Did Mod cause the collapse of evcforum?

Well, maybe it is ancient history and maybe it isn't. perhaps there still are some major issues with the moderation here.For instance, I have proposed a thread entitled The merits and shortcomings of Neo-Darwinian Evolution. One would think that is a pretty good thread for a site dedicated to the debate of Evolution vs. Creationism.And yet, so far the only answer i have been given to this request is that the subject matter is too broad, and that if I want to discuss this, I must first give my own personal opinion of its merits and shortcomings.Well, first off, it is a bit silly for me to have to write a lengthy diatribe about my own opinions in the very opening post, without allowing people to become involved first-and secondly, why do my own opinions matter intially? I would like to hear some others.If I were of a suspicious mind towards the moderators of this site-which is what Crashfrog is suggesting by the previous actions of moderators, I might think that they simply want to stifle this kind of discussion because they really don't like much criticism of evolution, and by forcing the topic to be so singularized, they can easily stop any organized attacks on the whole theory, by saying that anything outside of a narrow scope of inquisition is off topic-a tactic i believe I am familiar with.Is a broad discussion of the merits of evolution really so damaging to the site as to not be allowed? I even offered to put it into the coffee house if that made it easier to have a free for all discussion, but so far that has also been disallowed without an explanation.So, is there reason for me to be suspicious, even despite the fact that so many evolutionists here have claimed that opposing viewpoints are given more latitude for discussion?

Nothing's been deleted or edited, so whatever message you're looking for should still be out there.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

No, there's no reason. Try proposing a thread on the "merits and shortcomings of astronomy" and see if that gets promoted. The point Moose made, very correctly I might add, is that literally anything can be brought up.Think of it this way:Post 1 is about mutations.Post 2 is about the 2LoT.Post 3 is about speciation.Post 4 is about adaptation to the natural environment.Post 5 is about how evolution helped modern medicine along.Do you not see this will be a mess of a thread when this happens?

the is another thread that lists the questions people have about evolution. I don't think this is much different.if people want to list things like point mutations, and speciation, and adaptation, and let readers decide if each of these issues bolsters the claims, or weaken them-then I think that's great. Who is harmed?

One way to explain that "exchange" would be to put it into the proper context. You had written a short series of posts critical of Holmes/Silent H in his welcome back thread.In message 17 of that thread you wrote (in response to NJ/Hyroglyphx): It seemed to me that you were inviting opinions, so I obliged. Be assured that I was commenting on your posts, not in response to your avatar.Cheers.

Did you even read why it was refused as a topic? Or does your Christian persecution complex preclude you from even considering what the moderator said?Your topic would encompass almost everything that this whole forum covers. It is difficult enough keeping the threads focused and now you want to have a thread that has almost no focus at all.Here is a suggestion. Post a manageable topic and quit yourpersecution complex.Here is an idea. Before we can even address your uber-topic we need to come to aan agreement on terms. How about you propose a topic about "neo-darwinism". For example, a comparison and contrasting of "neo-darwinism" with classical darwinism and evolution. That way we would at least know what the hell you meant by "neo-darwinism".

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Or, or..you could let people propose their own topics, instead of telling them what topic you think they should discuss.By the way, were you also philosophically opposed to the thread-problems with Evolution-Submit you Questions?Because I don't remember your objection to that at the time-I guessed I missed that-because of my persecution complex perhaps.

Pardon me for not posting recently as I have been very busy in both the personal and professional sphere, although I understand this may be quite a relief to some members.I am glad that jar has been reinstated as he, along with Purpledawn, Ringo, and to some extent Dr Bill, have taught me more about the Bible than I would ever learn from any church or unexamined pronouncement from an unexamined life.Perhaps with some luck, not only Ringo, but Arachnophilia, Nator, Brennakimi, and even Archer Opterix will reappear.I also hope that all understand that we are allowed to use this forum because Percy hosts the server and does most the work to maintain it, in the end he is the owner and we are only able to participate because of his work. Challenging his ownership is an act of futility bordering on the absurd.Now as to caused any meltdown, all I say is the King is dead, Hail the new King. Edited by anglagard, : Replace the term Christianity with the Bible because as to the enlightened, the terms are not synonymous.

---

The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
Salman RushdieThis rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen

I meant it metaphorically, as if moderators were in law enforcement. Did they respond with the appropriate amount of force or did they overstep their bound -- police brutality.

---

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

Let me point out that the problems you are perceiving should be discussed in the Topic Proposal Issues thread, you poor persecuted you.

Well, it doesn't matter since I am not a moderator. Maybe you need to ask Admin about that since he is the one that promoted it.Oh and your persecution complex is still showing.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Let me point out to you that I am discussing whether or not the moderators have caused damage or the collapse of evcforum-by way of more examples.

I am glad that you have a productive life apart from this forum, yet I am also glad to be able to communicate with you, and several others with similar character! Agreed. In my perception, there never was any meltdown. This forum functions as it always has, and the technology just keeps getting better and better. The content, of course, is up to us!

And Dan was arguing against Percy. When I told him what that would imply (that I would have suspended him) he responded: 'see how easy that was?'. Hoist on his own petard, eh? Sounds like I did something right, after all. Without waving in the general direction of the thread again - could you provide an example of the reticence of moderators to discuss application of moderator philosophy? As you say a certain amount of that is required to keep debate going. But from my recollection it was Berberry that would respond to NJ saying things to other people. See my first post in that thread.The complaint against NJ was primarily that he was comparing gays to zoophiles and inferring they were equivalent, if we're now taking him at his word:

quote:

---

I have NEVER compared homosexuals (whom I have no objections too whatsoever these days, I'm pleased to report) to pedophiles, incest, polygamy, zoophiles, yada, yada. The evidence is all documented, and it seems that I have been vindicated by people who didn't like my former self.

---

quote:

---

But I meant then, as much as I do now, that I never hated them. That is the honest truth. And back then it was very much about my fascination for absolutes vs relativism.

---

quote:

---

If you feel that I was baiting Berb, then okay. While I realize that I was construed as offensive, I was not trying to intentionally hurt Berb personally. By the very nature of my moral stance with homosexuality at the time, it was inevitable that he, being a gay man, would be offended on some level.

​

The issue is whether or not I was equivocating homosexuals as being pedophiles or zoophiles. I wasn't. I think it is overwhelming that my arguments had more to do with moral relativism than it did with anything else.

---

quote:

---

I don't think {NJ} was "gay-bating," but even supposing he was, so what? Quite honestly if you were all too dumb not to take the bait, then he won that little social experiment, don't you think?

---

quote:

---

Maybe I wasn't trying to consciously "gay-bait" but was gay-baiting.

---

I kept asking for evidence of infractions - moderators might be chosen (correctly or otherwise) for certain qualities, but perfect omniscience and recall isn't one of them. I tend to avoid suspending people when the evidence is a little shaky. Exactly! Dan had an out. I gave it to him explicitly. He closed the door on it, not me. It was an indirect insult - although my opinion was that it was an insult I didn't moderate it. But Dan didn't want the out. He ruled it out. Good - I'm glad you have now dropped the charge that I was being 'hypersensitive'. Inane, crash. I didn't seriously think he was telling me how to eat a banana. I moderated on that interpretation, told Dan that my judgement call (the style of moderation he wanted) would have been to suspend him but that I wasn't going to as long as he continued with a civil tone and he responded uncivilly to confirm my interpretation was accurate and nothing more. But the charge isn't 'oversensitive' it's "suspending someone for not insulting you". Stick to one. I've explained it several times to you. Because he could use it to vindicate his belief that the moderators were capriciously suspending people. Also - suspensions aren't purely for punitive purposes...sometimes they are for others to observe and avoid the mistakes people made. Just as you apparently did.Anyway - I missed the part where Dan complained about it - could you give me a link? There is a difference between rational scepticism and radical scepticism. As I said: You could have simply posted:

quote:

---

I think Mod should not have suspended Dan given the fact that Dan's offence was during an argument with Mod. It looks questionable, and there's no way to be sure he wasn't just acting in anger or something worse...

---

Which would have been more reasonable than posting under the assumption that I was in fact acting with the worst possible intentions. How could you have missed that he wasn't calling for NJ to be suspended? During time of impasse, the moderators win - unfortunately. They are the arbiters. What compromises do you think went ignored?Edited by Modulous, : Was logged in as Admin Mod without realizing it.

The topic you are referring to, Problems with evolution? Submit your questions. was moved, I believe in a rather tongue-in-cheek manner, to the "Free for All" forum. The moderators here DO have a sense of humor that comes out at times and I think Percy got a kick out of the .. um ... confidence displayed by the poster. The poster has turned out to be a one-post-wonder, possibly in embarrassment at the response he got.