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

Literary and journalistic giants have resorted to all lower case text in an effort to wipe the slate clean stylistically, opening the writer's mind to the dictation of form by content. ee cummings is probably the most well known of those who went this route. Personally, I find it as easy to read as up-and-down text, perhaps because I've read so much of it.Clearly, the assumption of language police powers by a debate moderator is inappropriate. A personal pet peeve should not dictate members' writing style. I frankly cannot understand why anyone would think otherwise. Like the TV, the personal solution is easy--turn it off.Moose, don't read his posts. Let other moderators look after spidey.

---

Dost thou prate, rogue?
-Cassio

​

Real things always push back.
-William James

Well, hell, I bitch about the weather, too.The weather doesn't change, but I feel better.

---

Dost thou prate, rogue?
-Cassio

​

Real things always push back.
-William James

The word is "usage".Misspell it again, and I'll lobby for your suspension.

---

Dost thou prate, rogue?
-Cassio

​

Real things always push back.
-William James

Moderation in all things.-Terence

I've lived by that sentiment, but I stand by my advice.

Yes, and that's one big bale of turtles.

Poppycock.

Hi, cavediver. I lurk now--it seems that everything I have to say gets said by someone else.Moose has had a major hard-on for jar since jar returned: sort of a Joseph McCarthy to jar's Old China Hand.For all the insistence that jar is breaking or abusing one forum rule or another, the problem appears stylistic. Jar has a style that Moose doesn't like, and Moose has the power to penalize him for it. Jar being jar, he will then be even more jar.As others have pointed out, Moose will endure a torrent of off-topic, impenetrable bile from one member for days, but suspend jar for an epigrammatic, koan-like or too-casual reply. If jar had to change that style, he wouldn't be jar--and then what would be the point of being here?Moose, of course, must be Moose.So I expect none of this will change. As for me, I enjoy them both, each for his own idiosyncratic perspective.I sailed down the hurricane-swollen Connecticut River to Long Island Sound today and watched 500,000 tree swallows form a vortex in an evening sky filling with stars. Moose and jar remind me of that: so alike and so far apart, so congruent and so mutually alien.Or something like that. I hope you are well. Your posts remain a rare pleasure.

Anyone who has known me here for only the past few years must think you mad to say so--with good reason. The series of health and life crises I faced in the past half dozen years left me mentally and physically exhausted, emotionally labile and intellectually blunted.I'm feeling and doing much better now, and when I feel myself on yet firmer ground, I'll participate more regularly. Until then, I've embarrassed myself and the forum enough.I reviewed what I wrote above, and I see one important omission.Moose has contributed heroically to this forum; the job he does is challenging and largely thankless.I recall reading that a 99.9% functional space shuttle wouldn't fly: the complexity of the system being so great that, by way of analogy with a car, a loose thread in the back seat means the motor won't start. Moose faces a similar challenge here. The volume is staggering, and the onlookers are sharp-eyed, ferociously intelligent and extraordinarily sensitive to any hint of unfairness.So, yes, I think Moose has a blind spot about jar and sometimes makes other errors. Like the shuttle, though, EvC functions well. Even in exile, I read this forum...umm...religiously.It's a horrifically difficult job, and Moose deserves far more thanks than brickbats.We're a tough crowd.

You're right, Buz--I did indeed fail to acknowledge the good and valuable work Moose does here in Msg 244. Had you read a little further, you'd see I quickly corrected my omission.I'm also confident that you are correct in saying that I am not totally objective about anything. I have yet to meet anyone who is. Do you think that you are?This is probably not the time or place to discuss my relationship with Dreamcatcher and jar, but since you raise the subject, it suffices to say that my participation and support of that site collapsed soon after its creation.I think jar and other members there were counting on me to help keep it active; I let them down--like everyone else who counted on me for anything in those days. Jar and I have not been in direct contact for many months.Otherwise, I have no quibbles with your praise of Moose. I expressed my honest opinion on the current situation concerning jar and Moose for the same reasons I signed off on Taz's petition to restore full access to you. I have taken such positions before in favor of members whose views are diametrically opposed to my own. I'm sure I will again.Nonetheless, I'd note that if you simply answered direct questions, they wouldn't be repeated. My perception is that you think direct answers to direct questions are a "gotcha" landmine, so you will not provide them.As to Bolder-Dash...well, in the past as a mod I defended his continuing participation (under another nick), as I did Faith's, and was thanked with a boot in the face. He can sink or swim on his own.

Thanks, Percy, for the good wishes. I'll slip back into lurker mode now--this topic has already drawn me out longer than I planned.I hope to return under full sail soon, flying a proud (and imperturbably calm) evolution flag.

I thought AdminModulous' three-day suspension was an appropriate response to a violation of forum rules--particularly for a violation that is often overlooked. While I appreciate your chivalric urge to protect women, coarse insults are coarse insults: this forum has tolerated dick, prick, bastard and other vulgarities, so the notion that the use of "cunt" deserves a permanent banning seems quaint and smacks of its own "special treatment" misogyny.Further, an insult to someone who is an admin but posting as a member should be treated like an insult to any other member. Could you explain why it shouldn't?Personally, I find the word distasteful and emblematic of a misogynistic mind-set I find worse than distasteful. But if we are to have banned words, we need a list; if we are to sanction coarse insults, they should be sanctioned evenly. E-mail and other online communications are "hot" media--many millions have regretted messages typed in a flurry of anger and sent with a hasty click. Your drawn-out description of thinking and typing and posting an inappropriate message makes it sound as though he coolly measured the impact and acted with great deliberation. A violation of forum guidelines should be considered in a real context, not one rhetorically manipulated.Finally, although his response was inapproriate, purpledawn was being condescending in a manner that could hardly be described as respectful to another member. Since the forum typically tolerates a fairly heated rough-and-tumble, and has tolerated profane language, the three-day suspension for incivility was appropriate and should stand.Edited by Omnivorous, : No reason given.

I'm not a fan of the Peanut Gallery in any form: I'd rather see more focused spin-off topics when some aspect of the GD inspires them.A lengthy GD thread is imposing enough to anyone who wants to follow along without them having to cross-index the gallery thread. The Great Debate is the closest we come to authentic forensic debate, and the PG is largely a distraction from and dilution of that.But I think your ideas to impose a more disciplined structure are reasonable.

George Carlin's "Six Words" was brilliant. He would not have supported any censorship at all.I, too, think suspension was appropriate. My objection was to the suggestion of a more lengthy or permanent ban for a particular word. I think most fans of George Carlin would agree.The history of "I know it when I see it" in the U.S. is one of suppression and persecution. That criterion was used to ban comic books, political discourse and great literature.My own bent is speech anarchy--words aren't sticks. But this forum is rule-based.Having accepted that, I prefer explicit rules to caprice.

quote:

---

As of Tuesday 10/18, 10:35 pm (US eastern time), the My HUGE problem with creationist thinking (re: Which version of creationism) topic is in the "one final summary message per member" phase.

​

These messages should not be replies to previous messages.

​

Adminnemooseus

---

If bluescat and Dr Jones had labeled their post-summary notice replies to previous posts a Summation, as did Chuck77, would it have been okay?For future reference, may I also reply to others' summaries in my summary?