RealityCheck made Scientific Claims not supported by Evidence. onlyanorthernsong Fact-Checked and corrected the claims. For this, an Admin, probably Meeester*, blocked him because Fact-Checking and correcting Scientific Claims evidently violates Site-Rules about religious discrimination. For taking 1 for Science and Skepticism, onlyanorthernsong is the Skeptical Member of the X (X being an unspecified time-period).

* I suspect that it is Meeester because when I reposted the BlogPost of onlyanorthernsong, in protest, Meeester deleted it and told me not to do it again or BanHammerTime:

The Admins cannot control what happens outside the site. Here is the original BlogPost on GoogleDrive:

A reality check for RealityCheck: A line by line argument by argument rebuttal to "reality"check's defense of Young Earth Creationism

The admins sure did not take into account the Streisand-Effect.

4621438

The Admins cannot control what happens outside the site.

No, but they can probably still tell you not to link to it though, on grounds of harassment or some such. I mean, I do agree with you and with onlyanorthernsong's post, but the only possible result of this action can be drama, which I don't blame Fimfiction admins for wanting to prevent.

4621438 ok

Well. Huh.

I think banning might be a bit harsh if this is the only thing that provoked it, but this blog is 67 pages long. A grand total of 16,000 words, longer than any of the stories that onlyanorthernsong has written. It's got all-caps paragraphs, comics, and lots and lots of ranting and haranguing aimed at a particular Fimfiction user rather than just at creationism in general. This really isn't a good rhetorical high ground IMO.

4621726 Having actually read the whole blog before it was deleted, I can say it was less of an outright attack and more like a really long rebuttal. I don't remember any harsh words to RealityCheck, just pointing out all the wrong info in the original post he made. Honestly, I feel like a 24 hour ban could be justifed, but a permaban might be a bit too much.

4621726 I do apologize for the haranguing tone, but If you had to deal with the likes of realitycheck, you would be exasperated too. Yes I should not take such a personal tone with him, but honestly the man ONLY speaks in ad hominem attacks and then goes running to the mods whenever someone stands up to him.

the man's vileness is legend, he has had an Encylcopedia Dramatica page dedicated to him before the first episode of FIM hit the air, he is a bully who claims to fight bullies and was kicked off a server that hosted his webcomics for abusing his modpowers by banning anyone who disagreed with him willy nilly.

just look up "rhjunior" on google. most of the hits will be evidence of the drama.

It does not excuse my tone, but it may ameliorate my guilt to sme degree.

4630053 Yeah, that's why I unfollowed RC a long time ago and actively avoid his blogs these days. Though I do still occasionally bump into him in other stories' comment sections, alas. :)

Here's the thing, though. There's a trick to internet fights like these that I've learned over the years, a certain mindset that really helps in a lot of situations. If you really must engage in an argument like this you have to keep foremost in mind who your arguments are aimed at.

* You're not writing your arguments to try to convince the person you're arguing with. 99% of the time anyone who engages in an actual argument is already so firmly entrenched in their view that argument alone is never going to change it, or will just entrench them even further. And bear in mind that this also applies to you - you're not really here to have your mind changed. So be prepared to allow the other guy to have the "last word" or the fight could go on forever in an endless annoying circle.

* You're also not writing your arguments for the benefit of people on "your side". They already know this stuff and don't need any convincing.

* Your actual audience in an internet argument is the "undecideds". The people who are interested enough in the subject to spectate but who don't feel strongly enough about it to actually participate much directly. Imagine that you and your worthy opponent are on a street corner exchanging quips and barbs and passers by are pausing to watch you while on their way to do other things. Those are who you're really trying to win over.

Be polite and succinct as you address his points and raise your own. Be super duper infuriatingly polite, even. Worst case scenario, your opponent does likewise and you have a polite debate after which you agree to disagree and part ways, leaving the audience to nod to themselves and mull over what they've heard. Which actually isn't that bad a scenario in the grand scheme of things. Succinctness helps those passersby get your points more easily and it also saves you a lot of effort.

Best case scenario... well, here's where things get a little devious. Best case scenario, your infuriating politeness and cool demeanor drives your opponent bonkers and he starts slinging personal insults and whatnot first. That's probably the closest one can get to a straight-out "win" most of the time. Imagine your "undecided" audience's reaction when that happens and try to let that satisfy any urge to retaliate in a similar manner.

I'm not saying driving him nuts should be your main goal, mind you. It's just a thing that's a common outcome when a reasonable person and an unreasonable person argue with each other on the Internet in a relatively neutral forum. Be the reasonable person and you'll likely end up coming out ahead. :)

Oh, and yes, I do note the irony of writing the longest comment in this discussion thread while advising succinctness in debate...