Joined: June 2010
|Quote (Alan Fox @ July 11 2010,04:24)|
|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?
Forgive me for stating the obvious but Rich is full of it.
Although I can guess why, in my case there was neither warning of nor reason given for the ban. My posts simply stopped appearing.
As I have stated before, they are fully entitled to ban whomsoever they like but it makes Rich's - admittedly tongue-in-cheek - reference to being "thrown out of court" somewhat ironic; I was neither informed of the charges against me nor given the opportunity to confront my accusers and present the case for the defense.
So much for UD's sense of justice (hi, Clive).