In case there's any confusion I'll repeat my position.
Because inappropriate images can be a problem for members when they visit the site while at work (or even while the significant other is in the room - "You're visiting one of *those* sites again?"), and because such content could cause the site to become blocked on company intranets (companies don't make these lists themselves, they subscribe to a service, so if a website gets on one of these lists the impact could be significant), I think moderators should always hide such images.
Percy, I just read back through this discussion and peeked at the image in question (looks like my little sister, actually), and there's something I wonder about.
In the past, I had image links removed by a moderator due to two concerns: copyright issues and the questionable courtesy of cramping another site's bandwidth. As I recall, the standard suggested to me (by jar and Moose) was that all image links should be to an image repository of my own.
It seems to me that HAWG's image link should be removed on those grounds alone: it doesn't pass the tests above, so questions of censorship, etc., don't really get a chance to apply.
Maybe his link could be translated into text--"naked lady with finger"--or something equally relevant to our debate.
I think it is necessary, now, that we discuss the nature of an administrator, as I've come to be enlightened that perhaps the position of administrator is not precisely what I had previously thought it to be.
In chat, Phat said to me:
quote: I can Admin when and where I choose
This came as somewhat of a shock, to me, because I was under the impression that the role of an admin was not to hand out warnings and disciplines only when they felt like it, but to discipline people who were out of line—whether they felt like dishing out that discipline or not. I guess his words kind of struck me as if a police officer said "I can protect and serve when and where I choose," as if upholding the law was only part of their duty when they felt like it, and at other times they could turn a blind eye if they thought it would be too much work. (I know, most police officers do do this, but I'm still sure it's not very moral of them).
This whole thing was brought about when we began to discuss the behaviour of NJ in Divinity of Jesus. It seemed that NJ swaying off-topic was against forum guidelines, and his misrepresentation of his opponents position was immoral, in my opinion. I asked Phat why he had not done anything about it, though it had been pointed out to him earlier that day, and he replied:
quote:Phat Nem, while not entireley honest, did make some good posts that challenged Jars whole modus operendi
To which I replied:
quote:Jon show me the good points he made
Phat originally refused to present the points he felt NJ had made which were good and relevant, but I persisted that he tell me to prove that he was not just playing favourites with the other creationists. He presented these:
You claim the person is perennially off topic so that you can gain control of the conversation and direct it where you want it to go.
Use the words and phrases "palm the pea," "irrelevant," "bullshit," "strawman," as a way for you to palm the pea withirrelevant bullshit. In other words, its a strawman.
You then answer questions with questions, which is no answer at all, or you refuse to answer and pretend the question was never asked.
quote:Jon all of those things have nothing to do with the thread that is just NJ barking at jar any points that NJ made that you think successfully refuted jar's?
quote:Phat not really
In other words, Phat admitted knowing that NJ had made posts for the purpose of barking at jar (immoral), and that those posts had nothing of content which addressed his opponent's (jar's) position (against forum guidelines). Given that we were now able to agree on the matter of these two things and that these two things were clearly what they were, I said:
quote:Jon good then he should've been disciplined
Then Phat says:
quote:Phat NJ at least puts up a good argument
Which shocked me, since he had just admitted only several lines up that NJ had made no points that he thought successfully refuted jar's. I asked him, then, how a pointless argument could be a good argument, to which he responded:
quote:Phat well I stay out of such debates
I inquired, then further, and told Phat that I thought the purpose of an admin was to discipline irregardless of preference, to which Phat replied:
quote:Phat I can Admin when and where I choose
…which brought me to my current state of wondering just what an admin is and what an admin does and is supposed to do. Phat did not want to discuss the topic any more, and so told me to bring it to the Moderation thread, and told me that he did not care if I pasted parts from our chat. And, so, here I am, in the Moderation thread, asking all the good folks here what their opinion is on the duties, responsibilities, and/or privileges of being an admin. Is it solely a position of responsibility? Is it solely a position of privilege? Or, is it somewhere in between?
P.S. I'd like to add that this thread is in no way directed at Phat or any other moderator in particular. It is merely an inquiry to help me gain understanding. I included the quotes from our chat in order that the readers might be able to better follow my train of thought and perhaps understand what I am asking better.
In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist... might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. - Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
En el mundo hay multitud de idiomas, y cada uno tiene su propio significado. - I Corintios 14:10 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
A devout people with its back to the wall can be pushed deeper and deeper into hardening religious nativism, in the end even preferring national suicide to religious compromise. - Colin Wells Sailing from Byzantium
Your response to Taz was the same. You don't explain what you consider to be "crap" about the links. If the link doesn't work for someone, your post has no substance. People shouldn't have to go to the link to understand your position on the subject.
I'm asking you to try to make your own arguments, with links for support; instead of cut and pastes or just links with your comments of agreement or challenge.
Stretch yourself. The rules ask that arguments be made in your own words.
And, so, here I am, in the Moderation thread, asking all the good folks here what their opinion is on the duties, responsibilities, and/or privileges of being an admin. Is it solely a position of responsibility? Is it solely a position of privilege? Or, is it somewhere in between?
Discretionary powers. There's quite a bit of adminning behind the scenes with regards to spammers and serial re-registering trolls and the like, but moderating on the boards, Percy put it best in Message 36.
I wouldn't say it particularly privileged, there aren't many bonuses to being a moderator here. Checks and balances here are fairly good. If a moderator acts, they may well be criticised vociferously for it. I see no balancing factor to make it a privileged role. The sole privilege is in knowing that sometimes I have the opportunity to serve the community I am a member of.
It is a position of responsibility, but it is not a position of obligation. Of course, if you don't actually do anything, or are disruptive you may lose your 'privileges'.
I included the quotes from our chat in order that the readers might be able to better follow my train of thought and perhaps understand what I am asking better.
Well let the record stand that I felt it unnecessary of me to discipline Nemesis in any way at that particular time. The job of a moderator is to call it as they see it. I realize that folks stray from the Forum Guidelines at certain parts of their debates, but an over moderated thread is no more fun to read (with a stop sign every few posts) than an under moderated one.
Jon, your detailed and obsessively documented protest is duly noted. ;)
Add By Edit: Personally, I rather enjoy reading Jars debate with Nemesis. Jar defends himself quite well and dishes it back as well! Some arguments are more entertaining left alone.
I'm not really sure what Phat was trying to convey in your chat dialog, but it sounds to me like there was a miscommunication/misunderstanding. Board administration here is an entirely voluntary endeavor. Usually mods are selected based on nomination by another moderator, then the name is raised on the flagpole in the PAF looking for "seconds" and/or "hell no's". The individual is then contacted by either Percy or The Moose and asked if they are willing to serve. Often, they are turned down - it's not often a lot of fun to be second-guessed by every poster on the board.
As for the actual moderation, there are some fairly clear guidelines - but every moderator action is in essence a judgement call. As to what threads get attention, many of us tend to concentrate on threads concerning subjects in which we have interest. For instance, I almost NEVER even read (let alone moderate) any of the Bible threads. I simply don't have the expertise or interest to follow 100 posts of biblical verses and exegesis. The really active mods (like Purple, for instance - long may she wave) do much better at managing multiple threads. Since moderating here is voluntary work and fora are not assigned to particular moderators, sometimes the moderating is uneven unless someone brings a problem to moderator attention. In addition, some individual posters have shown they require constant moderator attention - and ultimately those posters are usually the ones that get suspensions. Finally, given the voluntary nature of moderation on this board, individual judgement is paramount (within the rather loose guidelines provided by Percy). This seems to work pretty well. There is a certain courtesy amongst admins not (in most cases) to try and second-guess each other, although there is often a great deal of discussion in the PAF. What may be an egregious violation of topic or civility to one, may not seem so bad to another. All-in-all the system seems to work pretty well. I think that's what Phat was trying to convey.
As far as prestige goes, consider this: what "prestige" could possibly accrue to an unpaid, voluntary position that only serves as a focus for everybody's wrath?
But, given what I read in yesterday's interaction between jar and Nem, I think they both could use a stronger reminder to refrain from the personal and stick to the topic.
I often have to wonder if the Admin staff here at EvC has a clue what a personal attack is. From the behavior of many members of the Admin staff it is not clear they do.
For example, pointing out posts that are off topic, pointing out attempts to misdirect the readers attention in the hope that the reader does not notice the subject change or irrelevant argument are not attacks on the person but rather comments on the actual message.
We do see personal attacks though here at EvC. For example calling someone a moron as opposed to saying a post was moronic would, IMHO be considered a personal attack. Implying that someone should be shot would, IMHO be considered a personal attack. Calling someone a freak would, IMHO be considered a personal attack.
Now whether or not any action should be taken in each case again in my humble opinion, should depend on the position of the person making the attack.
If the person making such an attack is from the group commonly referred to here at EvC as "An Evolutionist", then I believe sanctions would be in order.
However, if the person making the attack is what is commonly referred to here at EvC as a "Biblical Christian" or "Creationist", can we with honor or reason sanction them? Are "Biblical Christians" or "Creationists" capable of civilized behavior, of making an argument based on the messages as opposed to the messenger, of even reading a message and understanding its content?