Gripes directed toward and gripes by Adminnemooseus

quote:

---

I don't think anyone is really a problem.

---

Well, Messenja, you don't have to pay the bills though. Imo, we should all be sensitive to the work and expense it must take by our good financer, administrators and moderators who make this all possible for us all to enjoy. May God bless'em all!!

I remember the time before the frog was an arrested development star***.

To cut down on volume and clutter in other topics, you can post Adminnemooseus specific comments here.Please supply links to relevant messages.Adminnemooseus

I hope you aren't serious about restricting the forums you post in. I enjoy both your posts, and Crash's posts. I'm not sure why an admin feels the need to critique someone else's posting frequency personally - I almost never post, and I enjoy lurking. Others enjoy more active participation. More power to them - it's people like them who make these forums enjoyable for people like me, who rarely contribute.

The core concept of this board is having good responses, unless I am mistaken, and that shouldn't depend on who is posting but in the content of the post.Certainly there are two issues raised previously that affect how readable a thread is to others (lurkers and latecomers): Both of these can make threads more tedious to read for the content involved.It is also my impression that moose tries to {read\cover\monitor} more of the board than anyone else, and that this leads to frustration when dealing with these issues (I know I used to be hyper-involved on another board and finally had to draw the line and cut back on {posting\reading\cajoling} for my own sanity).I don't know what the answers are.Pile-on could be averted to some degree by limiting the number of responses that a post can have, but this can cause problems for responses to the original post on topics (they usually get the most eh?), so these would have to be exempt.Short-cycling is a little harder, as it would need to have some rate filter as well as user filter to automate. Perhaps something that is more individual - limits to so many posts per topic per period of time (would also cut down on a person making lots of replies to many people one after the other, although this gets into the pile-on response problem).Really, I don't see a way to make it automatic without sacrificing some elements that are good with the bad. Perhaps what is needed is a signal for moderators -- perhaps an automatic warning sign on the messages (like the one picked for this one for "message mood") kick in when the activity meter gets hot.Ultimately the answer lies in the participants or it won't work, so perhaps what is needed are some more "gentlepeople agreement" guidelines regarding these issues?And perhaps allowing others to "flag" when there are transgressions rather than rely only on the moderators?Just my thoughts.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Ned posted his message over two years ago.I think he got over it

---

I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then

that is precisely what i keep getting into trouble for. but you know. whatever.i think adminben is really a bit more jovial about the whole thing and a little more flexible in his analysis. sure he warns, but he does so a bit more lovingly. i think moose probably should just relax a bit and i dunno. try to take less of the world on his shoulders. since it is apparent that he's everywhere and that is likely pushing him a bit much as you mentioned. i fully understand that. if i read too much of the same junk over and over again i get really frustrated too. but you have to be flexible enough to understand that this stuff moves in cycles. there's not a lot of really exciting, meaningful stuff going on right now, just the same old arguments over and over with the same old people. and it gets dry and i think everyone has been really on edge since like october. this year or so has been odd.i agree that certain tenured members seem to get a bit more slack than other people. and certain people get allowances because they're working within a different mindset from the rest of us. but each of these groups need to still meet the same guidelines as the rest of us. an insult is an insult while a gentle scolding and a genuine request for respite from any certain member should be respected.

We already have a thread for discussion about moderation, but I wonder if it wouldn't be a good idea for each moderator to be given his own complaints/suggestions thread. Just an idea, maybe I'll put it on the Friday Board of Moderators agenda for discussion.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

now, moose was originally objecting to a few one line posts, at least two of which were valid posts, and some of the rest clarifying position. that may or may not be valid (i'm going to make another post in the general moderation thread). but i want to make this point absolutely clear.i have no problem being reprimanded when i act up.in fact i'm suprised i didn't get in trouble for a few posts earlier this week. this is not about the fact that i was suspended or really even why, but how. i do not feel that the administration calling board members "idiots" is at all appropriate, or condusive to the spirit of friendly debate. aside from that, it's against the forum rules. how can one claim to enforce the rules when they, themselves, break them?maybe moose was having a bad day or something, i don't know. maybe he just doesn't like me. maybe my lack of capitalization annoys him. but none of those are valid reasons for tossing insults at board members.i imagine moose objected to my further (one line) questioning of his moderation action in the thread. i understand it's not the place, but i didn't really want to bring a formal complaint against him. instead, i thought asking him politely to be nice would cause less of a stink. i'm not especially offended, or think there's a conspiracy against me or anything. i didn't want to blow it out of proportion.i would ask what a more appropriate way to handle such a situation would be in the future, but there shouldn't be a next time. this kind of behaviour is never acceptable when a creationist does it -- why the administration? i do not feel that i am at fault for this particular dispute, either. i don't think a one-line question is a more serious offence than blatant insults.

---

אָרַח

I like the Moose's methods of adminning and his cute self-deprecating style. He may get frazzled and jump too soon in some cases but he cares about the right things and he normally avoids making it personal. abe: The above-documented case was a very unusual exception.This message has been edited by Faith, 01-10-2006 02:01 PM

yes, moose is generally very fair. i'm actually a little concerned, too. i don't know what's gotten into him lately.

---

אָרַח

One humbling thing that moderators should do is to go through the Suspensions and Bannings thread from time to time looking for their old actions to see if they can reconstruct why they handed out a suspension. Speaking just for myself, while I don't usually grade myself too harshly, it gives me no comfortable feeling to find that it is still nonetheless too often the case that I find insufficient justification. If I push harder I sometimes find that there were misbehaviors in other threads that weren't mentioned in the suspension announcement, but there are still too many times when I find myself surprised that I took the action I did. I can only conclude that I occasionally become emotionally caught up and make an error in judgment.I take a philosophical attitude toward suspensions. I've been suspended from three boards (only once here), and the only time it bothered me was when I had to watch Terry say things that weren't true after I couldn't reply, and later to see him modify the thread content to eliminate the record of untruths. Since that won't happen here, and since suspensions are almost always temporary, suspension shouldn't be taken as a big deal, and it looks like that's the way you're treating it.The suspension process here will soon be automated with a time period between 1 hour and 1 year that is pre-selected by the moderator, and the suspension is automatically lifted at the end of that period. Other enforcement alternatives, which might not all be implemented by release 2.0, will include a limit on posting frequency, and censored words for individual members. For example, some members might be restricted from posting more often than once per hour or once per day, or prevented from using the word "Haeckel".Anyway, welcome back!

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

it's not so much that, though you do raise good points.it's just the fact that, in a moderation action, moose called the people he was warning "idiots." i don't feel that's an appropriate use of moderation priveledge, nor is suspending someone for questioning the usage of a straight-forward insult.moderate harshly, or overact, or whatever. these things happen sometimes. but enforcing an insult is a little different, imho.

---

אָרַח

i think the automation is a grand idea. just in case someone falls off the earth. i have been on many boards with post limits. this is an acceptable idea. it gives you time sometimes to rethink and edit posts. which i've been doing a great deal of in the last week or so. but censorship i frankly must disagree with. while i understand that it is a private site and so forth, i still think that censorship is innapropriate.but haeckel could be replaced with
added after edit i really don't think that the makes it better. it's really innappropriate especially if he's continuing it in a specific nose-thumbing manner as he appears to be. just really. not appropriate at all. if we can't call names...
note: i try very hard to avoid names. many don't. there are many i've wanted to use and didn't.This message has been edited by brennakimi, 01-11-2006 12:49 AM

I think this is a very bad idea. If administrators don't have to worry about keeping track of suspensions they've dealt out, then they might deal them out too off-handedly. I think moderators should never stop thinking about their moderation activities. The posting frequency restriction might be an idea, it could work as a measure between a warning and a suspension. People with a frequency restriction would think twice before using up their precious posting quota on frivolity.Another idea that might be worth thinking about is to let people earn their right to start topics by first participating in existing dicussions for a while, in order to prove their ability to discuss things.Preventing the use of certain words is an abject idea. It goes directly against freedom of expression, which I believe is one of the great goods here. Who is going to decide about which words are bad, or about who can or cannot use them? On top of that, it's going to be very difficult to enforce. Disallowing the use of a certain word isn't going to stop me getting my meaning across: 'Heackel', 'Hackel', 'Haecle', 'Haekle', 'Hakkle', 'Ernst H.', 'the guy of those drawings'... any idea who I'm talking about? I'm misspelling on purpose, but with the atrocious - sometimes even "ludacris" - spelling of some here, it's going to be very easy to circumvent this rule, even inadvertently.This board is still a sort of hobby for most, and it should stay fun. Making it into a kind of real world police state would induce me to rethink my position here. I might not want to participate any longer.This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 11-Jan-2006 09:16 AM