Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 81 (8971 total)
158 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, nwr, PaulK (4 members, 154 visitors)
Newest Member: Howyoudo
Post Volume: Total: 875,373 Year: 7,121/23,288 Month: 1,027/1,214 Week: 39/303 Day: 0/39 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   General discussion of moderation procedures: The Sequel
AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 300 (209819)
05-19-2005 9:38 PM


This is the continuation thread. All Admins need to update their signatures to point here.

This message has been edited by AdminJar, 05-19-2005 08:41 PM


New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
Message 1
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum

Other useful links:

Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting


Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by CK, posted 05-27-2005 9:47 AM AdminJar has not yet responded
 Message 254 by deerbreh, posted 08-15-2005 9:10 PM AdminJar has responded

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 300 (209867)
05-19-2005 11:46 PM


Determining Conclusions
Quoting Jar from original thread:
That is the failing. When you have already determined the conclusion you have moved from the realm of science into something else.

This's what frustrates me. BBists already determine conclusions which we deem impossible like the whole universe, including all space once supposedly occupying a submicroscopic area billions of times smaller than a pin point or even the proton of an atom. We believe that's a lot more preposterous than it all being designed by an intelligent creator. One "already determined conclusion" which millions deem impossible (including some scientists) is called science and ours which is deemed impossible by secularists is disallowed in the science debate as science.

{AdminSylas: a response is at Message 6, and followup belongs in that thread.}

This message has been edited by AdminSylas, 05-20-2005 01:43 AM


The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by AdminSylas, posted 05-20-2005 12:43 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

AdminSylas
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 300 (209879)
05-20-2005 12:43 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Buzsaw
05-19-2005 11:46 PM


Discussion of science forum restrictions will go to another thread.
This specific matter is no longer open for discussion in this thread. Buzsaw has been heard, and considered, and answered. He remains unsatisfied, but it is no longer sensible to let this dominate the general moderation thread.

I have created a new Restrictions in the Science Forums. where Buzsaw and others can take up the matter. I will speak to your concerns there. But it is no longer appropriate for this thread to pursue this any further.

The idea of this thread is to get useful feedback on moderation and to give people a place to complain. That role is diluted if we go around endlessly on this impasse.

Please accept this, and restrict objections to the science forum rulings the thread on that topic. This is more than a simple request. I will be moving for 24 suspensions with respect to people who continue to debate the science forum restriction matter in this thread.

I will welcome comment and complaints in the other thread. Buz has a lot of support here, and I am sure others have some input to make. But this matter generates enough material that we should keep it contained to a focussed thread. Please.

Thanks very much -- AdminSylas

(Edited after the new thread was created.)

This message has been edited by AdminSylas, 05-20-2005 01:39 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Buzsaw, posted 05-19-2005 11:46 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Nighttrain, posted 05-24-2005 7:00 AM AdminSylas has not yet responded

contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 300 (210795)
05-24-2005 6:40 AM


So, I am once again permitted to post. But, I'm not sure this is worth while as it appears to me nothing has been cleared up.

I still don't know what it is you want.


Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Admin, posted 05-24-2005 7:38 AM contracycle has responded

Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 2500 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 5 of 300 (210797)
05-24-2005 7:00 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by AdminSylas
05-20-2005 12:43 AM


Re: Discussion of science forum restrictions will go to another thread.
Hey, Sy, your proud Dad avatar is back up. what`s her(?) name?

Instead of folk tripping over their ego when posting, it might be a good plan to accept volunteer admins` verdict and move on. After all, it isn`t the end of the world(sorry,LastTimes`Christians).Think of it as a pointer to explaining your view a little clearer in future.:D


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by AdminSylas, posted 05-20-2005 12:43 AM AdminSylas has not yet responded

Admin
Director
Posts: 12682
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 6 of 300 (210805)
05-24-2005 7:38 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by contracycle
05-24-2005 6:40 AM


Brief Advice
contracycle writes:

I still don't know what it is you want.

I don't recall you and I interacting before, but even if we have I have no recollection, so I'm not familiar with your posting style. There was some discussion regarding your situation in the admin forum, so I do know some of the concerns moderators have, but I won't address those since I'm not familiar with the issues first hand. In other words, I'm only giving generic advice.

Follow the Forum Guidelines. Focus on the topic, not the person. If you find your posting privileges have been temporarily suspended, assume it was because you violated one or more rules of the Forum Guidelines. If moderators are kind enough to provide you some feedback about the suspension, take it to heart.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by contracycle, posted 05-24-2005 6:40 AM contracycle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by contracycle, posted 05-24-2005 8:39 AM Admin has responded

contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 300 (210815)
05-24-2005 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Admin
05-24-2005 7:38 AM


Re: Brief Advice
quote:
I don't recall you and I interacting before, but even if we have I have no recollection, so I'm not familiar with your posting style. There was some discussion regarding your situation in the admin forum, so I do know some of the concerns moderators have, but I won't address those since I'm not familiar with the issues first hand. In other words, I'm only giving generic advice.

Thats rather odd, seeing as I raised a thred specifically for you to address certain slanders by Jar, and you opined that in your "assesment" they were valid.

Referring me to the forum guidelines, old and new, is no help. I want more specifics. I don;t accept the initial suspension was at all valid, and clamming up about the topic doesn't seem conducive to a healthy atmosphere.

What is it that you want?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Admin, posted 05-24-2005 7:38 AM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Admin, posted 05-24-2005 9:43 AM contracycle has responded

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 300 (210828)
05-24-2005 9:34 AM


Since it was I who originated the Exodus Case video which spawned much of the discussion at EvC, I'm wondering if admins would allow me to participate exclusively in Brian's new Exodus thread in the Bible Acuracy and Inerrancy thread. Not that I would likely be a key contender, but there may be, from time to time some interesting and provokative contribution I could make. I hope Lysimachus and his friends will participate, since they are far more apprised on this than I.


The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Admin, posted 05-24-2005 9:56 AM Buzsaw has responded

Admin
Director
Posts: 12682
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 9 of 300 (210832)
05-24-2005 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by contracycle
05-24-2005 8:39 AM


Re: Brief Advice
contracyle writes:

Thats rather odd, seeing as I raised a thred specifically for you to address certain slanders by Jar, and you opined that in your "assesment" they were valid.

Now that you mention it, I do have a vague recollection. But not being able to bring immediatley to mind inconsequential interactions is not "rather odd".

Referring me to the forum guidelines, old and new, is no help. I want more specifics. I don;t accept the initial suspension was at all valid, and clamming up about the topic doesn't seem conducive to a healthy atmosphere.

What is it that you want?

I just told you what I want.

I've just suspended you again, this time for 24 hours. Let me give you a hint about how not to get suspended again. In your next reply to me, be respectful and receptive. I have no interest in or time for providing information and help for people who are actually just looking for arguments, and that's the way you appear to me. To stay here you will have to figure out how to give an impression of cooperativeness and agreeability. If you can't do that then you're welcome to take the chip on your shoulder to some other board.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by contracycle, posted 05-24-2005 8:39 AM contracycle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by contracycle, posted 05-26-2005 4:10 AM Admin has responded

Admin
Director
Posts: 12682
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 10 of 300 (210837)
05-24-2005 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Buzsaw
05-24-2005 9:34 AM


buzsaw writes:

I'm wondering if admins would allow me to participate exclusively in Brian's new Exodus thread in the Bible Acuracy and Inerrancy thread.

To participate in that thread, you'll first have to demonstrate an understanding of empirical arguments based upon evidence, as well as the ability to produce them. And if I could anticipate your response, it is not my job nor the other moderators' job to persuade you that you don't currently possess this understanding or this ability. When you begin demonstrating this ability in the forums you currently have access to then your access to other forums can be expanded. You might also try rereading Sylas's posts about empiricism (which one day, God willing, you'll learn to spell) to see if you can figure out what he was actually saying.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Buzsaw, posted 05-24-2005 9:34 AM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Buzsaw, posted 05-24-2005 10:32 AM Admin has not yet responded

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 300 (210840)
05-24-2005 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Admin
05-24-2005 9:56 AM


Thanks for responding. I do know how to spell the word, but at 70, those mental blocks come a bit more frequent. Btw, PaulK misspelled the same word in his recent post in Questions and Suggestions. I think you need to conceed that for the most part my spelling isn't all that bad. There's something about that word. ;)

My dictionary says the word can either rely solely on experiment and observation or to rely on practical experience without reference to scientific principles. My point to Sylas was that my arguments had not been empirically refuted. Is that a proper usage of the word?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Admin, posted 05-24-2005 9:56 AM Admin has not yet responded

contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 300 (211366)
05-26-2005 4:10 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Admin
05-24-2005 9:43 AM


Re: Brief Advice
quote:
I've just suspended you again, this time for 24 hours.

Indeed. It gave me a good belly-laugh.

quote:
Let me give you a hint about how not to get suspended again. In your next reply to me, be respectful and receptive. I have no interest in or time for providing information and help for people who are actually just looking for arguments, and that's the way you appear to me.

Percy, the "shoot first ask questions later" approach seldom produces a respectful or receptive response. Respect is a thing to be earned, not to be cheapened by being given away for nothing. Absent a power relationship with which it can be compelled, respect is based on mutuality.

And that appears to be rather missing, given your allegations of "looking for arguments" and having a chip on my shoulder. But that is rather consistent with basing your view on what amounts to hearsay, unsruprisingly.

Thats why I came here to ask you what you want. If respect and receptivity are what you want, rather than a pretext, as it appears, don't you think you should make some efforts in that direction yourself?

I'll not bother posting anywhere else until I see your response, whether that be the courtesy of an actual reply or a summary suspension.

This message has been edited by contracycle, 05-26-2005 04:11 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Admin, posted 05-24-2005 9:43 AM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Admin, posted 05-26-2005 9:38 AM contracycle has responded

Admin
Director
Posts: 12682
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 13 of 300 (211429)
05-26-2005 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by contracycle
05-26-2005 4:10 AM


Re: Brief Advice
contracycle writes:

quote:
I've just suspended you again, this time for 24 hours.

Indeed. It gave me a good belly-laugh.

I sense no change in attitude. I'm suspending you for 24 hours again. Whether you like my approach or not is not the issue. The onus is upon you to figure out what I want, not the other way around. If a time comes when I sense a sincere desire upon your part to try to fit in here then a brief dialogue might be appropriate, but not before.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by contracycle, posted 05-26-2005 4:10 AM contracycle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Admin, posted 05-26-2005 4:00 PM Admin has not yet responded
 Message 30 by Rrhain, posted 05-29-2005 6:24 AM Admin has responded
 Message 37 by contracycle, posted 06-06-2005 9:06 AM Admin has not yet responded

Admin
Director
Posts: 12682
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 14 of 300 (211540)
05-26-2005 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Admin
05-26-2005 9:38 AM


Moderating Standards
EvC Forum's original aim was to provide a venue for high quality debate on Creation/evolution. We've made some good progress toward this goal, and we'll continue to try to improve.

A common problem with many discussion boards is that issues don't get resolved, and in my original vision I believed that moderators would call certain issues to a member's attention, and the member would in essence reply, "Oh, okay."

Just one problem: that almost never happens. A moderator explaining why a member needs to alter his approach is rarely any more successful than other members telling him the same thing. What frequently happens is that the well-intentioned moderator gradually gets drawn into longer and longer and loooooonger explanations of the perceived problem, but the behavior rarely changes. I cite as evidence John Davison, Buzsaw, Ray Martinez (aka WillowTree), Scott Page and Buddika.

Anyone who hasn't seen it yet should visit The Panda's Thumb and see where John Davison has been confined to a single forum (http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/001050.html). We put up with his rantings here for months and months and tried a variety of techniques to get him to participate productively, but nothing worked. He causes the exact same problems at other boards that he caused here.

I know John's an extreme case, but the point still holds. Those who can accomodate themselves to the requirements of this board do so almost at once with little prodding. Once it's been discovered that a little prodding is insufficient, it is generally safe to assume that more prodding, even a lot more prodding, will not work, either.

The lesson in this is that I believe moderators should be merciless. I know it seems heartless for moderators to not explain problems clearly and at length, but since it doesn't work, what is the point? My position is that the Forum Guidelines are simple and straightforward. Argue the position not person, stick to the evidence, address rebuttals, listen to moderators. Angry men (or women) looking to mix it up or who prefer to operate from a position of perpetual righteous indignation should find another board.

Naturally moderators here are their own boss, and there's no requirement that other moderators follow my lead. The lesson that explaining things doesn't help probably should be learned first hand, anyway. And the explanations frequently serve as an important confirmation of our policies to other members who do have the interest and the ability to follow the Forum Guidelines and make this the best board on the web for Creation/evolution.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Admin, posted 05-26-2005 9:38 AM Admin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Nighttrain, posted 05-26-2005 9:16 PM Admin has not yet responded
 Message 16 by MangyTiger, posted 05-26-2005 10:26 PM Admin has not yet responded
 Message 21 by Trixie, posted 05-27-2005 5:20 PM Admin has responded

Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 2500 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 15 of 300 (211608)
05-26-2005 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Admin
05-26-2005 4:00 PM


Re: Moderating Standards
I cite as evidence John Davison, Buzsaw, Ray Martinez (aka WillowTree), Scott Page and Buddika.

Hi, Percy, you left out Ken The Mire and, coming to a suspension near you, 'Too few facts, Too much drama' Faith. :D

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Admin, posted 05-26-2005 4:00 PM Admin has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020