Showcase" is a place for JAD to discuss things with people, in a more controlled environment.2) This new environment is such that JAD can have a fresh start and leave his past participation at in the past.3) That past participation, however, is still part of the public record. If you are interested in that past public record, search for it and do the reading.4) Members who have interfaced with JAD in past topics are not obligated to do it again in the "Showcase". Actually, I would encourage them not to do it again in the "Showcase".5) Those members who have past experience with JAD, however, SHOULD NOT BE TAKING POT-SHOTS AT JAD, from outside of the "Showcase" forum.Adminnemooseus

Message 2 has had a case for re-opening of the closed thread added. It is addressed to Admin.

When Jar closed the thread he said if anyone wants to go ahead and try to recruit people, go ahead. If you want to do the background work for EvC Forum to host a debate between Dembski and Dawkins, go right ahead. That's what the Great Debate forum is for.Please be clear that you don't represent EvC Forum, that you're just proposing it as a neutral and visible venue.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I sought an explanation regarding the reason for closing the PEH thread. Whilst you didn't give one you do seem to be saying the following:You are happy that anyone take up my suggestion and attempt to recruit D&D (by way of petition) to come debate at EvC. Are you equally happy that they attempt to recruit in order that D&D seek entry into the Showcase subject of PEH - as per Johns request.I understand and respect your desire that that people didn't act in such a way so as to make is seem that they themselves represent EvC; that they propose EvC as a neutral venue.It seems that a request that this desire of yours be followed can be simply added to the OP (which generally sought suggestions as to how the petition might be better framed)

I think it would be a signficicant challenge for anyone to convince Dembski or Dawkins to debate JAD, but you're free to pursue this. If you're successful we'll make whatever reasonable accomodations prove necessary.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

A reasonable accomodation would be the reopening of the thread. I'm not saying that a petition would achieve anything but it is very little skin of any interested bodies nose to try. Cut n' paste a standard letter and click? A few seconds work for the average poster here.In addition, a comment from yourself that the idea has your own formal imprimatur as a way to raise the profile of Showcase (which says nothing about your own personal view on PEH or John or the effectiveness of petition) might dissolve the tendencey for some of the less constructive commentsIn addition you might view the OP and provide your input and preferances as to how this thing might take float - included of non-representation of EvC.In addition you might flag the message to John so that he can provide most effective email links to D&DWhatever ones worldview or postion on petition, I think a few seconds of peoples time is a pittance to ask given what might be achieved. There is nothing stopping any member mailing others, ex-EvC, who might be interested in such a debateWhy not attempt to raise the profile of EvC? Its in all our interests

Let's be clear iano. If it were possible to get Dawkins or Dembski to participate here it would only be against each other. There are other more visible forums where they could do the same thing. It is nuts to think they would bother with this one.As for anyone debating JAD: it would only be for amusement. I think, however, that doing so is a bit "off" as he is clearly a delusional individual and should not be toyed with in that way. It just isn't kind.There is certainly no foundation in his ravings. If there were he'd manage to do better against those who at least put in an effort to talk to him rationally.

This is a neat way of saying the the Showcase is, in CK's terminology, a zoo. The official Admin position as detailed in his rationale behind the Showcase, is that the jury is out on PEH NosyNed. In member-mode you are free to disagree with that stance. Only one is required to debate John. I cannot comment on the relative merits of EvC as a) I am not all that familiar with all the other forums available and b) I am not a scientist to be able to evaluate the quality of the science-like here.Your lack of willingness to even try however, a characteristic which has never achieved anything of note, is noted Why is the Showcase thread still open NN? Either Admin agrees with you and is merely a zookeeper. Or, he formally disagrees with you and his motivations are formally noble. Anyone can sit on the fence and throw rocks. Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Edited out because it was a dumb comment...read the dates wrong. Edited by randman, : my mistake

There was no Part II in my post or its title.My post wasn't about HIV research.Too much do-goodin' for us? Let's open an umpteenth Flood thread instead.And remind me to never let you prune my trees. {The message concerns Team EvC @ World Community Grid. - Adminnemooseus}Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above.