|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consequtive Consecution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminBen Inactive Member |
holmes,
Is it too much to ask to not have an explanation of what I should do to rebut multiple claims of wrongdoing, which I can disprove with evidence, but would be OT in the thread where the claims were made, and the poster is likely to use them again in the future? No. I guess when we're discussing solutions "behind closed doors", we should make sure to let you know. We've been discussing ways to handle these things; I don't think we've come to a consensus. I'm confident that we'll pull something together after Friday night. There's a fair number of heavy administrative topics that we're working through, with a goal of resolution for Friday night.
And is it too much to ask to have admins explain a decision, and if someone presents a reasonable argument for their actions, get more than a flippant reassertion? Maybe something not condescending? No, not too much to ask.
I was pretty miffed to come back after a weekend break to find no suggestion of a practical solution... and yet another characterization of my dispute as being something that requested admin involvement. Take this as a note that you're not being ignored. We failed to let Trixie know we were giving her request a lot of consideration, and apparently we failed to let you know too. This post is to let you know: we're discussing the issue to come up with good solutions.
It only got bad because an admin stuck his nose in where it was not requested and not required. Okay sorry sorry, it wasn't you. You're cool. I understand you didn't appreciate AdminJar's decision. He did what he thought was appropriate. If it was me, I probably would have taken the same action. I think you are right to ask what the appropriate means is. I don't think we have a good one. So we're trying to pull something together. Just as a note, about 1/2 of your post was clarification / defending yourself on a view that is not really relevant. I almost didn't finish reading this post because I thought it was all off-topic (discussion of moderator action). It is my heartfelt suggestion to let it go next time. Feel free to post a one or two line comment showing your disagreement or lack of appreciation for the interpretation. Anything more just serves to obscure the real points. I made a related point to crash this morning on this same thread. I would appreciate it if you read it; feel free to provide constructive feedback there as well.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
Hi Trixie,
Extensive efforts were made at finding common ground with AdminRandman in the administration forum. No progress was made. My post in the suspensions and bannings thread briefly summarizes what I saw as the primary issues, and to add just a little, it seemed as if Randman was intent on correcting past wrongs by retributive actions. To be fair to Randman, he honestly believed and still believes he was only being fair. I don't think he had any ill feelings toward you, but he interpreted something about your interaction with Faith as dishonest and off-topic. I won't try to speak for the other moderators, but for myself, though I tried hard I could not manage to push myself into a perspective where what you posted was anything more than polite, though at times pointed, inquiry. For this reason I can't speculate on where his characterizations of your posts as "taking a tone" and "playing games" might have originated from. I know Faith felt put upon because she thought my attempt at clarification was an admonishment, but I was only trying to make clear to her why people were confused when she claimed only to be quoting the Bible and not advocating a position. The mere fact that a passage was chosen and posted seems to most people to be making an interpretation and advocating a position. And this is a debate board, not a place where one would normally expect one's posts to be off-limits regarding raising issues and questions. But taking a position that others have difficulty understanding is not against the Forum Guidelines (well, it is against the Forum Guidelines if that's mostly what you do, I guess), and I saw as little to fault Faith for as yourself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
May I make one more attempt to explain this thing about my advocating a position and seeming to deny it? This had to do with Trixie's creation of an either/or that said that if I believe THAT part of the Bible that says sin leads to disease, then I must oppose the understanding of God as healing our diseases. And it wasn't said as clearly as I just said it here. It was set up so that if I acknowledged that I agree with the first Biblical statement I must therefore deny God's good will in healing. In other words, she put me in a double bind, no doubt without intending it -- it probably simply reflects her own way of thinking -- but recognizing and dealing with a double bind is difficult under the best of circumstances. This doublebinding effect is what I called "playing games."
P.S. I appreciate the ultimate evenhandedness of the Admin conclusion in this case, and I'm sorry Randman was a casualty of it all. This message has been edited by Faith, 01-09-2006 06:06 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3976 Joined: |
...why people were confused when she claimed only to be quoting the Bible and not advocating a position. The mere fact that a passage was chosen and posted seems to most people to be making an interpretation and advocating a position. I have no idea of where the message in question is, so I can't check it out first hand. I wonder if someone was requesting a Biblical source from someone other than Faith, and Faith stepped in and supplied the source. Then is was inferred that Faith was taking a position based on that source when she had no such intent. Of course, considering what seems to be Faiths absolute faith in the Bibles content, one might be justified in jumping to the conclussion the passage represented her position. A possible parallel situation would be if someone requested a source for some piece of creationist information. If someone from the creationist side then supplied the source, the natural inferal, albeit possibly unwarrented, would be that the content of the source represented that creationist's position. Had the same source been supplied by someone of the evolution side, no such inferal would be made. If such is indeed the case, an added disclaimer such as "the material of the source does not represent my position" would make things clear. Might just be the babbling Adminnemooseus again
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I wonder if someone was requesting a Biblical source from someone other than Faith, and Faith stepped in and supplied the source. Then is was inferred that Faith was taking a position based on that source when she had no such intent. Of course, considering what seems to be Faiths absolute faith in the Bibles content, one might be justified in jumping to the conclussion the passage represented her position. Yes that is what happened. I supplied the source for Buzsaw in response to a query from Crashfrog. The problem isn't that it doesn't represent my own position, it was the implication that if it does I am denying another part of the Bible. Trixie had set it up so that it was just about impossible to get out of that box, and even hard to recognize that's what was happening. And her way of characterizing the either/or certainly cast me in a pretty negative light -- I'm this person who is glad that people suffer was the implication. Again, I doubt she had any idea she was implying all this, but that is how it read to me, very crazy-making and almost impossible to answer. {I've tracked down the message in question. It'sEvC Forum: Man raised back to life in Jesus' name. Now I guess it's best we put it all behind us. - Adminnemooseus} This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 01-09-2006 06:46 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I wonder if someone was requesting a Biblical source from someone other than Faith, and Faith stepped in and supplied the source. Yes. I asked Buz for a cite and Faith provided it (and my thanks to her for doing so.) It's ridiculous that, after several posts by Faith and myself making it clear that that's what was going on, there's still puzzlement about why Faith would post a verse and then not appear to be supporting it's position.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Just for that, CF, I will apologize for telling you off about your political rant. Sorry to have lost my temper at you to such an extent. Let's stay cool.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5850 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
I guess when we're discussing solutions "behind closed doors", we should make sure to let you know. Yes, that would be great. Otherwise it just looks like someone is being ignored. Thanks for letting me know.
I understand you didn't appreciate AdminJar's decision. He did what he thought was appropriate. If it was me, I probably would have taken the same action. I think you are right to ask what the appropriate means is. Clarification: I did not UNDERSTAND Jar's decision. It did take me by suprise, but it was mainly my not understanding which provoked my post in this forum. It looked to me like he was simply saying "You should have done it the way I would do it". I saw no justification for closure given evc guidelines and a long history of precedent on what is okay/not okay to post. Of course policy could be changing. What I did not APPRECIATE was the mischaracterization and condescending language within the decision, compounded by the same treatment once I got here. Thank you for being reasonable, and apologies to minnemooseus once again for ranting. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
Faith writes: Trixie had set it up so that it was just about impossible to get out of that box, and even hard to recognize that's what was happening. And her way of characterizing the either/or certainly cast me in a pretty negative light -- I'm this person who is glad that people suffer was the implication. An extremely common debate technique is to demonstrate that the opposing viewpoint contains contradictions. While one might object to a particular approach to presenting the contradictions, the debate technique itself is perfectly valid. One interpretation might be that Trixie was implying that you are someone who is happy when others suffer. While I can't speak for others, this wasn't an interpretation that occurred to me. I take it as a given that no one could take pleasure in another's suffering, and I assumed Trixie did, too. The contradiction Trixie presented that seemed to cause the most problems was how one could justify intervening in God imposed suffering, since it is God's will. If I could attempt my own answer to this one, even though in admin mode, God teaches us to love the sinner but not the sin. When we see suffering, even in someone we think a sinner, it is our duty as Christians to bring comfort and succor. God also counsels us to judge not, which tells us avoid conclusions about who is a sinner. There's also the Christian theological position of original sin, and so we are all sinners in God's eye, which says that casting accusations of sinner is a "pot calling the kettle black" kind of thing. It is probably also true that mere mortals cannot recognize which suffering has been visited by God and which hasn't. And so my own view of the topic is that although Trixie highlighted some perplexing contradictions, Christianity does appear to have some relatively straightforward answers. If I've somehow unintentionally (I swear) raised issues that merit a reply, please take it to the Man raised back to life in Jesus' name thread. I'll be glad to pick up the discussion as regular old Percy there, for what time it has left (it already has 284 messages). AbE: Is it time to give up on the "pot calling the kettle black" metaphor? My personal mental image of a "kettle" is of a big black cast-iron pot, but my image of a "pot" is of a sparkling stainless steel pot. Still, I'm old enough to understand the metaphor - there was still plenty of cast-iron around when I was a kid. Anyway, is this metaphor lost on many people, or is it still useful? This message has been edited by Admin, 01-10-2006 11:06 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Just for that, CF, I will apologize for telling you off about your political rant. Sorry to have lost my temper at you to such an extent. Let's stay cool. Let's do. You have a piercing, fascinating intellect when you're willing to approach the subject with an open mind, so it's usually enjoyable to talk to you. You probably don't find the same thing about me, for which I am sorry.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3976 Joined: |
Faith suppied the quote at message 76.
Trixie replied to Faith at message 77. Faith replied to Trixie at message 78. Trixie replied to Faith with a longer message at message 79. Faith replied to Trixie at message 80, the message being:
No, I said I had trouble with the reasoning you put forward and the view you expressed. You were responding to a post in which I did nothing but quote the Bible. Ideally, this message 80 should have been at message 78. Also, ideally, Faith could have been more explicit about why she supplied the quote. Really ideally, Faith could have explicitly stated why she supplied the quote in message 76. Yes, this is a 20/20 hindsight thing. I'm not trying to lay blame on anyone, but maybe we can learn from this incident. Adminnemooseus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1375 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
i pose this complaint as a short post to be ironic, but to make the point somewhat clear.
which is worse, three or four one-line quips, or two solid pages of length moderation posts and responses? |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1375 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
i argued this point a little better in chat the other night than i probably will here.
why am i asking for randman to be allowed back? we never get along. we always disagree. he can be a real pain in the ass, at times. but i don't feel that because he didn't do well as an admin that we should ban him as a member. randman will never understand the rules. he will always claim bias. in effect, we ARE biased against creationist. they play by different rules than we do. this debate is the clash of the those standards more than the clash of argument or evidence. they attack us -- but we attack their faith with questions first. i sit strangely between two camps. i have faith, but i reason as a scientist would. my personal journey of faith is based on questions. i need to think about it, analyze it, doubt it, and question it. i need opposition. and so does the board. we are in the steady process of homogenizign the board, culling the creationists because they don't play by our rules. and why should they? our standards are in effect rigged against them. from the beginning, they can't win. how do you level a playing field when we're playing two different games? i say let randman back, and relax on the creationists a bit. we need more of them, not less. otherwise there is no debate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MangyTiger Member (Idle past 6384 days) Posts: 989 From: Leicester, UK Joined: |
In my best Johm McEnroe impression:
YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS! The problem with randman is that we appear to have seen everything he's got. He doesn't have any real arguments that he can suppport, he's just:
I agree we need creationists to discuss with but I think randman is just all played out. However based on the recent track record of bannings permanent seems to mean a couple of months, so I don't doubt he'll be back before long. I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
I agree, randman should probably be let back in, but what do you mean about playing by different rules? If you mean the Forum Guidelines, then I can't compromise on those. They're kind of fundamental to constructive debate, and I don't see anything in them that is unfair to creationists. I'm prepared to resume temporary suspensions as a means of enforcement.
But if you instead mean just two ways of looking at the world then I agree, there seem to be two different world views involved.
how do you level a playing field when we're playing two different games? i say let randman back, and relax on the creationists a bit. we need more of them, not less. otherwise there is no debate. I agree, and that's why we loosened up some months back. But what we've found is that some people, when given too free a hand, just continue pushing the boundaries. It depends on who's here at the time. The board keeps changing enforcement procedures in reaction to the problems caused by who's currently active, and that feels like the right thing to do. In some ways we're hindered by the board's current feature set for moderation, but that will be improving soon. Unless there is some discussion that develops about it, I'll restore randman's posting privileges around 4 PM ET.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024