General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures (aka 'The Whine List')

Hi, AdminModulous. Thanks for weighing in. Your analogy doesn't fit, for several reasons.First off, Adminnemooseous has been going at several trollish members like Jar, Hooah, et al, Hooah being the worst. At least Jar contributes significantly along with his trolling, but hardly ever so with Hooah. He's been get a pass for a long time as a troll. Adminnemooseous was spot on regarding his action in suspending the classic site troll.So far as the manner in which he issued the suspension, that's the sort of shit Hooah has been flinging around ever since he came to the proverbial troll bridge under which he resides.The classic troll, as I cited via link, pertaining to forums, is to restrict the forward movement of the topic at hand. I know, because I always get the blame by Admin for dragging out the lengthy threads in which I participate, when in fact, it's five or six trollish participants who restrict the forward movement of these lengthy threads, dragging them on and on.Dr. Jones, not unlike Hooah, is the 2nd most trollish member. Rarely does he post anything edifying and not unlike Hooah, he does it consistently in a meanspirited nasty manner using expletives.There's three or four members who do post some more edifying and challenging messages, but in so doing, instead of going ahead and submitting in a good-spirited manner, type in their meanspirited trollish comments.When it looks like I can simply slap a jeer on them, click the acknowledge button, I do so. However all to often Admin or another moderator will admonish me for failing to respond etc. If not, more often the trollish member who expected a response will go at me for running off, etc.For example in the Exodus threads and elsewhere, Jar, every few messages would simply copy and paste what has been addressed but not to his satisfaction a number of times adnausium, trollishly preventing or slowing the forward movement of the tread. When all's said and done it's Buzsaw that is charged with dragging out lengthy threads.I've said the above to say that Adminnemooseous was unduly suspended by you for needful action.Another thing, AdminModulous, When I was in boot camp in the USAF back in the 1950's at Lackland AFB, Texas, I got mustered in. The first thing the T.I. did before we got our uniforms issued was to line our unit up and looked us over. He was observing our countenances, perhaps, so as to pick out some that appeared defiant. One of first he nosed up to was a feisty whippersnapper who challenged the T.I for a fight. The T.I looked paused a bit and said something like, "O.K. come on, but let me first warn you that I have the whole Air Force backing me and you stand alone. Furthermore, the Sargent isn't always right but he's always the Sargent" etc. Suffice to say that ended that. The young whippersnapper fell in line and eventually became one of best.Likewise, Adminnemooseous is/was one of out two chief Admins, 2nd to Admin. (I forgot the terminology) You et al are down the chain of command as Admin moderators. Imo, did what a military corporal who stood up to a captain would have done. Perhaps the captain erred on some matter, but nevertheless, he's still the captain.I was in the hanger office, sitting at my typewriter when it malfunctioned. I was trained a jet mechanic, but a clerk typeist was needed in the hanger office so I got the job. Being mechanically minded i dismantled my machine so as to find and fix the problem. Well, the captain happened to walk in and noticed that I had the machine spread out on the desk.The captain asked me if I was a typewriter mechanic. Impulsively, I responded by something like, " No sir, but I'm not officially a clerk typist either. It so happened that I had been nominated as airman of the month for our squadron. A tech Sargent who headed the hanger office, a few minutes later and informed me that I had highly ticked the captain and was no longer nominated as AOM.Perhaps if any action should have been taken pertaining to Adminnemooseous, Admin would have been the one to do it.He said nothing and walked out. After a bit the office tech Sargent was needed

That doesn't surprise me, Crashfrog. Perhaps if Adminemooseous's actions, over the years, had not been as fair and blanced, you'd not see it as you do here.

After I posted my last message I got thinking about my own first ever first suspension, other than one other years ago.I had posted a spot on topic message. It was responded to with one or two liner trollish messages, to which I submitted a short response.Lo and behold, to my surprise I see I had been suspended by AdminPD for being off topic and preventing forward movement of the thread.Imo, that was another judgement made by a good moderator who, perhaps, had acted too impulsively.

So how would define a debate forum troll? Does Hooah fit that description?

LoL, Paul. You've never been at the receiving end of Hooah's meanspirited trollish messages, most of which equal or pass what Moose posted.Adminnemooseous has been quite lenient with Hooah. The lengthy suspension, like when he suspended Jar a while back was not because of a single message. It was the ongoing trollish nature of their MO that served to deserve the belated action of a moderator.These lengthy suspensions occur regularly with creationists. When have I ever aired complaints on any of them? How about you citing otherwise to support your allegations?

I see now why you defended our Hooah troll. What your lengthy biased explanation ( hardly a definition} better describes debating because, as you know, in debate boards people judge debaters on how correct [i]they think the other is[i]. Others would not agree and debate otherwise. It's called debating, whether one's paradigm is correct or not. It could be judged by trolling, but you know how that goes as to where debating leaves off. .Thats where bias is rife in most boards.A more concise definition of a debate forum troll is as I cited from the link. The term originated in Norway in a folk tale where the troll prevented the movement across the bridge. He would jump out from under it and demand a toll before crossing. He contributed nothing in the process.In debate forums, it could be members on either side of the isle Here at EvC, we have a few who post their nasty little one or two one liners or repetitively demand what has already addressed, complaining if they don't get a response.I am doing a little study on how many trollish messages my Cavediver science thread garnered per page. Perhaps I'll do a thread on it. We can seriously study what trolls are, who they are and how frequently they stall movement of that lengthy thread. We can see which side of the isle does the most of this.I could do the same with the last Exodus thread where I get blamed by Admin and some of the trolls themselves for it's length etc.AdminModulous, imo, this is why you suspended Adminnemooseous who saw Hooah as a troll. Imo, if the moderators would recognize trolls for what the are and do, the long dragged out threads would be more concise, interesting and objective.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The bonafide trolls see Buzsaw as the troll. You and the trolls see me as the perpetrator of undue lengthy creationists threads such as the Exodus threads, the Cavediver et al thread, etc. I get blamed for their trollish posts which accounts for a lot of the thread bandwidth.Adminnemooseous would have seen it differently than AdminPd did. He knew and attempted to diminish the activity of the real trolls.Admin PD saw me as the troll when she suspended me. It was my on topic message, responded by two trollish ones which got me suspended.When I finish my study on this I'll air the results.

Edited by AdminModulous, : offtopic content hidden, AdminModulous

Admin himself, singling me out, supportive of the skeptics and trolls, requiring more evidence than he was satisfied with, as well, which required many responses from me, all aiding and abetted my debate counterparts and slowing forward debate movement.I had my plate full, one on a pack of educated science members, hindered by the coddled trolls and backed by Admin for 30 plus pages in the last Exodus debate. Edited by AdminModulous, : hidden off topic content. AdminModulousEdited by AdminModulous, : error with my hide tags corrected

AE can't be all that bad. He remains in most of the science forums. Buzsaw banned for months now.

First off, Cavediver, you are truly missed here. Though I don't agree with a lot, you have taught me a lot about science, relative to how and why evolutionists believe what they believe.You have helped me get things right, pertaining to mainline science, so as not to get it wrong in the debates. That's not saying I don't mess up on occasions.As for Hooah, I applaud Adminnemooseous's action. Hooah, over the years, by and large, has posted more trollish stuff than edifying substance. He's too often there cluttering up threads with yada, sometimes in an offensive manner. It's not good for the site. It's like debris lying around in public places.Moose, once tried to tone down a lot of this sort of nonsense coming from Jar, from whom I still get repetitive little one liners demanding evidence for the same oles when he knows in his own mind that he's lying.Moose got heck from about everyone and Admin let him off, so Jar is still the same ole.Adminemooseus get's a lot of unwarranted criticism but all and all, he's done a lot to maintain EvC's quality.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The problem is that Hooah came from off the edge.Moose has to do what Moose should do for the good of the board, regardless of how popular that makes him.

Interesting it is that EvC's only ardent lifetime daily student of the Bible is still banned, after months of banning from the most pertinent Biblical threads such as Jar's prophecy thread, falsely claming that no Jesus prophecies have ever been fulfilled. Fulfilled prophecy has always been my fort'e in my Biblical studies.Admin has posted that in order for me to get re-instated in the Science forum I must do a thread on the nature of evidence. This I have done. So why am I still banned from Science??

So I, the only ongoing EvC creationist, must agree with my debate counterparts about evidence, who most always take the opposite stance on evidence as Biblical creationists? Why must we agree with our secularist counterparts on evidence? Don't you think that is too much for you ask of me, when narry a one of you has ever addmitted to even one of my scorees of posted evidences in the threads?This is the kind of stuff that keeps creationists away for your cite. Most brouse the cite before deciding whether to come. All they need do is log in and see how you treat the few of us that remain. The say, "not more me" and move on.

The reason remains that I'm not allowed in science, that I kick too much evo butt in them. Admin always sees to it that any effective threat to his own must be run off, no matter what it takes.There's enough for me in the non-science threads for the limited time I have to debate here. I gave it a shot, but as usual, no soap. Enough on this matter. I'm top busy too waste my time here. Edited by Buzsaw, : spelling