Too much moderation on these boards?

I think the moderation here is by an large a good thing. Sometimes I perceive bias, but given that its me (or my ilk) who I perceive to be the subject of bias I must exclude my (and my ilks) perception - on the basis of my (and my ilks) self-bias.The aim of in-thread modding is to keep the thread on topic - a new thread is always an option. There are times though, when the thread has long since headed off elsewhere and has transmuted quite successfully into a discussion on something else - making an "STOP!! STEP OUT OF THE VEHICLE" warning somwhat irritating.But overall I find the moderation even-handed. They usually take the time to check things out and aren't way off in the deliberation. If it seems a bit hit and miss at times (you get away with one thing to day and tomorrow you don't) has more to do with time availability of mods + the intricacies and emotions involved in such debate than it has to do with the principle of moderation.I think the rate and level of the discussion is further along that the availability of moderation to keep up. Long may it continue!Take or leave it? I'd take it overall. Far and away so. An unmodded EvC? No thanks

Its not as big a pill to swallow as you might think Schraf.{AbE} I mean should you ever get around to considering swallowing it tooEdited by iano, : No reason given.

But the modding here isn't I hold, extreme. Its not that breaking of forum guidelines doesn't happen all the time. 'Extreme' modding would result in a site where forum guidelines were held all the time by everyone. In which case the modding wouldn't be 'extreme' as such - but would only lead the site to be one where the rigors that might prevail in say, scientific peer review, would hold true. This wouldn't make it bad - just different than it is. Less free-flow of ideas and more rigor.Whatever modding level is employed simply determines the nature and feel for the site. Less or no modding would make it one way and more would make it another. Whatever flavour is achieved is whatever flavour is achieved. There is no bad or good about it. Its about whether you enjoy the flavour or not.

Does the fact that you have observed this mean what you hold to be the case is merely interpretation of the evidence. Or is it objectively the case like you seem to assert here

I'm a creationist and I don't go around viciously abusing people and breaking all forum guidelines - including the ad hom implied by your painting all creationists with the same brushSure, I've only be suspended once since I came here and that fairly recently. Proof positive if proof were necessary

I'm pretty sure this breaks a forum guideline Jar. And coming from an Admin-level member no less!ps: it wasn't for reasons of you disagreeing with me that I posted that post - it was for what I percieve to be the underhanded way you go about your business here. For example: the above breaking of forum guidelines will unlikely bring down the wrath of an admin on you. And you know it.(Although no doubt I may be surprised - just don't place the STOP sign there yourself - that would be self defeating. LOL)

I support her because overall I think her a tenacious, brave and skilled debator - although not the only one here on either side of the divide. She is prone to losing her rag at times - but there are none here who attract the same quantity or virulence of oppostion as she - so there is that to take into account.I stay silent because blood is thicker than water. She is my sister Schraf. One doesn't have to agree in the least with what a family member does in order to stand by them no matter what. As it happens I frequently see those who receive the tongue lashings tramping every bit as much on the spirit of forum guidelines as Faith does.

It would be useful is you could comment on the 'we' bit that Jar referred to in his message. He seemed to imply that there exists an Admin Central two-tier approach to posters here. An idea backed up by Schraf in personal poster mode too. Seeing as she is an admin too we must suppose that her personal statement of 'fact' is something she holds while in working in admin mode.The nub of the assertion is that Admin take a different approach when dealing with 'fundi' (as they are called). I gather it revolves around there being an inherent weakness in whatever argument they put forth - but in order to ensure that they don't all bugger off were they held to the same standards as everyone else, the standards are lowered for them. This might be supposed to occur in various ways, I don't know - Jar wasn't specific. Perhaps:- more abuse from fundis is be tolerated because if held to account they get shirty and have to be suspended?- poorer standards for backing up a point with reasoned argument might be tolerated because the base reasoning: Godidit, cannot be demonstrated in a way considered "it is demonstrated" in the 'accepted' sense of the word as defined by Admin.There might be others - I don't know and I'm a little in the dark - only hearing about this "special treatment for fundis" very recently from two admin-level members. SoIs it official policy?Why is it policy if the above guesses at reasons for it are not the reasons for itIn which fora does it apply and if not in any particular forum, to which class of topics does it applyI dread to hear that it is indeed the policy for it opens a veritable hornets nest which impinges negatively on both fundi and non-fundi alike in terms of the grounds of debate here. Indeed it would seriously undermine the whole tenet of the site in my viewCould you comment?

No week would be complete without you forthright views on such people There is no doubt that mine was a personal attack on you but it is fair to say that you indulge in them too. Personal attack seeks to attack the person and not the argument if my recall of the guideline is correct and it is an area in which you excel. What you make up for in lack of virulance you compensate for admirably (if that is the correct word) with frequency. I couldn't be bothered to go look through your posts but if you would like some examples then I would open to obliging you. Mostly you hide the insults in such a way so as to remain within the letter of the law. But the spirit of it...oh my word. For one who indulges in insult so frequently though, even the letter of the law can be expected to be broken. Kettles and all that Jar This is one of those examples where the aim is to insult in such a way so as to hide behind the rule. But the issue in bringing it up is to find out whether this is a Admin policy for if it is it raises a number of questions which I feel are detrimental to the very tenets of EvC. If it is your own policy (which you don't imply it is) then I fail to see how implementing it then complaining about the consequences of it is a reasonable position to takeFar simpler to have a stated level playing field so we can really judge the lay of the land. It would stop you running for this bolt hole everytime someone stepped outside some arbitary boundary of yours Yup. Righteous hatred at work (the kind of thing that led Jesus to name call a little more vigorously than this). Not hatred of you of course. But of the sin overflowing from your heart. I don't like it all that much when it overflows from my heart - if its any comfort to you

A weak response Adminmoose. Very weak.But sufficient to squeeze by - just.

The name of this site in shorthand is EvC. Not Evc. In the cut and thrust, your last comment is probably fine - were it in personal mode. But there is a larger picure at stake here and some of it has to do with statements by some amongst some of the admin team which strongly imply (although if followed up, no doubt it could be weaseled away from) that Evc would be a better title.It must be bloody tough to navigate the white line down the middle but in the measure that is done - especially by yourself - the better the site is for it. And that you cruise in personal mode most definitely on one side of the line makes your position in Admin mode all the more difficult. But it was you that choose to get this gig going.There are appalling creationist sites out there - no dbout about it. But it might be an idea to ask how it was they got to be that way. For if that were done it may be possible to avoid EvC becoming Evc.Anyone can maintain a biased site. Its the unbiased that makes a site special

How would you know an evenhanded crevo site if it bit you on the arse? It is not possible for you to find such a beast per definition. For the basis of "reasonableness" depends on your worldview

Wuold it imply a policy that there was that there was a two tier approach to dealing with the protagonists on the site in a general, all encompassing way?Would it attempt to shut down Robins satirical thread from the outset this year whereas last year his satire was postively encouraged. I looked at it from last year and it was cutting. But this year seemingly its out of bounds. It satires EvC central - as seen by some at EvC. Have these Creo sites something of a Big Brother approach?Would it attempt to invoke a "this is what science is" when a "this is what science is" is something of a core issue here?Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Not to cherry pick your comments, but this one that sits at at the centre of your post. And it is wrong! EvC is not predominantly a science site. It is a Worldview site. Most posts do NOT deal with science. Most posts do not even attempt to. Most posts deal with what is perceived to be a reality which 'should' be apparent to the man on the street. Science barely plays a part in most posts here.And you know it. So why do you assert otherwise?

Complaining? No.I am questioning the assertion that that is the case. Jar and Schraf in particular have asserted so.I think it is anything but myself.