Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8908 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-25-2019 10:07 PM
24 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WeloTemo
Post Volume:
Total: 852,043 Year: 7,079/19,786 Month: 1,620/1,581 Week: 442/393 Day: 33/43 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
21NextFF
Author Topic:   General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consequtive Consecution
AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 302 (268222)
12-12-2005 2:13 PM


(with links to previous versions of topic)
This is the place to comment on moderation procedures.

Added by edit by Adminnemooseus - The following are the previous "General discussion of moderation procedures" topics, in order or origin:

Change in Moderation?
General discussion of moderation procedures
General discussion of moderation procedures: The Sequel
General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consecution

Next thread in this series - The Consequtive Consecution Sequel

This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 12-12-2005 06:34 PM

This message has been edited by AdminNWR, 02-18-2006 08:43 PM


Jazzns
Member (Idle past 2052 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 2 of 302 (268244)
12-12-2005 2:43 PM


Link to complaint from old GDoMP thread
Please see:

Message 291


No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2069 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 3 of 302 (271459)
12-21-2005 2:17 PM


wiki
wiki may be a valid reference for common knowledge stuff (like the popular colors at christmas) but not for anything of contention. you need peer-reviewed or otherwise confidence bearing sources for this. wiki is an encyclopedia. just like all encyclopedias, it's written by encyclopedia writers and prone to error and non-specificity.

{Note: This is a reply to this message. - Adminnemooseus}

This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 12-21-2005 02:39 PM


Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by pink sasquatch, posted 12-21-2005 2:22 PM macaroniandcheese has responded
 Message 5 by arachnophilia, posted 12-21-2005 3:27 PM macaroniandcheese has not yet responded

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 4164 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 4 of 302 (271462)
12-21-2005 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by macaroniandcheese
12-21-2005 2:17 PM


Re: wiki
wiki is an encyclopedia. just like all encyclopedias, it's written by encyclopedia writers and prone to error and non-specificity.

Wikipedia is open to editing by anyone, including you. So it's not quite like all encyclopedias.

It can serve as a good starting point, especially for those who won't understand the primary literature due to technical style and language. However, entries should be reviewed for errors/issues by the person citing the entries (just like with any cite, really, including peer-reviewed ones...)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by macaroniandcheese, posted 12-21-2005 2:17 PM macaroniandcheese has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by macaroniandcheese, posted 12-21-2005 3:39 PM pink sasquatch has not yet responded

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 119 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 5 of 302 (271476)
12-21-2005 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by macaroniandcheese
12-21-2005 2:17 PM


Re: wiki
[re-moved]

This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 12-21-2005 04:20 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by macaroniandcheese, posted 12-21-2005 2:17 PM macaroniandcheese has not yet responded

macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2069 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 6 of 302 (271483)
12-21-2005 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by pink sasquatch
12-21-2005 2:22 PM


Re: wiki
yes. but it is not appropriate to use for the debate of obscure facts. i.e. no one should use it to determine how many women were imprisoned in rape camps under saddam hussein. instead, one should look at the records we recovered in the first gulf war. these things are not yet common knowledge and neither are facts about some crazy puerto rican who may or may not have decided to join a terrorist organization.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by pink sasquatch, posted 12-21-2005 2:22 PM pink sasquatch has not yet responded

Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3881
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 7 of 302 (271487)
12-21-2005 3:52 PM


Wiki - A new topic coming - Stand by
I'll start a new Wikipedia topic, perhaps using some of the material posted above. I may even just spin-off one of the messages.

Adminnemooseus


Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 12-30-2005 4:50 PM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

  
AdminNWR
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 302 (271488)
12-21-2005 3:53 PM


Not a debating thread
This isn't the place to debate, except with respect to moderator actions.

Granted, there was a moderator opinion (but not an action).

For further discussion on the issue, it would be appropriate to open a thread on wiki, or perhaps more generally on what evidence is reasonable or acceptable within debates.

{New topic is started and is Wikipedia - A general discussion of its validity. - Adminnemooseus}

This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 12-21-2005 04:08 PM


To comment on moderation procedures or respond to admin messages:
  • Discussion of moderation procedures
  • Comments on promotions of Proposed New Topics
  • Thread Reopen Requests

  • nwr
    Member
    Posts: 5585
    From: Geneva, Illinois
    Joined: 08-08-2005


    Message 9 of 302 (271843)
    12-22-2005 9:57 PM


    Re: My comments to the NWR message
    This is a response to the Adminnemooseus comments on Message 152 (see also Message 155).

    I'm not complaining about being tagged as OT. I expected it. Maybe it wasn't necessary to mark both top and bottom of the message, but that was up to Adminnemooseus.

    I question the comment about how evos should behave. It seems to me that if we followed those principles, then a creo could post outrageous nonsense, yet be assured of having the last word, simply by posting off-topic.

    In this particular case, I thought the post by The Golfer was absurd and its absurdity should be pointed out - even at the risk of my being "spanked" for an OT post.


    Replies to this message:
     Message 10 by johnfolton, posted 12-22-2005 11:16 PM nwr has not yet responded
     Message 12 by roxrkool, posted 12-26-2005 12:57 PM nwr has not yet responded

    johnfolton 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 3732 days)
    Posts: 2024
    Joined: 12-04-2005


    Message 10 of 302 (271863)
    12-22-2005 11:16 PM
    Reply to: Message 9 by nwr
    12-22-2005 9:57 PM


    Re: My comments to the NWR message
    I compliment Moose for getting the focus back on topic. Nuggins asked me to go for it, it was his thread. I have nothing against ID in fact I like OEC, YEC too. Think it all should be taught. However a fault Nuggins and others have is that they can at times ask 10 or more pointed questions in a single post. Think thats the big reason I bowed out of getting into ID merits, and Toe's failings.

    Whatever its Christmas,

    Wish you all a Merry Christmas

    Re: ID is the Missing Link
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Evolution if taught should have a disclaimer that its just a theory.

    Golfer, do you understand what a scientific theory is? Like so many other fanatics out there, I really don't think you do.

    The fact that you are giving up on ID when confronted with a question about how it works and turning to YEC simply reveals that you have been a YEC all along, wanting to cram your personal religious beliefs down the throats of people who are more educated than yourself.

    It's sad that you don't have enough faith in your religion to allow it to stand on it's own.

    But, since you'd "rather see YEC taught alongside of ID." I'll give you the same shot I'm giving the IDers.

    What are the mechanics of Creation? If you are going to teach it in school, step up.

    How does Creation work? What tools/techniques/devices are used? Given a specific subject, how do we test if "Creation" was used? How would we prove that Creation was not used?

    Can you answer that? Or, when you said "teach" did you actually mean "force feed my religion on innocent people"?


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 9 by nwr, posted 12-22-2005 9:57 PM nwr has not yet responded

    Brian
    Member (Idle past 3100 days)
    Posts: 4659
    From: Scotland
    Joined: 10-22-2002


    Message 11 of 302 (272797)
    12-26-2005 9:52 AM


    Is it really 'news'?
    A wee question for AdminBen.

    I don't think Randman's thread about Jesus' miracle is really a news item, the 'story' is 3 years old.

    I think Coffee Shop was ideal for the topic as it is only worth a few minutes of anyone's time.

    Shouldn't Randman, as an admin, have the best idea where his topic should have went?

    Brian.


      
    roxrkool
    Member (Idle past 1038 days)
    Posts: 1493
    From: Nevada
    Joined: 03-23-2003


    Message 12 of 302 (272818)
    12-26-2005 12:57 PM
    Reply to: Message 9 by nwr
    12-22-2005 9:57 PM


    Re: My comments to the NWR message
    I question the comment about how evos should behave. It seems to me that if we followed those principles, then a creo could post outrageous nonsense, yet be assured of having the last word, simply by posting off-topic.

    In this particular case, I thought the post by The Golfer was absurd and its absurdity should be pointed out - even at the risk of my being "spanked" for an OT post.

    This is something that happens all too often in non-scientific threads by Creationists who have been here long enough to understand the rules.

    They feel comfortable making the most absurd YEC/ID statements because as soon as someone replies and calls them out for the statement, they either merrily yell, "OFF TOPIC" and skip onto their next reply or they say nothing and wait for the admin to take care of it.

    Now we could propose a new thread to respond to the off-topic statements, but that doesn't mean the Creationist will respond. Why would they when they can make as many unsubstantiated claims as they wish in a non-science thread without having to defend them in the least?


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 9 by nwr, posted 12-22-2005 9:57 PM nwr has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 13 by Adminnemooseus, posted 12-26-2005 1:29 PM roxrkool has responded

      
    Adminnemooseus
    Director
    Posts: 3881
    Joined: 09-26-2002


    Message 13 of 302 (272827)
    12-26-2005 1:29 PM
    Reply to: Message 12 by roxrkool
    12-26-2005 12:57 PM


    Re: My comments to the NWR message
    They feel comfortable making the most absurd YEC/ID statements because as soon as someone replies and calls them out for the statement, they either merrily yell, "OFF TOPIC" and skip onto their next reply or they say nothing and wait for the admin to take care of it.

    Although I think there has been some administrative opinion to the contrary, I think that topic moderation in general and topic drift control in specific is a job for all to do.

    The facts as I see it (insert I'm an evo disclaimer here):

    1) Creationists are in short supply. We need to give special considerations to the "endangered species".

    2) The evolution side is usually the more rational side (see above disclaimer again). They need to "help keep the sanity".

    The way to fight topic drift and maintain topic focus is for an individual (not a dog pile) to respond to off-topic material with a simple "that's off-topic here, so I'm not going to get into it".

    Or the ever popular "Or something like that".

    Adminnemooseus

    ps: For what it is worth, at the time I replied to NWR in that other topic, I was not even thinking that he also had admin status.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 12 by roxrkool, posted 12-26-2005 12:57 PM roxrkool has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 14 by roxrkool, posted 12-26-2005 8:47 PM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

      
    roxrkool
    Member (Idle past 1038 days)
    Posts: 1493
    From: Nevada
    Joined: 03-23-2003


    Message 14 of 302 (273036)
    12-26-2005 8:47 PM
    Reply to: Message 13 by Adminnemooseus
    12-26-2005 1:29 PM


    Re: My comments to the NWR message
    Another way to handle topic drift is to ignore those posters who consistently take advantage of the off-topic rules.
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 13 by Adminnemooseus, posted 12-26-2005 1:29 PM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 91 by Carico, posted 01-04-2006 8:44 AM roxrkool has not yet responded

      
    Adminnemooseus
    Director
    Posts: 3881
    Joined: 09-26-2002


    Message 15 of 302 (273193)
    12-27-2005 10:32 AM


    Mark24 at a "Great Debate" topic he shouldn't have posted in
    Re: Message 24 of the "Nuggin & Carico - Evolution Explained" topic

    In the past I have, without hesitation, given such messages the "content deleted" treatment. In the above cited situation, however, I feel I must be more tolerant to Mark24, he being the long and distinguished forum member he is.

    One idea that has come to me, however, is to start a "Misc. side comments to things in "Great Debate" topics" topic. I could then move Mark24's content to the new topic, and substitute a link at the "GB" topic.

    Other "Great Debate" non-participents could also use this (possible) new topic, by posting their comments there and then posting just a link at the "Great Debate" topic. BUT (as in BIG BUT) I see such as getting out of hand - Members would be posting quite a few links at "Great Debates".

    The other alternative has been to have "Peanut Gallery" side topics - I don't think the above cited currently has a "PG". The "PG" concept does not include (rightfully IMO) having links posted at the "Great Debate" topic.

    Another alternative might be to have a "General Purpose Great Debate Peanut Gallery" topic. This is simular to my idea of paragraphs 3&4, but without links at the "Great Debate" topic.

    Bottom line: I feel strongly against non-designated members posting at "Great Debates". Had it been pre-arranged, I guess Mark24 could have been designated a topic moderator (without admin status). But even then, I think the nature of Mark24's cited message goes beyond what a moderator should post (not that admin status moderators haven't done the same in the past :)).

    The big question: How should we handle "Great Debate" intrusions by non-designated members?

    Another babble or babble like message from
    Adminnemooseus


    Replies to this message:
     Message 16 by AdminJar, posted 12-27-2005 10:41 AM Adminnemooseus has responded
     Message 18 by AdminNWR, posted 12-27-2005 10:58 AM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded
     Message 22 by Carico, posted 12-28-2005 10:06 AM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded
     Message 75 by Carico, posted 01-03-2006 8:42 AM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

      
    1
    23456
    ...
    21NextFF
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019