Silent Dave

I realize that this proposal would create quite a bit of work for the moderators, but I think it's worth it to pin this guy down and force him to confront his own positions. Here it is:

1) Two sticky threads shall be created in either EvC or BC&H. The first will be called "The afdave Questions Thread," and the second will be called "The afdave Derail Thread."

2) Henceforth, afdave will be temporarily restricted to posting ONLY in The afdave Questions Thread, and in no other threads or forums on IIDB.

3) The OP of The afdave Questions Thread shall consist of a few questions that have repeatedly been posed to afdave but which he has refused to answer -- most notably, his refusal to either provide good evidence of the "conscillience conspiracy's" existence or some other adequate explanation for the conscillience.

4) By gentleman's agreement, posting in The afdave Questions Thread shall be restricted to afdave himself and two or three other volunteers -- I suggest Constant Mews, myself, and perhaps one other. This is both so that Dave doesn't feel overwhelmed in this thread, and so that there is less chance of giving Dave opportunity to derail.

5) Any post that Dave posts in any other thread, or any post or fraction of a post that Dave posts in The afdave Questions Thread that does not directly answer a question posed to him in either the OP or our subsequent posts, but which raises an entirely new argument against evolution/old earth/biblical errancy will immediately be moved to The afdave Derail Thread.

a) Any post that does *not* raise a new argument -- for instance, that addresses something someone said in response to one of his arguments -- will be deleted.

b) The moderator who moves the post shall leave a message to the effect of 2 posts moved to afdave Derail Thread or 300 words moved to afdave Derail Thread.

6) Any "infidel" may post in The afdave Derail Thread, but per item 2, Dave himself will not be allowed to post there directly.

7) Any questions directly posed to afdave in The afdave Questions Thread shall be treated as per items 3 and 5.

8) If the volunteers agree that afdave has satisfactorily answered all outstanding questions to him at that time, then the moderators shall take one afdave post (or partial post) from the derail thread -- whichever one is closest to the start of the thread -- and move it into the questions thread. The volunteers may then ask him questions about that argument.

9) Repeat steps 2-8 until Dave has no posts remaining in the derail thread, at which time the two threads shall be closed, and all restrictions on Dave's activities on IIDB shall be lifted.


What do you think, sirs?

shirley knott

I like it. I think it would be a lot of work, and would almost certainly drive afDave away, but I think it should be tried.
I think eric murphy or occams aftershave would be excellent choices for the third interlocutor. Ditto BWE.

hugs,
Shirley Knott

Deadbeat

I really don't see how afdave warrants this kind of attention. He's no more persistent or mistaken than davidfromtexas or any of the dozens of garden-variety creationists that come through here every now and again.

There's no reason to believe that giving him his own sticky threads will engender any more response or "evidence" than we're already seeing. Let him be.

Constant Mews

My own personal feeling is that you are mistaken - Dave is somewhat unusual amongst creationists: he has some psychological issues that separate him from his ilk. At the very least, it would help put an end to the continually - and continually moderated - accusations of dishonesty on Dave's part. By helping him focus, it is possible that he might be forced to confront many of his own inner demons and issues and genuinely learn to be an adult. It's a remote possibility, but we must always hope for the redemption of a sinner.

And keeping him out of other folks hair wouldn't be a bad thing, I suspect.

deadman_932

I'd be glad to see him reined in, but eh, I'm happy either way.

Given that 99.9% of his responses are taken directly from AiG and ICR -- whenever and HOWEVER he posts just exposes the vacuous intellectual infantilism of creationists.

Calilasseia

Interesting proposition.

I'm sure quite a few people here would like to have their many outstanding unanswered questions addressed. I've had a thread waiting specifically for one of those questions that he has avoided in much the same way that most reasonable people would avoid the site of a nuclear accident. A thread specifically erected to address one of Dave's own claims, moreover, a claim which Dave seems happy to repeat elsewhere, but somehow can never bring himself to address in the very thread erected for the purpose.

I'm sure others have similar experiences to relate.

However, one has to bear in mind that the moderators have more to do than act as chaperones for Dave. Consequently, I suspect that this suggestion, appealing as it is, may encounter certain practical difficulties.

One alternative route that might work, on the other hand, and which might require far less work, would be to lock Dave's ability to post (allowing him to read but not post) until he agrees to address the outstanding questions. Perhaps a few days or a couple of weeks' frustration in this vein will prove character building.

shirley knott

Nice idea, but Dave will simply assert 'banned' and go away crowing in triumph and mock-despair over his maltreatment. Just as he did when he was limited to a single thread at AtBC...
And I, for one, would prefer to see him not be given that "out".

hugs,
Shirley Knott

Occam's Aftershave

Nah, it would play right into Dave's hands because he's a world class

Silent Dave

Uh oh . . . I'm afraid I may have given it to him already, simply by suggesting that he be so restricted. He can point to that and say see, see, they want to ban me! So the damage is done on that front.

So I suggest we proceed with my proposal, but before doing so, I suggest we ask Dave if he would voluntarily submit himself to the restrictions laid out in my OP. If his worldview is sound, and our questions answerable, then he should have no objection, especially considering it gives him and his "creator god hypothesis" a great deal of attention. If he does object, we should do it anyway, but with the observation that, for some reason, he seemed afraid to do it . . .


Dave

Silent Dave

Then he should have no objection to my proposal, for two stickied threads with his name in it = quite a lot of attention.