Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   General discussion of moderation procedures - Part οκτώ
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 181 of 302 (362974)
11-09-2006 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by Buzsaw
11-09-2006 7:11 PM


Re: Is there where this goes?
I don't know. He hasn't been back to the "Knowing God" thread either.
He has been in the chat room lately. Maybe you can catch him there and see if he really wants to get serious about learning.
Take care
PD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Buzsaw, posted 11-09-2006 7:11 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by Buzsaw, posted 11-10-2006 9:01 AM AdminPD has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 182 of 302 (363027)
11-10-2006 5:44 AM


OT posts made invisible
I just want to put a word in that I do like the idea of making run on OT posts invisible. AdminMod used this in the Coffee House and that's a nice way of "weeding" a thread.
Earlier I think someone had mentioned the possibility of collapsing OT posts (by vote or something) so that only the relevant posts appear with a personal option to see all of them.
That might also be a nice option.

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by Taz, posted 11-10-2006 12:42 PM Silent H has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 183 of 302 (363039)
11-10-2006 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by AdminPD
11-09-2006 8:43 PM


Re: Is there where this goes?
Thanks AdminPD. I'll wait to see how serious he is about talking. I'm not a fast thinker and not comfortable with chat where you don't have much time to think before speaking.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by AdminPD, posted 11-09-2006 8:43 PM AdminPD has not replied

Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 184 of 302 (363066)
11-10-2006 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by Silent H
11-10-2006 5:44 AM


Re: OT posts made invisible
"the possibility of collapsing OT posts (by vote or something) so that only the relevant posts appear with a personal option to see all of them" = more work.
I think Percy said somewhere before that he who proposes implements.

Place yourself on the map at http://www.frappr.com/evc
The thread about this map can be found here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Silent H, posted 11-10-2006 5:44 AM Silent H has not replied

Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 185 of 302 (363072)
11-10-2006 1:05 PM


Adminjar writes:
Yet another incarnation of foxjoe, jazzjoe, etc.
I'm just curious. It has become apparent that some people, whether they're spammers or just trolls, continue to come back with new usernames. Is there a reason why you guys don't IP ban?

Place yourself on the map at http://www.frappr.com/evc
The thread about this map can be found here.

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by AdminJar, posted 11-10-2006 1:11 PM Taz has not replied

AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 186 of 302 (363076)
11-10-2006 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by Taz
11-10-2006 1:05 PM


Is there a reason why you guys don't IP ban?
In some cases we do. However most ips are dynamically assigned anyway. Even if they are static, the kid can just register from a friends or at work or at school which will show as a different ip.
We try to be fair to the majority. And usually we catch folk pretty quickly using other methods. It does not seem to be fair to ban a dynamic ip that might actually be yours after the next lease.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Taz, posted 11-10-2006 1:05 PM Taz has not replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 187 of 302 (365051)
11-20-2006 11:13 PM


Request for moderator review
I am requesting a review of the dialog between Percy and me in No Big Bang--Just gentle whisper. The dialogue begins at Message 34 and continues to at least Message 89.
The reason for the review is to determine whether Percy has violated rule 10.
Edited by nwr, : include link to rules

Just say no to McCain 2008; he abandoned principle when he caved on habeus corpus

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Adminnemooseus, posted 11-21-2006 12:11 AM nwr has seen this message but not replied
 Message 189 by AdminOmni, posted 11-21-2006 12:13 AM nwr has replied
 Message 192 by AdminBuzsaw, posted 11-21-2006 1:15 AM nwr has seen this message but not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 188 of 302 (365053)
11-21-2006 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by nwr
11-20-2006 11:13 PM


Re: Request for moderator review
The reason for the review is to determine whether Percy has violated rule 10.
Well, maybe, but if so, it's subtle and difficult for my limited analytical abilities. Now, AdminPD could probably properly analyze the situation.
rule 10 writes:
Always treat other members with respect. Argue the position, not the person. Avoid abusive, harassing and invasive behavior. Avoid needling, hectoring and goading tactics.
Discussion of what is the nature of the big bang ("the position") sure does seem to be pretty scarce. Therefore, it would seem to be at least some basis for your complaint. But is the rule violation going both directions?
(The feeble minded) Adminnemooseus
Adminnemooseus
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Change ID to admin mode.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by nwr, posted 11-20-2006 11:13 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

AdminOmni
Inactive Member


Message 189 of 302 (365054)
11-21-2006 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by nwr
11-20-2006 11:13 PM


Re: Request for moderator review
NWR, I'm not sure which rule Rule 10 is--from the main page, I find a link to a Forum Rule #10 that applies to cut-and-paste jobs.
No matter.
If what you are asking is whether or not Percy's posts and replies to you in this thread have been unnecessarily offensive, insulting, and condescending, then my answer is, simply, yes.
Percy seems to feel that this was necessitated by a concern for the appearance of integrity. I don't understand why offensive and insulting behavior constitutes integrity merely because it is imposed on friend and foe alike, but there you are.
I'm not going to engage in the absurdity of cautioning or sanctioning the owner of the site, but my own notions of integrity won't let me sit silently by, either.
I think your indignant refusal to carry on any further in that thread was more than justified, and I offer you my sympathy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by nwr, posted 11-20-2006 11:13 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by nwr, posted 11-21-2006 12:40 AM AdminOmni has not replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 190 of 302 (365055)
11-21-2006 12:40 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by AdminOmni
11-21-2006 12:13 AM


Re: Request for moderator review
Thanks. Much appreciated.
Sorry about the confusion over rules. I should have included a link (done now with editing). On the top of most forum pages, there is a line of links "Profile | FAQ | Rules | ...". The rules are listed in a different order on the front page link.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by AdminOmni, posted 11-21-2006 12:13 AM AdminOmni has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by Phat, posted 11-21-2006 12:47 AM nwr has seen this message but not replied

Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 191 of 302 (365056)
11-21-2006 12:47 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by nwr
11-21-2006 12:40 AM


Re: Request for moderator review
In my opinion, Percy was staging a debate for the benefit of showing proper form to creationists (as to what not to say)
As for personal attacks, both of you got rather into it.
I would forget about it and move on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by nwr, posted 11-21-2006 12:40 AM nwr has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by Adminnemooseus, posted 11-21-2006 3:48 AM Phat has not replied

AdminBuzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 192 of 302 (365057)
11-21-2006 1:15 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by nwr
11-20-2006 11:13 PM


Re: Request for moderator review
I have just finished reading nearly all of the thread. I see this bully pulpit arrogance being put upon you with a typical pattern of ever increasing personal attacks either repeatedly insinuated or outright spoken. All one needs do is compare Percy's conduct with Son Goku and Cavediver's where they presented their views in a congenial manner void of the personal attacks.
Percy seems to have this attitude that anyone who dares question mainline thinking in science is out of order and he's not going to stand for it. He owns this site and how dare you question what he sees as truth.
I'm sorry you needed to be the brunt of this kind of treatment, but in a way I think this has surfaced a festering problem here at EvC which has made it so unbalanced in the science forums.
Percy, I don't like saying this about you but NWR asked for a review and as one of the moderators I'm saying it like I see it. I do believe you are often in violation of your own Forum Guidelines #10 and this is a classic example.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by nwr, posted 11-20-2006 11:13 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by crashfrog, posted 11-21-2006 11:02 AM AdminBuzsaw has replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 193 of 302 (365073)
11-21-2006 3:48 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by Phat
11-21-2006 12:47 AM


Re: Request for moderator review - Percy suspended for 24 hours
In my opinion, Percy was staging a debate for the benefit of showing proper form to creationists (as to what not to say)
I strongly suspect you are correct. Percy is putting on a show of bad debate form. I wonder how much of it was pre-orchestrated with NWR?
Anyhow, I'll wrap of the afair by giving Percy a 24 hour suspension.
Adminnemooseus

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, [thread=-19,-112], [thread=-17,-45], [thread=-19,-337], [thread=-14,-1073]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Phat, posted 11-21-2006 12:47 AM Phat has not replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 194 of 302 (365094)
11-21-2006 7:27 AM


Showcase Percy, you know it makes sense.
Think it is about time that Percy was Showcased since he is demonstrating the same type of behaviour as our resident nutball creationists.
The guy is unstable, never listens to advice either. The last piece of advice I gave him he ignored and it resulted in the disappearance of 2 mods and three members!
Lock him up!
Brian.

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 195 of 302 (365129)
11-21-2006 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 192 by AdminBuzsaw
11-21-2006 1:15 AM


Re: Request for moderator review
Before we martyr NWR can we all be very clear on the sort of thing Percy was replying to?
If my private reason for not accepting BB is that I don't like the color of your avatar, that would be reason enough. I don't need to provide a public justification for my private decision. You have no right whatsoever to tell me what to think or how to think. You say "you're as qualified to have an opinion about the Big Bang as many creationists are to have an opinion about evolution". Sure. And I am as qualified to have an opinion about BB as you are to have an opinion about what color socks to wear in the morning. I am fully qualified to have an opinion, because it is my opinion. I am qualified to have a private opinion because all humans are qualified to have private opinions.
If somebody showed up in front of me and defended, vociferously, their right to object to the conclusions of science - to devalue the life's-work of scientists - on the most spurious grounds, or no grounds whatsoever, I would describe that person as "ignorant", too. "Irrational" would also be an apt description.
For all that NWR complains about his right to state publically his "private" opinion, he seems to have a right old pity party when Percy makes plain his private opinion that NWR is employing no more intellectual rigor than a creationist.
And I agree. Sorry that NWR finds that so outrageous, but he opened the door when he asserted a right to think whatever he wants and state whatever he wants about his thinking but remain insulated from criticism of those ideas. If NWR has a right to reject science because he doesn't like a certain color, then Percy has a right to hold an opinion about NWR.
And I think it's wrong that Percy should suffer repercussions when it's been NWR that has been debating in bad faith all along. Taking a position and then demanding that it be elevated beyond all criticism is the very definition of a debate in bad faith.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by AdminBuzsaw, posted 11-21-2006 1:15 AM AdminBuzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by AdminOmni, posted 11-21-2006 12:04 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 197 by AdminModulous, posted 11-21-2006 1:14 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 199 by AdminBuzsaw, posted 11-21-2006 7:57 PM crashfrog has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024