|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Topic Proposal Issues | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Maestro232 Inactive Member |
Quetzal and I have agreed to that title. Thank you for your fairness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 505 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
Please promote mike's new thread.
He said
quote: I am itching to answer because those "truths" are utterly wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminJar Inactive Member |
I am itching to answer because those "truths" are utterly wrong. We know that and so are a dozen or so others. This is one of those topics where piling on is sure to happen and so we want to explore limiting the number of people debating Mike to a managable level. Hang loose while we try to arrange this. New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures Thread Reopen Requests Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 505 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
What's wrong with a pile on? He did ask for it.
I'm rather surprised he didn't check out these "truths" first before posting them here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminJar Inactive Member |
I think we will hold on this until Mike picks someone for a Great Debate or insists that it move to the general area.
New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures Thread Reopen Requests Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3976 Joined: |
I've closed the Radioactive Noah shining bluish in the darkness like smurfs topic. My topic closing message is message 3.
There has also been some discussion of this matter at the Thread Reopen Requests topic, where I said:
I closed the topic because: 1) It bypassed the "Proposed New Topics" procedure, being a "Dates and Dating" type topic in the "Coffee House" forum. 2) I had doubts that it made standards to being promoted, even if it had been submitted to the "PNT" forum. I didn't think it fair, to those who submit their topics to the "PNT", to let this topic get away with "the dodge". I think this topic is the preferred place to discuss the matter - Further comments welcome. Adminnemooseus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
berberry Inactive Member |
I can understand your reasons, moose, but I think it's a shame the thread is closed. It probably wouldn't have been long-lived and it might have been fun.
I'd kinda like to see that guy join evc. Can you just hear him and buzsaw discussing 2lt? Keep America Safe AND Free!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3976 Joined: |
I think that it might be a good thing, for members to review this entire topic, from beginning to end.
My question of the moment is:How are members guided to the "Proposed New Topics" "New Topic" button? I'm assuming that the "New Topic" buttons at the main area forums (ie "Big Bang and Cosmology") flat out do not function for non-admin members, although admins could start new topics directly in such forums, without going through the "PNT" My vision of the ideal, would be that a member could click on the "New Topic" button at the (ie) "BBaC" forum, and thus get a "PNT" new topic page. Maybe it does work this way, but my admin status prevents me from seeing such. Admin/Percy - Comments? Adminnemooseus This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 03-15-2005 02:30 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5061 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
I get a link to the proposed new topics forum disallowing a new topic to be proposed as you suspected(it does not automatically generate a new topic page) once I attempt to click on the new topic button in the Big Bang and Cosmology "main area forum" for instance.
A second click is required if on the proposed new topic page to get the window to add a new topic for proposal.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6051 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
The proposed topic "Mendel wasn't entirely right" was already proposed by WK as "More non-Mendelian genetics".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
I'm not sure if this is the appropriate thread but it seems relevant.
I'm not quite sure what the rationale was behind promoting commike37's 'Mendel wasn't entirely right' thread over my prior proposed new topic suggestion of 'More non-mendelian genetics'. Since they both started off as very brief actual postings with links and excerpts/abstracts, or in commike37's case the entire article, why did his get the chance for elaboration and therefore becoming what Adminnemooseus terms 'better developed'? Couldn't you at least have merged the topics and put the content of my post into the thread? Is the primary literature so unimportant that it can be completely ignored? TTFN, WK This message has been edited by Wounded King, 03-24-2005 04:22 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3976 Joined: |
...why did his get the chance for elaboration and therefore becoming what Adminnemooseus terms 'better developed'? I think it was purely because AdminNosy (I think it was) happened to notice his, and not notice yours. Yours, being first, was further down the list.
Couldn't you at least have merged the topics and put the content of my post into the thread? Is the primary literature so unimportant that it can be completely ignored? I figured that you could just add your content to the promoted topic, as a new message. Just like you did. Adminnemooseus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
So it is pretty much arbitrary? Whatever happens to catch some admins eye first gets priority?
TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminJar Inactive Member |
It was real simple. I didn't see yours until after I had come across the other one. I was working with commike when I saw that Moose had replied to yours saying he was differing to Commikes.
Sorry, just didn't see it. Mea Culpa but that's what you get with Old Fart Admins. New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures Thread Reopen Requests Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
Sorry if I'm being petty, just my bugbear about the primary literature rearing its ugly head.
I do realise that there are a lot of new topics porposed (and indeed proposed) and only a few admins. But hey three on one subject, hopefully there will be enough interest to generate some real discussion. TTFN, WK This message has been edited by Wounded King, 03-24-2005 07:02 AM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024