General discussion of moderation procedures - Part 7

Please also provide a link to the offending posts.My impression is that if he did not identify you, that you have no cause to complain. You are the one who identified yourself as the author of the quote he was commenting on.

A timeout is a brief suspension of activity or short break from work or play. I use the term timeout for short periods of time because I feel a suspension is more serious, longer, and sometimes permanent. I think other admins have picked up my use of the term.A timeout for a toddler consists of sitting them in a chair as punishment, which is not what you recieved. I was thinking of sports when I started using the term in referring to stopping a posters activity on the board for a short period of time.Please don't make it something it's not.

You might try giving my Message 150 from a recent thread a read. It explains that even legitimate complaints can be difficult to figure out.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Yes, I was rude. But it seemed to me he deserved it. Many have disagreed.But I stand by my feelings.

I have reviewed the thread. Although I consider the topic silly and frivolous, I don't see any serious rules violation by robinrohan. I don't see him as picking on you. I think he was criticising all evolutionists who are not nihilists - and that is just about every evolutionist at evcforum.He (robinrohan) quoted examples from a number of people, without naming the author. His comments such as "Doesn't it make you want to puke?" were comments on posted content rather than comments on the author.In my opinion, if anybody received a black eye in the discussion it was robinrohan himself. Very few, and probably none of the evolutionists, have agreed with his characterization of some posts as boasts.Sure, I can see why some of the posts might have made you a little uncomfortable. But, in my estimation, you have over-reacted.You are welcome to comment on this post. Any admins who disagree with me are welcome to present their own assessments. But others should avoid comment, given that this is not a debate thread.

---

oooooops see post 157Edited by Brian, : No reason given.

I think Ray's ban for calling me an idiot is unfair.Ray has learning difficulties, and should be given a little bit more wiggle room.My tuppenceworth.Brian.

PLUS, people here routinely call each other idiots all the time. they just get away with it because they can phrase it far more eloquently.*coughcough*

---

Maintaining civility is everyone's concern, not just that of administrators. Anyway a post was addressed to me justifying your behavior and I responded to it.

Good point, Deer.But here's a question to admins. What if the other poster doesn't mind? What if it doesn't bother him?

Hey! Dis is a respectable joint we're runnin' here. Yas wanna insult each other, take it outside!

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

quote:

---

But here's a question to admins. What if the other poster doesn't mind? What if it doesn't bother him?

---

That's a good question and sometimes it does play a part in a moderator's decision.But then we have the people who like to keep score.Let's say poster A has called poster B and C idiot on several occassions, but B and C are not offended and tend to move on with the discussion unruffled. Moderators don't intercede because B and C aren't bothered and the thread hasn't deteriorated into a name calling fest.Now we have new member D who then decides to call poster A and idiot, but unfortunately poster A is offended and the thread starts to deteriorate. Moderators deal with poster D who is upset because poster A has been able to get away with calling others idiots with no consequences.So I think Moderators tend to go through stages of dealing with infractions relative to the thread and "no tolerance" modes depending on the temperature of the board.

Well, I was disappointed. I was enjoying my "conversation" with the other poster.

I see that here adminFaith is discussing the promotion of a topic on the effects of Rain during the flood.The problem (well concern really) is here:

quote:

---

but I should probably point out to you that you're going to encounter objections to your understanding of the Flood, one being that there were no very high mountains like Everest at the time, and another being that all the water didn't come from the rain but from something called "the fountains of the deep." So you might want to review some other threads on the ark first, and maybe rewrite your calculations in the OP.

---

The problem is that this topic is heading for Geology and the great flood rather than Faith and belief. It therefore seem inapporiate to advise a poster to alter the calculation to remove the inclusion of Mount Everest - an mountain we know existed at that time.When the topic is opened, the creationist side can argue the toss about the existence of Mount Everest 5,000 years ago BUT surely the default position must be, that which is current supported by Science, (So in this case - yes Everest existed 5,000 years ago - because we know it existed 60 million years ago), not the position that the creationists would like to argue within the thread?I hope that makes some sort of sense Edited by CK, : changed title

Maybe we need a 'Sticks and Stones' flag to hang out on our posts, Rob?:-)