|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 10.0 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5531 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
All points well taken. You and Quetzal do make sense. I probably am to blame for a lot of what I am complaining about. Thank you for granting me access to the Showcase forum. I'll try to do better.
RADZ's remark (above) comes as a surprise to me. Frankly, I had a very vague idea of how these forums work. Percy, I think your EvC forum is tops, keen, and swell. Good work! ”Hoot Mon
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3976 Joined: |
AdminQuetzal writes: As to how Admins are chosen, it's mostly a concensus decision by other admins. Usually someone who has a long history of good, well-argued posts (from either side) is asked to participate. Sometimes virtually blackmailed into it (which was the case with me - ask Moose about it sometime). Beyond that, as far as I can tell, there's no special criteria except for a latent masochistic desire to be berated continuously for decisions people don't agree with. I have historically been the point-man for selecting new moderators. This is not to say I don't have input from the other admins. In general, IMO, I think that members exhibiting moderator like behaviour tend to get stuck with that official duty. In general, I look for calm personalities, although there may be exceptions to that rule. I don't recall the AdminQuetzal specifics, but I do know that I attempted to recruit him as an admin many years ago (before most of the current admins came to be). He had declined, but apparently it got to the point that he was finding the quality of admin-ship to be so bad that something had to be done. So he decided it was "put up or shut up" time, and volunteered to becoming an admin. Or something like that. Adminnemooseus Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Put an omitted "so" in that final paragraph.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3992 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.5 |
Adminnemooseus writes: He had declined, but apparently it got to the point that he was finding the quality of admin-ship to be bad that something had to be done. So he decided it was "put up or shut up" time, and volunteered to becoming an admin. Happy to have been of service.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5903 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
but I do know that I attempted to recruit him as an admin many years ago (before most of the current admins came to be). He had declined If my faulty and aging memory serves, you made at least three attempts over the years. Fortunately, up until recently I was still young and agile enough to dodge the tranq dart and capture net.
So he decided it was "put up or shut up" time, and volunteered to becoming an admin. Or something like that. Actually, my recollection was it was more along the lines of "Quit yer whinin' and complainin' and shut up, or grow some backbone and do something about it". Or words to that effect. Too old and slow to dodge, I guess.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
5. Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references. Can you show me a single instance where I have done this in either of those threads? How can you argue that I fail to support my arguments with references/links and at the same time that I post references/links without any associated argumentation? I can understand that you might consider some of the statements I have made as part of my argumentation to be bare assertions, though I would contend with that, but I really don't see what you think could have possibly infringed rule 5.
I feel as though I could get whacked with the red negative sign for simply asking these questions. Paranoid much? TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3322 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Admin writes:
Hang on, let me get this straight. So, if Adminmoose decides to rally support from the other admins, they could permanently ban you and take over the forum?
Regarding the power hierarchy, all moderators have equal power.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
Tazmanian Devil writes: Hang on, let me get this straight. So, if Adminmoose decides to rally support from the other admins, they could permanently ban you and take over the forum? Oh, sure, and this is something that actually happened to the owner of a once popular but now defunct site. His on-line name was Optional, and he died a few years ago. The story is fascinating, it's recorded somewhere on the net, maybe someone has a link. Optional regained control of his site by "running a script". Perhaps it was a MySQL script, which is the same database engine we use here. If insurrection were ever to be committed here, unlikely since I'm so beloved, I'd have no trouble reentering the board since we're not using commercial bulletin board software. I wrote the software myself, I'm intimately familiar with the database structure since I designed it, and I'd have no trouble logging onto the server and restoring my permissions in the database while at the same time changing the aliases of the plotters to names like "Doofus" and "Dunce". So you guys plotting in the back room there, give it up, it won't work! AbE: Here's a couple threads I found about the troubles at CreationWeb:
Edited by Admin, : Added information.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3942 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
Other people have weighed in on the issue of the Showcase forum including myself. I have even expressed the opinion that randman should be permanently banned. I still don't disagree with Faith's ban.
Last week though randman did demonstrate I think that he is at least capable of civilized discussion and I have to say it was one of more enjoyable discussions I have had here. I think the problem with the showcase is that because it is unmoderated, it is only empowering the behavior that got them there in the first place. I think now that randman is perfectly capable of civilized debate. It may be only in certain circumstances and it may be only on certain topics but it is possible. Now that he is restriced even further, even from continuing in the thread where he did prove to be civil, I don't know how the situation is ever going to get better. Could I suggest that he be allowed into the GD thread for certain well focused topics? I think maybe his participants should be chosen carefully as well. I don't think the combination of randman and crashfrog mix very well for example. The difference here is that the GD threads ARE moderated. How can randman ever prove that he is amiable to moderation if he is never again put into a situation where he would be moderated. If not that, would it not just make more sense to ban him. Really what is the difference between randman and Faith other than that randman does actually show glimmers of rationality on topics that are not his pet peeves (Haeckel, etc)? In my mind, people are either valueable to this forum or not. Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
I think the great debate might be a better forum for Randman to show that he is capable of constructive discussion than the Showcase is.
TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
I have no objection to Randman's participation in a GD.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5531 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
WK wrote: Can you show me a single instance where I have done this in either of those threads? How can you argue that I fail to support my arguments with references/links and at the same time that I post references/links without any associated argumentation? I can understand that you might consider some of the statements I have made as part of my argumentation to be bare assertions, though I would contend with that, but I really don't see what you think could have possibly infringed rule 5. How can you issue such self-contradictiory remarks? Check out your message 61 of the "Random mutations shot down on this site" (Biological Evolutin forum):
HM wrote:
Eh? That isn't how it works. You make a contentious claim about what the paper meant and I asked you to substantiate it, the relevant literature to support my position is the same paper because what we are disagreeing on is what that paper says. You say it says something about drift causing speciation and I say that it doesn't except in as much as it estimates a time of divergence for the two species. And, btw, why haven't YOU posted some relevant literature to defend your position on drift v. selection? Paranoid much?
Isn't it time for you to change your woad underwear? ”Hoot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
Not only do you still apparently think you were right about the paper you have already admitted you were wrong about but now you seem to have reading comprehension problems with one of the forum guidelines.
Rule 5 is about not using bare links. I did not use any bare links, therefore I did not infringe rule 5. When it talks about using links it is to contrast it to bare links, not to say you need a link for anything you say. Rule 4 is the one about supporting your arguments with references rather than making bare assertions.
That's one time where I asked you for references in support of your argument concerning selection vs. drift. I never got them. Because I wasn't putting forward an argument concerning selection vs. drift!!! I was putting forward an argument that you were talking nonsense when you said the Smith & Eyre-walker paper was talking about Drift vs Selection as causes of speciation. Since you have already agreed you were wrong on this why are you still pretending that that wasn't what the argument was about? My reference is the same as yours because I read the paper and understood it and you apparently read the paper picked the numbers you liked out of it and made up your own version of what they actually represented. Or alternatively, as you said to Quetzal, you just got confused between the concepts of microevolution and speciation but then decided that you would continue trying to pretend you were right in your very next post. Perhaps when you have just admitted to such a substantial error it might be better to go back and look over the thread to see if maybe you propagated the same error in other areas rather than just forgetting about it in the next breath.
Isn't it time for you to change your woad underwear? That's the great thing about woad, and kilts, you don't need any underwear. TTFN, WK Edited by Wounded King, : b'cos i Cannt spel
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
Hi Hoot Mon,
It would help if you would provide links to posts rather than just thread names and numbers. The issue you raise is from your Message 61:
Hoot Mon writes: How can you issue such self-contradictiory remarks? Check out your message 61 of the "Random mutations shot down on this site" (Biological Evolutin forum):
Wounded King writes: Hoot Mon writes: And, btw, why haven't YOU posted some relevant literature to defend your position on drift v. selection? Eh? That isn't how it works. You make a contentious claim about what the paper meant and I asked you to substantiate it, the relevant literature to support my position is the same paper because what we are disagreeing on is what that paper says. You say it says something about drift causing speciation and I say that it doesn't except in as much as it estimates a time of divergence for the two species. That's one time where I asked you for references in support of your argument concerning selection vs. drift. I never got them. I did however get a lot of OPINIONS from you... Requesting references makes no sense in this case because the point under contention was whether you were misinterpreting the paper, and you later conceded that you had misinterpreted the paper, so even just raising this issue also makes no sense. You made so many errors and committed so many miscues in that thread then I can't imagine why you would even want to bring it up again. In that thread you declared that that paper said that drift was a significant component of speciation when it said no such thing. You confused speciation and microevolution. In your very first post you were already engaged in ad hominems, and you kept it up with a steady stream of "Time for you to head on down to the library" and "Such tripe!" and "You're lame" and so forth. When Wounded King cited information from the article that he could not possibly have had unless he had a copy of the article before him, you responded very weirdly in your Message 44 by telling him to bother fetching the article. When people pointed out your errors you dismissed it as ankle biting, and in Message 59 you engaged in a significant bit of dissembling by trying to pretend you'd actually been arguing for some other point than your original point about the paper providing evidence of drift-caused speciation. Your performance in that thread was extremely poor both from a scientific and a debate standpoint. This all was already readily apparent, so unless you have new information or a new angle I don't think this is worth any more moderator time or attention. Edited by Admin, : Fix message link.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5531 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Your performance in that thread was extremely poor both from a scientific and a debate standpoint.
After reviewing that thread agian I find no serious basis for your opinion. My confusion about microevolution, macroevolution, and speciation is no greater than others here”even Harvard's Wilson and Mayr disagreed on the definitions of these terms. It is obvious to me now that many contributers here on EvC must either suck up to admin opinionation or leave. ”Hoot Mon Edited by Hoot Mon, : Lingering disappointment with EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nighttrain Member (Idle past 4024 days) Posts: 1512 From: brisbane,australia Joined: |
Dammit, Percy, we seem to have more suspensions than Judge Roy Bean. Was it as bad as this in the past? I notice a lot of the old-timers are getting less tolerant, and who could blame them for having to explain misconceptions for the umteenth time. Or is it cyclic?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024