|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Change in Moderation? | |||||||||||||||||||
wj Inactive Member |
I may be wrong but Darwin's Terrior seems to have been suspended without warning. I think that all participants deserve the courtesy which was extended to simple in at least being warned first.
[This message has been edited by wj, 02-22-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
quote: Darwin's Terrier's suspension has been lifted, after being in effect for 4 days. I don't think such situations call for warnings before suspensions. Darwin's Terrier should have known better. Had the offending message been posted by a new member, he probably would have been branded a troll, and also been suspended. Adminnemooseus
|
|||||||||||||||||||
wj Inactive Member |
An alternative way to view the situation is that a long term contributor who has generally behaved well and errs by posting an unacceptable single message is deserving of a warning rather than precipitous punishment. A new member without any track record of good behaviour posting the same material would be strongly suspected of being a troll, should be warned and then suspended if the trollish behaviour continues.
If in this particular case the offending message warrants suspension of the author, I would have thought that the message itself warrants deletion. To my knowledge the offending message(s) remain in the thread. I fail to see the logic in this situation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
WJ said:
quote: I have previously said twice (original and quote):
quote: Management VERY rarely edits messages for content. The original poster(s) is/are certainly welcome to do such. Adminnemooseus
|
|||||||||||||||||||
wj Inactive Member |
quote:Given that suspension is also a very rare event, I fail to see why an offense which warrants suspension does not also warrants corrective action by removing the offending material. The message(s) appear(s) to be devoid of any useful information or redeeming quality.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
Given that suspension is also a very rare event, I fail to see why an offense which warrants suspension does not also warrants corrective action by removing the offending material. The message(s) appear(s) to be devoid of any useful information or redeeming quality. Because doing so removes the record of why the suspension was incurred, and also acts to clean the record of the offender?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
wj Inactive Member |
Surely the rules are comprehensible so that a violation of the rules can be recognised without providing examples. And, if leaving the offending message in position is supposed to be of educational value, having it buried in the body of an obscure thread is hardly an efficient way of making it an example.
However, this is a diversion. My main point is that a warning would have been appropriate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
quote: Links to both the offending message and to the discussion in this topic is included in Message 24, of the "Suspensions and Bannings" topic. Adminnemooseus
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
I find that it has become far too common, for members to launch-off on a "humorous" off-topic, and then for others to follow up. If you must do such, please do it in the "Humor" topic.
Had Darwin's Terrier brought a quote to the "Humor" topic, and then launched his joke, I probably would not have had any great problem with it. Again, Darwin's Terrier should have the sense to have known better (not to mention the others who followed up). Moderator warnings tend to get lost in the shuffle. The only sure way to get the needed attention is either by a suspension or by a topic closure. In this case, a topic closure would have been more a punishment to the non-guilty topic starter. Sometimes a hard whack is needed to bring attention to a problem. This time, it was Darwin's Terrier that took the whack. A 2 day suspension would probably have been appropriate, but that would have largely been over the weekend, when things are slower anyway. I announced a possible 7 day suspension to try to really stir things up, knowing that it probably was going to be less. I was really surprised that no one protested the harshness of the 7 day sentence. Actually, I surprised there wasn't more protest over the suspension even happening. Cheers, Adminnemooseus
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6476 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
quote: Surprised? I would think overjoyed. Imagine a day where crashfrog, Mr. Hambre, Dan, Darwinsterrier, and myself post nothing...that sounds like the realization of your dream since absolutely everything we post seems to you to be too harsh, too over the top, too funny, to creationist intimidating, too off topic (and in crashfrogs case, too frequent). I mean I can understand that one would appreciate the terse wit and clarity of Stephen ben Yeshua, Syamsu, Willowtree or Skeptik and the wonderful on topic, well researched and referenced, scientific discussions that they bring to the forum but we worthless idiots deserve our say as well don't we? Besides, Dan, Hambre and myself all indicated that if DT was suspended, we should be as well. wj has defended DT and protested your suspending him and I assume most of us agree with wj. Ultimately though, what does it matter what any of us say or think? You have made it abundantly clear that you would prefer is we did not say anything about what we think to each other and certainly not to creationists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
wj Inactive Member |
Admoose, I find your post rather disappointing. You seem to be resorting to a sledgehammer to crack a peanut without using other tools in the first instance.
Random, unpredictable punishment inconsistent with the infraction is not a rathonal method of applying discipline. And if you get kicks from handing out apparently unreasonable suspensions and waiting for the reactions then maybe it is worth reviewing why you are moderating in the first place.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
wj Inactive Member |
quote: By way of clarification, I am only defending DT right to say something and the appropriateness of the censure meted out. Personally I found DT's post in poor taste and fairly offensive, along with others which followed. Nevertheless I don't the punishment fitted the crime.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6476 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
Sorry if I mischaracterized your position. I was referring to post 137 where you indicated that DT was not given a warning before suspension. I was not trying to imply that you thought DT's post in question was of high calibre. I should have made it clear and hopefully this post fixes it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
wj Inactive Member |
No problem.
[This message has been edited by wj, 02-26-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
quote:{Source of above quote - Adminnemooseus} You're right. Our humor is dubious and misplaced. Better we should all grow up, and post something like the 17 page, completely unmoderated rant in which Syamsu breaks at least six forum rules, which seems to be a-okay in mod eyes. But satirizing that rant? Bad, bad, bad. [This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 03-11-2004] "Perhaps you should take your furs and your literal interpretations to the other side of the river." -Anya
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024