General discussion of moderation procedures - Part 7

I think Rand's current suspension is a bit much Percy.I also think you overstep the mark the way you ridiculed him before you suspended him.So what if he introduces something you don't agree with, is it really grounds for you to ban him again?If it annoys you that much then ban him for good because you keep warning him about the same things ALL of the time (Heckel drawings for example). Don't you think he just doesn't get it, or to him these things are relevent to the topic?It seems a bit cruel to keep Rand around simply for you to keep banning him whenever the whim takes you.I have no idea why Rand is so attracted to this place, cut the guy some slack, or permanently suspend him.Brian.

You raise some good points. If Randman has truly become unmoderatable, perhaps he should be showcased.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Often I read posts that begin with a comment by an admin about off-topicness or some such thing. But in many cases, it is not clear from the outset that it's an admin's comment. Sometimes I mistake their comments for part of the original message by the author of the post. Of course, when I look at the editorial history of a message, I can figure it out, but I think it would be more correct if the admins made it clearer themselves.Admins who edit other peoples posts should add their name to their comments. Also using another colour might help, especially if it can be agreed upon that nobody but admins use that colour, and admins only for the purpose of moderation.Just an idea, I'm open for suggestions.

Good idea. Make mine pink.Make a great T-shirt...

Or suspended from the science forums?As you say, Rand takes up a great deal of admin time, and he has done for as long as I can remember. If he is dragging science topics off subject, and has been banned many times for this, what makes you think he is going to suddenly understand why he keeps getting banned?One way Rand's constant reinstatements *could* be interpreted, by those with an agenda, is that he keeps being allowed back so that the nasty evo admins can ban him whenever he makes a 'valid' scientific argument.I think it would be fair to him to keep him in the Bible forums or showcase him, but it looks cruel to keep beating on his ass in the science areas.Brian.

It seems to me evos are allowed to advance arguments, but to respond to those arguments is off-topic. On the ancienct bacteria thread, the argument by evos involved rejecting the evidence based on concluding the standards for acceptance had not been met. So the idea of scientific standards was part of the evo argument.However, I was banned for responding to that argument. Specifically, I mentioned Pakicetus as an example where one fossil find was heralded before the find was "replicated." So demanding the find of identitical bacteria, of "replicating the original experiment", was a tad hypocritical. I was not so much attacking the poster but the evo community's standards that appear a little hypocritical to me.Finds that favor mainstream evolutionary theory are frequently heralded, often to the point that errors are taken as fact and find their way into the literature and textbooks as accepted lore, so much so that sometimes it is hard to correct the earlier errors. But something comes up that disagrees with mainstream evo models, and the reaction is quite different. So we have a pattern of dismissiveness towards data that disagrees with ToE, and acceptance and promotion of often highly overstated data.On the thread in question, the surrounding facts and conclusions to Vreeland's study have been replicated, and ancient bacteria have been found before. The evo argument seems to be that you guys can make a claim, that standards are not met, but then insist discussing the basis of that claim is off-topic.In general, evos continually make comments on the Bible, creationism, or even demand that I put forward a theory on threads all the time. Imo, all of these comments are off-topic, but routinely allowed. I prefer to try to objectively look at the data, not trying to fit the data into any one theory and so do not try to argue a theory, but to look at the data. Imo, always trying to argue the theory is a serious problem as it colors perception and acceptance of data, as we see with evo reluctance to accept Vreeland's data since it affects basic evo assumptions.So in my arguments, I will bring up other areas on how data is and was treated because the standards for data and whether the data is accepted or rejected is an important component in genuine science. When the evo argument consists of rejecting uncomfortable data, as is the case with Vreeland's find, I think bringing up evo treatement of data and standards is on-topic and relevant. If Percy or another mod disagreed, they could have just said that line of discussion was off-topic, but the rush to ban was uncalled for as there appeared no sense of grasping the relevance of why I brought up the initial reaction to Pakicetus.I will give another common example to help illustrate this. One argument frequently put forward by evos here is more or less if ToE is so wrong, then why do thousands of scientists and most scientists accept it?The answer in part is that they have accepted overstated, false, misleading, and unsubstantiated data and logic, and so it becomes hard to correct this false data and logic, and a good example is how it took so long for the evo community to come to grips with Haeckel's forged drawings and wrong conclusions.Now, some may say, well, bringing up Haeckel on a thread is off-topic? OK, but then quit allowing the evo argument. If evos can ask in debate why is it that most biologists accept mainstream evo models, then shouldn't I be allowed to answer?If the answer is off-topic, fine, but so is the question then.The problems here are that evo arguments are allowed to advance in which the answer to those arguments are considered off-topic by some admins.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

As I said in the suspension message, it was a minor violation. By itself it wasn't worthy of a suspension. But it was a continuation of a pattern that you've been repeatedly warned about. Threads have topics, and if you insist on introducing Haeckel and Pakicetus and evolutionary fraud and so forth into threads not about those topics then I will continue to suspend you.Over the past few weeks it has begun to seem like you participate in threads primarily for purposes of drawing correspondences with your views on evolutionist shenanigans. Your radiocarbon thread was the best example so far of this genre. Your first post introduced the topic, and your second post accused evolutionists of unwarranted attacks, hysteria, selectively choosing data and being nonobjective, and you dismissed the arguments without engaging in any discussion.Your favorite topics are all fine topics for discussion, but you won't be permitted to turn every thread you join into discussions of them. As I have stated many times, if you would like to propose threads to discuss these topics then I will gladly promote them as soon as I can.As for evolutionists going off topic, in my view you appear to be like the guy who gets pulled over for doing 110, then complains that they aren't pulling over the guys doing 75. If you really believe you're getting a raw deal then appeal to AdminBuzsaw and AdminFaith.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Hey rand, one suggestion: simply remove any mention of the following three words from any post: "Pakicetus", "Haeckle", "fraud". After all, even Percy won't suspend you just for being irritating. Oh, wait...

Another suggestion could be that folks like yourself on threads with specific, narrow topics quit demanding I address larger issues such as the ToE in general, knowing that answering you will result in my being banned.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

I have to say, Percy, that I was disappointed to log in this morning and find that the conversation with randman on the Ancient Bacteria thread, albeit tantamount to chasing my own tail, was abruptly terminated by the expedient of consigning rand to the Showcase forum.I wish to register my disagreement with this moderator action. I am aware that rand is a "problem poster" in many ways, but I strongly disagree he is in anywhere near the same class as Ray or JAD. In other words, although he is irritating and single-minded, and can be frustratingly deliberately obtuse, being sentenced to oblivion is punishment that doesn't fit the crime, in my opinion.What is conceivably worse, again in my opinion, for the integrity of this forum is that he can - justifiably or not - proclaim that he was silenced while "winning" the debate, simply because he was "winning". Whereas I had already indicated intent to stop my participating in that thread, my hope had been that others with more knowledge of the subject would be willing and able to continue the discussion to some sort of closure. It may not have been possible with rand himself, but certainly a more knowledgeable member would have been able to better explain the issues that I had been. With rand jailed in the showcase, that is no longer possible.Anyway, just wanted to let you know I disagree with the action, and would ask you to reconsider.

Randman hasn't been silenced or jailed. Anyone who would like to continue the discussion with Randman can do so by applying for access to the [forum=-37] forum at Showcase Forum Issues and Requests. Keep in mind that there is no moderation there.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

But hold on - isn't access to the showcase at your consent and then also at the consent of randman? So basically at any point, you can get tossed out on your ass - what sort of way is that to run a debate?

Well, it already wasn't a debate, which is sort of the whole point of showcasing Randman - what he was doing wasn't debating, and he was in violation of the Forum Guidelines. Anyone who would like to continue doing with Randman whatever you want to call what it is he does, can apply for access to the Showcase forum.I guess I should add that Randman was on pretty good behavior up until a few weeks ago. We've now seen several cycles of these good-Randman/bad-Randman transitions, and my guess is that at some point his frustration builds up to the point where he can only rave about Haeckel and Pakicetus and evolutionary fraud and ignoring data and dodging issues.People are really barking up the wrong tree pleading with me to let Randman back in. I can't really do that. When the police start saying, "He's such a determined speeder that no matter how many tickets and suspensions we give him he just keeps speeding, so I guess we'll just stop pulling him over," then you let me know. Would you really go pleading to the police to stop pulling over a good friend of yours because he clearly is just not going to stop speeding? Or would you try to convince your friend that maybe he should stop speeding so he can keep is license?In other words, what you should be doing is pleading with Randman to follow the Forum Guidelines.Or is it that your pleading with me instead of Randman because you think I'm the more rational one? If that's the case, thank you!

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Open that "judging" thread back up. I need to reply.

Tomorrow, Robin. It will keep.The angel of my better self whispers so to me.Edited by AdminOmni, : Assumed the Aspect of my Administerhood.