Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 9.0
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 166 of 301 (378968)
01-22-2007 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by Dan Carroll
01-22-2007 3:04 PM


Re: An Elegy for Dr. Adequate, Over-Suspended Over A Troll
Like Percy said, the only reason showcase exists is because regular board members still wanted to debate the crazies like JAD, etc. There was no way they were going to be let back into the general forums because all they do there is cause disruption to the complete avail of moderation.
So there is full access on one end or banishment on the other. Both are undesireable by both admins and the EVC population. What solution do you propose to the problem?

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Dan Carroll, posted 01-22-2007 3:04 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Dan Carroll, posted 01-22-2007 3:16 PM Jazzns has replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 167 of 301 (378969)
01-22-2007 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by NosyNed
01-22-2007 3:08 PM


Re: The showcase
That should be enough of a warning that you are wasting your time.
That's pretty much what I'm saying. If it's a waste of time, why not just ban the people who would otherwise be confined to the Showcase?
I get the idea of confining (for instance) Randman to one place, where he can prattle on about Haeckel all the live long day, and prevent him from doing so on every other thread on the site. Randman gets his favorite topic discussed, everyone else who doesn't want to deal with him gets a break, win-win.
But giving Randman a platform for flinging shit seems like an entirely different matter. Why bother? Just ban him.

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by NosyNed, posted 01-22-2007 3:08 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by NosyNed, posted 01-22-2007 6:26 PM Dan Carroll has not replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 168 of 301 (378970)
01-22-2007 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by Jazzns
01-22-2007 3:14 PM


Re: An Elegy for Dr. Adequate, Over-Suspended Over A Troll
So there is full access on one end or banishment on the other. Both are undesireable by both admins and the EVC population. What solution do you propose to the problem?
See above. I propose that they get over their squeamishness regarding full banishment. Especially if they've already got the stones to go handing out one-month suspensions to otherwise valuable members.
Edited by Dan Carroll, : elaboration

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Jazzns, posted 01-22-2007 3:14 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by Jazzns, posted 01-22-2007 5:01 PM Dan Carroll has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 169 of 301 (378973)
01-22-2007 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by AdminNosy
01-22-2007 2:46 PM


Re: What would you have us do?
Ask -- "In that post of mine, where is the word "yellow".
And when they say "right up there, in your post" which anybody can see is not true, what do you do then?
You can see if you can get them to look at each word of your posts and show how they read them.
They've just told you how they read them - when you say "blue", they read "yellow". Either we're forced to conclude that they're the victim of a bizarre internet worm that alters words on their computer, or they're being deliberately nonsensical.
Given that they aren't just playing the fool then you can make their own posts prove the lie by getting them to say something as clear as in your simple example.
What are we supposed to do when they are playing the fool in ways I can't seem to get anyone to notice?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by AdminNosy, posted 01-22-2007 2:46 PM AdminNosy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by PaulK, posted 01-22-2007 3:51 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 170 of 301 (378974)
01-22-2007 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by Jazzns
01-22-2007 3:09 PM


Re: An Elegy for Dr. Adequate, Over-Suspended Over A Troll
There are ways to expose people for dishonesty without shouting, "liar liar pants on fire!"
And what are those ways? Because apparently saying "you're being dishonest" is against the rules.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Jazzns, posted 01-22-2007 3:09 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by Jazzns, posted 01-22-2007 4:49 PM crashfrog has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 171 of 301 (378975)
01-22-2007 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by crashfrog
01-22-2007 3:45 PM


Re: What would you have us do?
quote:
And when they say "right up there, in your post" which anybody can see is not true, what do you do then?
You can ask them to quote the sentence (Randman would probably quote a sentence from a completely different post written by someone else). But really. that's an example of the sort of a falsehood so blatant that a liar wouldn't try it. Hence my conclusion that Randman's problem is not simple dishonesty.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by crashfrog, posted 01-22-2007 3:45 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by crashfrog, posted 01-22-2007 3:58 PM PaulK has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 172 of 301 (378977)
01-22-2007 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by PaulK
01-22-2007 3:51 PM


Re: What would you have us do?
You can ask them to quote the sentence
In my example, that's exactly what they did - they quoted a sentence that does not say what they said it says.
But really. that's an example of the sort of a falsehood so blatant that a liar wouldn't try it.
I've had it happen. I've had moderators quote the very objectionable statement I had been referring to, and then claim in the very next sentence that they had never seen the statement I was referring to. (I guess they were able to cut and paste with their eyes closed?)
It's these amazingly blatant examples I'm talking about, because they do happen. And it's so paradoxically impossible to get anyone to believe that it's happening. I've been suspended in the past just for trying. So I'm really curious about what we're supposed to do when it happens.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by PaulK, posted 01-22-2007 3:51 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by PaulK, posted 01-22-2007 4:02 PM crashfrog has not replied

Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 173 of 301 (378978)
01-22-2007 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by Admin
01-22-2007 2:44 PM


Re: An Elegy for Dr. Adequate, Over-Suspended Over A Troll
IIRC, Dr. A did, in fact, stop calling randman a liar and instead dismissed (accurately and supportably, IMHO) specific utterances as lies. This may not be enough change on his part to satisfy you, but it was change, and change in the direction you urged.
If Dr. A had responded, "That is an untruth."--would that be a month-long suspension.
If Dr. A had responded, "That is not true."--would that be a month-long suspension?
I don't think you were a schmuck to stick up for Dr. A: in fact, I admired you for it. But Dr. A shouldn't sit out a month because the incident made you feel like a schmuck.
The Showcase forum is here only because so many people expressed an interest in discussion with the unmoderatable like Randman. But if the interest isn't so much in discussion but more in rattling the monkey cage, then Showcase should be eliminated because it simply attracts and emphasizes the worst from both sides.
Bingo.

Drinking when we are not thirsty and making love at any time, madam, is all that distinguishes us from the other animals.
-Pierre De Beaumarchais (1732-1799)
Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Admin, posted 01-22-2007 2:44 PM Admin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by CK, posted 01-22-2007 4:01 PM Omnivorous has not replied
 Message 221 by arachnophilia, posted 01-22-2007 7:54 PM Omnivorous has not replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 174 of 301 (378979)
01-22-2007 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by Omnivorous
01-22-2007 3:58 PM


Re: An Elegy for Dr. Adequate, Over-Suspended Over A Troll
Of course it's about rattling a cage - once you put people in the "special section", you can call it the zoo, the showcase,whatever people soon work out that that a) most of the people in there are not well and b) conversation is a waste of time - so people take the piss. Sadly it's human nature.
Edited by CK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Omnivorous, posted 01-22-2007 3:58 PM Omnivorous has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 175 of 301 (378980)
01-22-2007 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by crashfrog
01-22-2007 3:58 PM


Re: What would you have us do?
I faced Randman arguing that an essay on talkorigins.org claimed that universal common descent was a fact when it explicitly said that universal common descent should not be considered a fact. And Randman continued blustering and arguing long after it was pointed out. I know what he's like. And I argue that they are evidence of mental illness, not dishonesty.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by crashfrog, posted 01-22-2007 3:58 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by Dan Carroll, posted 01-22-2007 4:07 PM PaulK has replied
 Message 181 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-22-2007 4:27 PM PaulK has replied
 Message 224 by RAZD, posted 01-22-2007 9:04 PM PaulK has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 176 of 301 (378981)
01-22-2007 4:02 PM


A Question
Why wasn't Dr. A showcased, instead?
If they want lock lightsabers like those black and white guys from Star Trek, lock them up in the Phantom Zone together. (Take that, nerds.)

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by Omnivorous, posted 01-22-2007 4:34 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 185 by Omnivorous, posted 01-22-2007 4:37 PM crashfrog has not replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 177 of 301 (378982)
01-22-2007 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by PaulK
01-22-2007 4:02 PM


Re: What would you have us do?
And I argue that they are evidence of mental illness, not dishonesty.
Out of curiosity, why is calling him a liar bad, but calling him mentally ill okay?

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by PaulK, posted 01-22-2007 4:02 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by PaulK, posted 01-22-2007 4:11 PM Dan Carroll has not replied
 Message 180 by Taz, posted 01-22-2007 4:23 PM Dan Carroll has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 178 of 301 (378983)
01-22-2007 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by Dan Carroll
01-22-2007 4:07 PM


Re: What would you have us do?
Either Randman and the rest know that their blatant untruths are falsehoods or they don't. I'm just suggesting the alternative that seems more likely to me. And mental illness at least carries no moral judgement.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Dan Carroll, posted 01-22-2007 4:07 PM Dan Carroll has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-22-2007 4:40 PM PaulK has replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 179 of 301 (378984)
01-22-2007 4:17 PM


Dr Adequate and CK haved been banned. I protest: these persons should not be banned.
AdminModulous is drunk on "power" and should be relieved of his duties. He makes no sense and seems to be the stereotypical college type kid attempting to impress his older Darwinian handlers who have taken him in at the expense of EvC patrons.
Ray

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Omnivorous, posted 01-22-2007 4:54 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 239 by AdminModulous, posted 01-23-2007 7:52 AM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 180 of 301 (378985)
01-22-2007 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by Dan Carroll
01-22-2007 4:07 PM


Re: What would you have us do?
Dan writes:
Out of curiosity, why is calling him a liar bad, but calling him mentally ill okay?
Same reason why people resort to not guilty for reason of insanity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Dan Carroll, posted 01-22-2007 4:07 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by Dan Carroll, posted 01-22-2007 4:30 PM Taz has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024