Change in Moderation?

Yet again, Moose places blame at my feet.
I have been extraordinarily restrained in regards to Davison's attacks, assertions, infantile blather, etc, and I think it obvious that I have been so.
Moose has said before that he agreed with much of salty's compaints about me.Clearly, Moose doesn't like me, and has as yet - despite my request - failed to email me to inform me where my posts could be accurately described by salty's depictions.We are told to "let salty be salty" - in other words, allow him to be a crotchety old crackpot, to insult us repeatedly, etc., and do nothing in return - apparently, not even trying to get said rule-breaking crank to stick to the topic for once - for if we do, we get the 'talking to'.Either enforce the rules across the board, or don't enforce them at all.I think I will be joining Mammuthus.[This message has been edited by SLPx, 04-06-2003]

Well, I tend to agree that salty has been given a completely free pass whereas anyone else who was so consistently rude, insulting, and contentless would have been banned long ago. Unfortunately, I'm aware that there's a catch-22 sort of situation here. salty is deliberately trying to get banned, obviously, with the apparent intent of crying about it over on Terry's board and elsewhere.However, there comes a point where we start coming up on the law of diminishing returns. salty is already crying about moderation, bias etc over on Terry's board - so what's the point of allowing him to stay? Especially if the free pass is causing friction among long-term, well-respected members of this board. Zephan, irritating little so-and-so that he is, was suspended. salty - the most vitriolic, insulting, and utterly useless poster we have had on this board since I joined - is being allowed to stay. What is wrong with this picture?I think this speaks to the basic problems Mammuthus and SLPx have articulated. I'm hopeful they will correct me if I'm wrong.

SLPx (message 62):

quote:

---

I have been extraordinarily restrained in regards to Davison's attacks, assertions, infantile blather, etc, and I think it obvious that I have been so.

---

My impressions and recollections may be flawed, but "extraordinarily restrained" is not a phrase I tend to associate with SLPx.

quote:

---

We are told to "let salty be salty" - in other words, allow him to be a crotchety old crackpot, to insult us repeatedly, etc., and do nothing in return - apparently, not even trying to get said rule-breaking crank to stick to the topic for once - for if we do, we get the 'talking to'.

---

I made (as minnemooseus) the "let salty be salty" statement in message 46 of the topic string.
EvC Forum: John A. (Salty) Davison - The Case For Instant Evolution

quote:

---

SLPx, I do agree with you, but for at least now, I feel the need to let Salty be Salty. I certainly hope that this doesn't cause you to go into the "cranky mode".

​

This is not to say that Salty exempt from disipline, for any future transgressions he might do.

---

At that point the topic was less than 48 hours old. By everyone's point of view, Salty has a "unique perspective". As such, and at that time, I was willing to give him some "unique treatment". I had hoped that something good would have come out of that topic. Whether anything did, I will leave to the individual members' judgement.

quote:

---

Either enforce the rules across the board, or don't enforce them at all.

---

Coming from the evolution side of the debate, I fully admit that I tend to hold members of the evolution (aka "the science side") to a higher standard of rational behavior. I tend to view the creationist side (especially YECism) to be "fundamentally irrational". Of course, it is this "irrationality" that drives the entire debate.Is SLPx pleased that Salty has done such a fine job of dragging him down to the Salty level?

quote:

---

I think I will be joining Mammuthus.

---

SLPx has a long and substantial history of abrasive behavior. This has come to be expected of him. What really pains me, is to see members such as Mammuthus (for whom I do have a very high regard) also occasionally descend to some sort of that level of behavior.Quetzal (message 63):

quote:

---

salty - the most vitriolic, insulting, and utterly useless poster we have had on this board since I joined - is being allowed to stay. What is wrong with this picture?

​

I think this speaks to the basic problems Mammuthus and SLPx have articulated. I'm hopeful they will correct me if I'm wrong.

---

Quetzal is another of the "science side", whom I have very high regard for. I always appreciate hearing from him. Indeed, both Mammuthus and he are on the short list of people that I have been trying to get involve as official moderators.Q, hopefully what I have said in response to SLPx is also relevant to your message.At this point, I am leaving actions about Salty, SLPX, Peter Borger, et all, to be in the hands of Admin (Percy). It's his site. He pays the bills. He is the ultimate authority in the running of this place. Which isn't to say that I won't sometimes disagree with him, and make those disagreements known.I'll probably need to do further comments later, but that's what I have to say for now.AdminnemooseusAdded by edit: I do think that SLPx has done many fine messages at this site. I just wish that he would be more successful at keeping the "cranky mode" out of all those messages, not just some of them.------------------
{mnmoose@lakenet.com}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 04-07-2003]

Don't get me wrong, Moose. I'm not questioning Borger's banishment (that sponge was pretty dry), nor Zephan's (although I think that had less justification). Nor am I questioning warnings/temp suspension given to Mammuthus (to whom I noted in private communication that I thought he was over the top) and/or SLPx (I've seen Scott "in action" too many times).I DO, however, feel that they both have a valid point in the case of one John Davison. It's not a question of holding the evos to "higher standards" - a desire in which I concur. It's more a case of seeing in salty a flagrant dissymetry between the stated goals and objectives of this forum and the way such goals are operationalized. From his first post - once he discovered no one was falling on the floor in awe at his brilliance - he has done nothing but flame and/or ignore others. And yet he hasn't even been warned. This obviously doesn't sit well with either Scott or Mammuthus. It doesn't sit well with me, either.Look, I still think this board has one of the best overall moderation systems/teams on the Internet. However, we seem to have a disconnect recently. Growing pains?In partial defense of Scott - I've noted his flames tend to be responses to others' provocations, unless he's bringing ancient historical baggage from another forum (which he tends to do). I don't condone it, but singling him out repeatedly as evc's poster child for evo banishment may be excessive. He CAN be pretty decent when he wants to be... As to Mammuthus, I have every confidence he'll be back after a short break and especially if someone interesting comes on board, my guess is he won't be able to resist. (A little birdy told me...) IF we can come to grips with the double-standard problem.Might I suggest a "no exceptions" policy to start with? Then we can start drawing a line where moderation is required...

Q, thanks again for your response.Quoting myself, from my previous message of this topic:

quote:

---

At that point the topic was less than 48 hours old. By everyone's point of view, Salty has a "unique perspective". As such, and at that time, I was willing to give him some "unique treatment".

---

Obviously, this "unique treatment" has gone on for too long. I guess I'll post a special warning topic to Salty, alerting him to the fact that the exceptional leaniency he has been granted is ending. I presume a long term suspension will probably shortly follow.Adminnemooseus------------------
{mnmoose@lakenet.com}

There has been much discussion of behavior problems at the "Your favourite Bible absurdity" topic, leading up to this message. All this has quite possibly fatally derailed that topic.Please try to confine moderation issues messages to this topic, with references back to the topic in question.Adminnemooseus------------------
{mnmoose@lakenet.com}

deleted by M, rather lurk until some of this gets straightened out.[This message has been edited by Mammuthus, 04-19-2003]

Admin, Jesuslover is gone for who knows how long. If you wish to delete or close his topics for the purpose of space you may do so. I am thinking in particular of the "Prayer warriors" topic, however he will not be able to follow up on the other topics he started either. Thanx------------------
Saved by an incredible Grace.

Thanks for the quick closure of booboocruise's latest thread. That kind of firm but fair administration is what makes this forum better than most.LOL, without it I might have jumped at his bait again.

Are there any changes in moderation or rules of engagement (for lack of a better term) forthcoming from Admin(s)?Over the last few weeks I have seen SLPx threatened with suspension and repeately chastised, Buddika banned, sagg leaving feeling insulted and yet notably several of the most useless members of the forum have been given absolute free reign. Several of the threads in Evolution are basically being dictated by salty who is allowed to carry on with the same behavior unmodified while everyone else must sit back and take it. It is like reading from Terry Trainor's site! There are other examples such as booboocruise, but I focus on salty as an example of the gross imbalance developing here since I mostly read the Evolution threads. Admittedly, salty got a one day suspension but why is his behavior any better than Buddika's or Peter Borger's for that matter both of whom are permanently suspended?I figured I should continue to lurk or just leave completely which is why I have deleted my last posts. But at this point I am really curious if the way things are now, particularly in the Evolution forum, are considered by the moderators to be the preferred way things should go for the future or if there are any changes in the works?Cheers,
M

Recent moderation methodology has been a trick to see who whould complain about the moderation methodology, so we would have a candidate to try to pass the job off on (off on?).So, are you ready to become AdminMammuthus?I'm serious, give me an e-mail.Adminnemooseus------------------
{mnmoose@lakenet.com}

Actually I don't have a problem with Admins being harder on the evolutionists. For one thing it keeps us honest. If creationists want to make fools of themselves, why stop them? All it does is make evolutionists look like the well-reasoned, calm thinkers.Anyway I think most creationists will stay out of the more technical, intra-evolutionist topics, purely from lack of familiarity with the subject. exceptions may be Salty who feels qualified to hold forth on any topic (usually with nothing more than "darwinism is dead!").But it does kind of look like BooBooCruise needs to be reigned in... he's shooting topic continuity all to heck wherever he posts. I don't think he should be suspended just yet, but maybe we could start moving his posts into appropriate forums. (Lord knows some of us haven't been helping by resonding and encouraging him. I'm particularly guilty.)

Hi Moose,
I fired off an email to you at mnmoose@lakenet.com
Did you get it?...I have been having trouble with my email of late so don't know if it got through.cheers
M

Hi crashfrog,
I don't disagree with being harder on evolutionists. However, I am more referring to the recent spate of suspensions and bannings that have occurred. We have lost a bunch of people recently and I fail to see a distinction between say Peter Borger who was banned permanently from salty who has been given one 24 hours suspension (and then he resumed with no modification of his behavior). In many cases I find salty worse since he never actually presents anything except what SLPx has frequently pointed out, unsupported assertions, insult, and hero worship. Booboocruise is also fairly destructive at some level since he posts similar topics all over the place and then only pops up in one or two placesf i.e. he is spamming the site. Contrast this to PhospholipidGen...I totally disagree with what this guy is saying. But he has stayed on topic and stuck to the topic he started. The quality of the posts in that thread are better overall.Anyway, let's see what happens.cheers,
M[This message has been edited by Mammuthus, 04-25-2003]

I certainly agree that salty's behavior, under normal circumstances, begs to be barred. The problem is that he's made specific comments at other boards that he's bucking for suspension here. I say let's not give him the pleasure. So long as he wishes to post here let's let him do it, because to suspend him would only confirm, at least to his mind and those like him, that we have a bias.Everytime he opens his mouth (well, types with his keyboard) he embarrases himself. And largely he sticks to a few topics. I say, let him post. I don't want to give him the satisfaction of being banned. You're definately right about that. I just wish PLG had the opportunity to post more often. I find his posts maddening (in the sense of being frustrating), but at least they're original. He's really thinking about what he's saying, not copying some Hovind website. A most worthy adversary.