Joined: Oct. 2006
|Quote (Alan Fox @ July 11 2010,05:24)|
|Recently I've been reading (and occasionally commenting) atBiologos blog. In response to my remarking that UD moderation is arbitrary and biased, this comment by:|
Rich - #21297
July 11th 2010
|I did a little research into your claims about bannings at UC. |
In the last month, only two or three people were banned. So much for your daily bannings.
In the last year, roughly fifteen to twenty people were banned. That’s nowhere near daily.
In many cases, these bannings were re-bannings, i.e., cases where a person had been banned, then was forgiven, then re-offended and was banned again, or cases where, once banned, the person sneaked back on under a new pseudonym and was banned under the new pseudonym. In other words, the number of *people* banned is fewer than the total number of bannings, which was very small.
The bannings have not been for disagreeing with ID, or expressing skepticism about ID. Otherwise, Francis Beckwith, Allen MacNeill and many others would have been banned. The bannings have been for offensive behavior of one kind or another. Seversky and Nakashima know why they were banned. It wasn’t for offering rational arguments against irreducible complexity.
So probably one person per month has been banned from UD over the past year. This on a web site that posts thousands of comments monthly. Your case is hereby thrown out of court.
Anyone care to disagree with Rich on his judgement?
I've brought some sophisticated mathematical tools to bear on the question (known as "counting.")
|In the last month, only two or three people were banned. So much for your daily bannings.|
I count four. Yes, "daily" is hyperbole.
|In the last year, roughly fifteen to twenty people were banned.|
I count 31 bannings in the last year. To wit:
God's iPod (ID friendly and subsequently unbanned)
Undoubtedly we missed some. Rich thinks this is OK.
|In many cases, these bannings were re-bannings, i.e., cases where a person had been banned, then was forgiven, then re-offended and was banned again, or cases where, once banned, the person sneaked back on under a new pseudonym and was banned under the new pseudonym. In other words, the number of *people* banned is fewer than the total number of bannings|
That is absolutely true. What fails in this argument is the assumption that either the original or subsequent banninations were remotely justified in light of UD's moderation policy. It is a flat fact that many were not. And it is a flat fact that many serious, effective and reasonably polite anti-ID contributors have been banned mid-thread, oftentimes as (I say because) they were pressing their points effectively.
Moreover, anti-ID contributors have sometimes been characterized as liars, cowards, incapable of rationality, etc. by ID proponents without consequence. As Diffaxial, whose posts were serious, articulate and often pointed but never personal, I was repeatedly called a liar and a coward both by Unpleasant Blowhard and StephenB, neither of whom endured any consequences. ID-critical contributors, having just been so characterized, have sometimes been shortly thereafter banned on the flimsiest of pretexts, or for reasons that directly contradict moderation policies that BarryA has articulated. That was certainly Diffaxial's fate.
And, of course, it would not be necessary for critics to "sneak back" were UD to enforce its stated moderation standards, rather than the arbitrary, moody, and obviously biased decisions that are typical.
I will certainly gather links to several examples of each if Rich would like to attempt to defend UD, or explain them away.
ETA: it is worth noting that StephenB once apologized for questioning my (and RoB's) honesty. Here was my (Diffaxial's) response:
|StephenB: "That means, of course, that I owe Rob and Diffaxial apologies for my half of the misunderstanding and the attendant allusions to dishonesty."|
I accept that.
It is worth noting that I have made close to zero personal comments about you or anyone else in this discussion (other than “get some therapy” and addressing you as “dummy”). You and yours, however, have frequently characterized me as dishonest, irrational, as a liar, as lacking intellectual honesty and courage, as a coward, as displaying weakness, and so forth, with similar remarks directed to R0b. I think you embarrass yourselves with those remarks, which is why I pass over them without comment and decline to be baited into responding in kind. Fair to say that similar restraint characterizes R0b’s superior contributions. I gather the purpose of these personal characterizations is to spin “onlooker’s” impressions of the flow of the debate, but I’d be willing to bet they often have a very different impact than you imagine.
You offered a sort of exchange:
|if Rob or Diffaxial will acknowledge that I did not say that physical events can occur without sufficient causes, I will extend my apologies for escalating the dialogue to new levels and retract all personal comments.|
I don’t care about retraction of personal comments. Readers can judge for themselves the honesty (etc.) of my contributions. The exchange that interests me is that you cease repeating misleading characterizations of prior conversations to score rhetorical points. In exchange I will drop that issue, as well as questions surrounding the interpretation of your ambiguous statement vis necessary versus sufficient causes. I can’t stop believing what I believe about your statement (and to say otherwise would be dishonest), but I can certainly stop commenting upon it. I’ll allow you the same slack: You needn’t concede anything about your prior statements. Just agree to stop making them.
Of course, StephenB should have retracted his personal comments unconditionally, not as part of an exchange.
Diffaxial was silently banned not long after that.
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.
"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace
"Hereâ€™s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington