Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 90 (8876 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-15-2018 12:22 AM
209 online now:
AZPaul3, ICANT, Tanypteryx (3 members, 206 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Bill Holbert
Post Volume:
Total: 844,102 Year: 18,925/29,783 Month: 870/2,043 Week: 422/386 Day: 0/79 Hour: 0/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1516
17
18192021Next
Author Topic:   General discussion of moderation procedures
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 241 of 304 (208779)
05-16-2005 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by Silent H
05-16-2005 6:17 PM


Re: question on reporting abuses
What would be an example of abuse, Holmes? I was just wondering since I never experienced anything like that.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by Silent H, posted 05-16-2005 6:17 PM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by CK, posted 05-16-2005 6:42 PM robinrohan has responded
 Message 246 by Silent H, posted 05-17-2005 4:35 AM robinrohan has not yet responded

CK
Member (Idle past 2107 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 242 of 304 (208783)
05-16-2005 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by robinrohan
05-16-2005 6:35 PM


Re: question on reporting abuses
You are an idiot - have you considered how stupid and vapid that question is? ;)

(althought I suspect that holmes has something else in mind...)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by robinrohan, posted 05-16-2005 6:35 PM robinrohan has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by robinrohan, posted 05-16-2005 6:46 PM CK has not yet responded

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 243 of 304 (208784)
05-16-2005 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by CK
05-16-2005 6:42 PM


Re: question on reporting abuses
What if somebody says my argument is idiocy? Would you call that abuse, you son of a bitch (smily face here)?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by CK, posted 05-16-2005 6:42 PM CK has not yet responded

AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 244 of 304 (208786)
05-16-2005 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by Silent H
05-16-2005 6:17 PM


Re: question on reporting abuses
That's a suggestion that we have been discussing for some time now. There are several problems involved that quite frankly, we haven't found an answer for. For example, we have several members who cry foul every time someone disagrees with them, a few that are constantly impugning the motives of other posters and some that simply will not follow the rules nohow.

But we are talking about these issues and trying to come up with something that might help. We just don't have any good ideas yet.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by Silent H, posted 05-16-2005 6:17 PM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by Tony650, posted 05-16-2005 9:23 PM AdminJar has not yet responded
 Message 247 by Silent H, posted 05-17-2005 4:45 AM AdminJar has not yet responded
 Message 248 by wj, posted 05-17-2005 7:00 AM AdminJar has not yet responded

Tony650
Member (Idle past 2011 days)
Posts: 450
From: Australia
Joined: 01-30-2004


Message 245 of 304 (208838)
05-16-2005 9:23 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by AdminJar
05-16-2005 6:51 PM


Re: question on reporting abuses
This seems kind of obvious so you've probably already considered it, but what about simply limiting the number of times members can use the function in a given period? Those who would otherwise abuse the system might be more inclined to temper its use if they know they only have so many anonymous complaints available.

And if they don't, then they've effectively wasted them and have to go back to complaining the old-fashioned way until their "quota" is restocked at the start of the next "period" (whatever that is deemed to be). Maybe this will encourage them to be more sparing with the function and only report legitimate complaints. And I suppose repeat offenders could always be locked out ("suspended"?) from its use, couldn't they?

Eh... Like I said, I'm sure you've already considered this. It seemed like a good idea at the time, but now that I've written it down and re-read it I'm not so sure.:laugh:

Well, it's just a thought. Perhaps it'll be useful.:)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by AdminJar, posted 05-16-2005 6:51 PM AdminJar has not yet responded

Silent H
Member (Idle past 3799 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 246 of 304 (208949)
05-17-2005 4:35 AM
Reply to: Message 241 by robinrohan
05-16-2005 6:35 PM


Re: question on reporting abuses
What would be an example of abuse, Holmes? I was just wondering since I never experienced anything like that.

There have been cases, though I think that was a while back, of a poster "stalking" another poster, and essentially following the other across forums to do nothing but heckle them.

More common, are people that continually break guidelines (most esp. #4), and so make posting a waste of time as well as thoroughly unenjoyable. I think we could raise the bar a bit and expect that posters do not just come on to preach and preach and preach, or assert and assert and assert, to the annoyance of those that raise legitimate points and want some answers. Even an "I don't know", or "I give up", or "I don't care anymore", is better than allowing the person to claim they have answered a point when they haven't.

Along with this are the posters that accuse another of doing something, for example being accused of not answering questions when it can be shown they have only to have the false accusation repeated. I don't think posters should have to suffer that kind of behavior.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by robinrohan, posted 05-16-2005 6:35 PM robinrohan has not yet responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3799 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 247 of 304 (208951)
05-17-2005 4:45 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by AdminJar
05-16-2005 6:51 PM


Re: question on reporting abuses
For example, we have several members who cry foul every time someone disagrees with them, a few that are constantly impugning the motives of other posters and some that simply will not follow the rules nohow.

I do agree that if a system were to be in place it should be made clear that the notification should be for real cases, and not simply "tattling" to get someone in trouble.

The idea would be if a poster is genuinely not contributing to discussions and making life generally unpleasant by breaking certain forum guidelines, a person can get a message to an admin on what the violations are (more than once, because everyone can slip up once in a while) and which posts they can be seen in.

The other person who replied to your post had an interesting suggestion of limiting posters to a couple uses, and if they are seen to be frivolous, then losing the privilege. I was thinking they themselves could be suspended, but losing the privilege of notification could be equally effective, without going through the trouble of altering their posting status. The "Boy who Cried Wolf" penalty.

Disagreement should not be considered a problem, and make it clear that it must be factual (evident) breach of the forum guidelines. I am not suggesting this turn into a giant game of getting people suspended, or introducing a measure of paranoia to keep people in line.

As far as people not following the rules, then I think they ought to be limited to the nonserious areas, until they can show improvement. I think there is a point a poster can reach where they are simply detracting from conversations, and that becomes their modus operandi.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by AdminJar, posted 05-16-2005 6:51 PM AdminJar has not yet responded

  
wj
Inactive Member


Message 248 of 304 (208964)
05-17-2005 7:00 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by AdminJar
05-16-2005 6:51 PM


Re: question on reporting abuses
I think holmes's suggestion is a good one. If a member abuses it by making spurious or excessive complaints then they can be provided with that feedback directly. If they choose to ignore it then the service could be denied to them or they could be temporarily suspended. If the latter were to occur, it should be explained in the announcement as other members would not know what had been going on in the other channel.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by AdminJar, posted 05-16-2005 6:51 PM AdminJar has not yet responded

Lammy
Member
Posts: 3578
From: Chicago
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 249 of 304 (209032)
05-17-2005 12:47 PM


Please stop suspending/restricting/banning/booting/kicking...
people as often as using your hand to touch something. You guys have been suspending/restricting more people the last couple months than the last year or so.
Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by berberry, posted 05-17-2005 4:44 PM Lammy has not yet responded
 Message 251 by Parasomnium, posted 05-17-2005 5:51 PM Lammy has responded

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 250 of 304 (209099)
05-17-2005 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by Lammy
05-17-2005 12:47 PM


Re: Please stop suspending/restricting/banning/booting/kicking...
I absolutely agree. Looking at the hitchy suspension, it would seem that expressing any negative opinion whatsoever about ID or creationism will get you suspended. Hitchy didn't attack anyone, he simply pointed out that ID and creationism are not science, which is the truth. And he did it in response to a poster who feels that teachers should "discuss the philosophical and social implications of Darwinism" in science class! For that, he's suspended.

I assume it's still okay to attack gays in any way whatsoever, so long as the attack is motivated by a "belief system". But no attacks against ID or creationism. Those are to be treated as legitimate sciences on this forum. Attacking them by telling the truth about them will get you suspended.

Who the hell wrote these new rules anyway? Coral Ridge Ministries?


Keep America Safe AND Free!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by Lammy, posted 05-17-2005 12:47 PM Lammy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by Ooook!, posted 05-17-2005 6:51 PM berberry has responded

Parasomnium
Member (Idle past 675 days)
Posts: 2191
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 251 of 304 (209119)
05-17-2005 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by Lammy
05-17-2005 12:47 PM


Re: Please stop suspending/restricting/banning/booting/kicking...
I too agree.

The admins' efforts to sanitize discussion on this forum are over the top, in my opinion. The effect might well be that any discussion is stifled before it can start, because nobody dares to say anything negative anymore.

If this trend continues, I'll be forced to temporarily ban EvC from my computer. Let's hope I don't have to.

"When an arguer argues dispassionately he thinks only of the argument." - Virginia Woolf


This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by Lammy, posted 05-17-2005 12:47 PM Lammy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by Lammy, posted 05-17-2005 6:54 PM Parasomnium has not yet responded
 Message 256 by Buzsaw, posted 05-18-2005 10:27 AM Parasomnium has not yet responded

Ooook!
Member (Idle past 3794 days)
Posts: 340
From: London, UK
Joined: 09-29-2003


Message 252 of 304 (209131)
05-17-2005 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by berberry
05-17-2005 4:44 PM


Free the Maryland One
I'll add my name to the list on this one.

I'm not totally opposed to the new policy. Given time it might reduce the amount of unpleasant sniping without having to resort to outright bans. There is a danger of being overzealous though and I think the Hitchy case is a good example of where a bit of leaniency should be called for. I think it's sometimes fun to throw a bit of spice into the debate (depending on who you're talking to of course :cool:), so if someone oversteps the mark to a minor degree maybe a warning could still be enough.

Aside from the fact that the post it was replying to wasn't exactly all sweetness and light itself ("mundane, shallow thinking"), Hitchy actually apologised a couple of posts later.

This message has been edited by Ooook!, 17-05-2005 11:52 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by berberry, posted 05-17-2005 4:44 PM berberry has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by berberry, posted 05-17-2005 8:06 PM Ooook! has responded

  
Lammy
Member
Posts: 3578
From: Chicago
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 253 of 304 (209132)
05-17-2005 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by Parasomnium
05-17-2005 5:51 PM


Re: Please stop suspending/restricting/banning/booting/kicking...
See? Seven of Nine agreed with me, which mean I was right.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Parasomnium, posted 05-17-2005 5:51 PM Parasomnium has not yet responded

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 254 of 304 (209150)
05-17-2005 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 252 by Ooook!
05-17-2005 6:51 PM


Re: Free the Maryland One
Ooook! writes:

quote:
I'm not totally opposed to the new policy. Given time it might reduce the amount of unpleasant sniping without having to resort to outright bans.

But why is everything supposed to be pleasant? Sniping makes things interesting. I'd like to know just who the hell is griping about getting their feelings hurt. The admins seem determined to remove any and all comments that cast any aspersions at all on fundies.

The admins don't seem to want to say anything, but by their actions I would gather that the best way to insure that you don't get suspended is to ask yourself, before making a post, whether or not said post would be approved by Jerry Falwell. If not, better not post it.


Keep America Safe AND Free!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Ooook!, posted 05-17-2005 6:51 PM Ooook! has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by Ooook!, posted 05-18-2005 5:16 AM berberry has not yet responded

Ooook!
Member (Idle past 3794 days)
Posts: 340
From: London, UK
Joined: 09-29-2003


Message 255 of 304 (209269)
05-18-2005 5:16 AM
Reply to: Message 254 by berberry
05-17-2005 8:06 PM


I agree, a little bit of light ribbing is both entertaining to read and makes writing posts fun. I dont want to see a totally sterile environment develop here:

Well, Sir. The Right Honourable Gentleman is of course entitled to his opinion.

I dont think Percy wants that either. Thats why I used the word spice in my original post I think I remember Admin using it in a previous discussion. The point (I hope) of the new system of zero tolerance is to stop the posts that are nothing but needle and inevitably develop into unseemly slanging matches. It does seem to have had some success in this area, and people seem to think twice now before posting although I might be mistaken.

The point I was trying to make was that a little leeway should be given, and that really hard and fast rules can result in farce. The point of view of the admin staff at the moment seems to be fairly inflexible: Personal Attack: Bad, Attack on the Argument: Good. My personal opinion is that it should be more to do with context.

I dont really see the fundamental difference between You seem to like making things up, and ID seems to like making things up, and either way I dont see much offense in them. Similarly, I dont see the difference between That argument is Idiotic!! and Youre an Idiot!!, both of which would annoy me quite a bit.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by berberry, posted 05-17-2005 8:06 PM berberry has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1516
17
18192021Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018