Moderation Procedures to level the playing field

NJ, as soon as any one says anything that they can't defend please point that out.I do think that the examples of creationist deficiencies should be restricted to demonstrating what has to be done to level the playing field and not harped on too much.You might want to start a separate thread to point out why these claims aren't true.

Well, first of all, I think this is part of the problem. We are often accustomed to grouping people in one lump based on their beliefs. We have a tendency, even if we don't intend it, to indict everyone.We all should probable be more cautious in our dealings with one another.Rather than blame all creationists for the tactics you posted, perhaps we should deal with people on an individual level. Certainly not all creationists are as fanatical as others, just like all evolutionists aren't like Dawkins.So perhaps its unfair to make sweeping allegations. Why not just deal with the argument they are presenting. If it is as transparently weak as you claim, the it should be no trouble dismantling a strawman, right? And if someone acts pigheaded and resorts to ad hom, then we should deal with that on an individual basis, no?Afterall, isn't this how racism, sexism, ageism, and all of the other ism schisms begin to flourish in the first place?

---

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

But how should we deal with a poster who calls another poster a freak?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

AdminNosy, I think it would be best that these kind of sentiments be addressed in your member role.Siding with any side outright shows an unwillingness to preserve the law (so to speak) in stead of supporting a personal bias.

---

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

In the same way you'd deal with anyone who says such things. Warn them to tone it down. If it persists, then suspend them until they can re-engage properly. If they prove incapable of learning, then ban them.Personally, there are a few repeat offenders that need to just go away altogether for their unwillingness to actually debate. Some people out there just want to argue and to have an avenue to spit their rhetoric.We don't need that kind of junk at EvC. We're much too dignified for that.

---

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

What about a member who says another member should be taken out and shot?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I think we should have some kind of three strikes rule, myself. For a true problem poster, they should be banned after egregious abuses of forum rules.

---

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

How do you rate saying another member should be shot?Do they get three shots?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

NJ, exactly what did I say that was coming down on one side?Edited by AdminNosy, : change author

Well, I've seen some posters, who are otherwise very level-headed, say things that are out of line.So, yes, I think they should get three chances like everyone else.

---

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

Even when physically threatening another member? Interesting.What about the poster who constantly makes assertions specifying some imagined evidence that the poster claims supports his position but then refuses to discuss those asserted "evidences".

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

So would a poster who gets suspended and returns under a new ID fall in this category?

---

Live every week like it's Shark Week!
Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

That's not a violation of any forum rule. At most its poor debating. Those people will be weeded out rather quickly.Are you saying that you want people suspended for poor debate?

---

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

Forum rules say that you are supposed to provide support for your position. Are you saying that people should not have to support their positions?Rule 4:

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

From what I've seen in here, most creationists do support the assertions, albeit insufficiently in your estimation. But that's where subjectivity comes in to play. Are they really not supporting their assertions, or are you just unsatisfied by what they do present?I'm also unclear on what the inquiry is for. Are you wanting better debate from your opposing side? Or are you wanting creationists to leave the board?

---

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias