General discussion of moderation procedures

I didn't want to do off-topic stuff at the Tired Light topic, so, for lack of a better place, I'll respond in this topic. Percy and Admin is the same person. All admins at have both non-admin ID's and admin ID's. With the exception of Percy/Admin, the admin names incorporate some variation of the non-admin name (ie. I'm both minnemooseus and Adminnemmoseus). All the admin names start with "Admin".Percy is the founder of this site, the webmaster who wrote most of the sites code, and the one who pays the bills for the site.Junior member is an arbitrary designation for newer members. Once you get to a certain number of posts (offhand, something like 25) you will automaticly become a regular member. We could probably well do away with the "junior member" designation, as it really has no meaning.Admins are chosen from the membership. The forum tradition is that I have been the one to do most of the recruitments, although I certainly do consult with the other admins. As time and postings pass, maybe you will show the desired qualities to become an admin.The truth is, in my recruitment effort history, probably more members have declined than have accepted. I do all the recruitment efforts by e-mail - I feel such is not for the viewing of the general membership, until the new admin is hooked and an announcement is made.For the record, the admin hierarchy (from top to bottom) is webmaster, director, administrator, and moderator. Administrators and moderators have the same powers, except moderators are limited to certain forums while adminstrators have forum wide powers. Essentially, every admin has at least administrator status.Admin/Percy and I are the only directors. The difference is, that directors have a little more access to potentially destructive site controls. I very rarely do anything that is beyond the powers of an administrator.BTW, welcome to .Adminnemooseus

Organized Religion & personal Spirituality, post 120With all due respect, Moose, I think I've displayed quite a bit of patience in this exchange.Didn't rise to being called names. Didn't lash out at constant dodges. Just attempted to get Contracycle to back up his accusations. Accusations which, I might add, he continues to repeat.So might I ask, for the benefit of future threads, why I'm being threatened with suspension? Should I have just gone ahead, tossed out a smarmy insult, and left it at that?This message has been edited by [Dan's Clever Alias], 04-14-2005 10:01 AM

---

"You can't expect him to be answering your prayers when he's not real, can you? That's like writing to the characters of a soap opera and expecting a reply, Mr. Silly Sausage!"
-Jane Christie

I have to back dan up on this, initaly the problem stemed from Ianart making some arguements that were full of logical fallacies and very pro Islamic, what ensued was that a lot of people that were on some level offened by his claims quickly and openly refuted him pointing out what was wrong with his proposals refuting both his proposals and their pro Islamic veiws. Contra saw this as us ganging up on him and those Islamic veiws and belived us to be Muslim bashing in general, when in fact we were theorachy bashing trying to use examples against a Islamic Theocracy which doesn't come up much around. The back and forth between contra and dan followed.
but Dan did not use personal attacks at all, only respones to another person's personal attacks.

Look, I'm going to tend to not want to blow a lot of time and effort in micro-analyzing things. Especially in fast happening topics.Sometimes, make that often, I'm going on spot impressions. The impression of the moment was that Dan and Contra were behaving stupidly. Likewise for Crashfrog and Arachnophilia, earlier on.I also believe that stardard moderator messages tend to be ineffective. They tend to get ignored and/or lost in the pile. Throwing in the word "suspension" is effective at getting attention. Actually doing a suspension is really effective.Staying on topic with real debate, along with being nice to each other, results in me paying no official attention to you.Or something like that.AdminnemooseusThis message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 04-14-2005 05:07 PM

i was only behaving stupidly in regards to potm nomination. but then again, i really did think it was funny.i'm willing to debate in good faith on just about anything. and when i realize i'm wrong, i admit it. i was just getting really frustrated because other people on this board aren't always willing to do that.

A response to this message: As a long time member, I see nothing in that particular post that was beyond the sorts of things that do get posted here on a regular basis. I am especially surprised, since there are messages that I have posted recently that are more worthy of a warning. Perhaps that is what you had in mind, but it is confusing when you choose a fairly innocuous message to attach the warning.I would just consider this another incomprehensable moderating event, except for the implied threat. The threat is especially disturbing since this is only the third warning I have ever recieved -- wouldn't it be more productive simply to point out when you decide that a particular message is against guidelines? It is not obvious why the post you have singled out is so bad -- certainly not, in my opinion, bad enough to be worth a threat.Finally, who's recent suspension are you talking about? All the recent suspensions of which I am aware were from threads that I wasn't reading, and so you need to be a little more explicit as to the relevance of those suspensions to my situation here.

Sorry about that. I was confusing an Arachnophilia incident with you. That aside, I also recall previously reprimanding you. This recollection may be a figment of my poor memory.Regardless, you should know better than to be getting into childish exchanges with a newbee.Adminnemooseus{Added by edit:OK - The reason the Chiroptera name was etched in my dubious quality memory was from the "Bug Reporting Thread" (see this message). Still, I will repeat "Regardless, you should know better than to be getting into childish exchanges with a newbee".}This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 04-23-2005 01:53 PM

EvC Forum: Validity of differing eyewitness accounts in religious textsDid somebody wake up with an itchy trigger finger this morning? Just couldn't wait to get up and do some authoritarian moderating?Remember the "half-assed moderation" problem? You know, where you moderate in threads you haven't been paying attention to, and don't bother to investigate the context or history of the situation in which you're so ham-fistedly inserting yourself?I've only posted in 5 different threads in the past 2 days. I hardly think that's "flooding topics", your personal and long-standing vendetta against me notwithstanding. Then again, according to our resident cranky moose, pretty much any board activity at all is way too much.I realize that I tend to pull a little broader latitude around here from most of the moderators. This is something that I've never asked for nor do I welcome. But I would much prefer to be dealt with fairly by all moderators, rather than have Moose take it upon himself to single-handedly right the balance by dogging my ass.

I refer all to the "Proposal for Moose vs. Frog Great Debate" topic, where I made (in the non-admin mode) my major statement at message 23.I think the essence of the matter was covered in messages 23 through 29.Adminnemooseusps: Jar seems to be our most prolific poster, with 5540 messages in 373 days. I think, however, a fair number of these are of "moderator" nature.Crashfrog has 8278 messages in 769 days. Averaging over 10 messages per day for 2+ years

Gosh, I guess I missed the rule in the forum guidelines that says we're only allowed a certain number of messages per day. Could you point that out for me, please? What's the magic number? Clearly 10 is too many; how many is ok? 5? 3? 1?Oh, right. It's Moose. He'd prefer if no one ever posted, ever. It keeps down the "clutter", where "clutter" = "people talking."

See here, here, and also the surrounding messages.Also look at Crashfrog's recent messages, and while you're at it, General Krall's. Do a "Search by User Name" search here. Look at the message Crashfrog cites in message 83 (above) and the messages above and below that message.While I concede I may be overreacting a bit, I still do think they are posting a lot of "heat not light" messages. And "heat" messages tend to just lead to more "heat" messages. Maybe look at some "mick" messages (search as suggested above), and/or go to the April, 2005, Posts of the Month topic for examples of "light not heat".Adminnemooseus

Yes, lets do that.

quote:

---

Granted. But I guess what I meant is that, unlike BG, you can pretty much watch the episodes of Firefly in any order and the episodes make sense, it doesn't really matter, etc. Except for the pilot it's a series of 13 mostly standalone episodes, like Star Trek TNG was, like most shows are. There's an arc to the series, of course, but mostly, there's very little that carries over to the next episode. By the end of the episode, they're back on the ship again, blasting off to the next adventure, and nobody's really any different. Evidence for this assessment would be the fact that, originally, Firefly was aired out of sequence.

​

Compare that to BG, which is more like a 13-hour movie in several parts. Watch the episodes on "shuffle" or whatever, and you'll get confused. Watch a random episode, or two or three, and you'll definately need to place them in chronological sequence for them to make sense. "Wait, so Helo knows that Boomer is a Cylon, or doesn't he? Are we before or after the last episode we just watched?" Sex and the City is a lot like that, as is The Sopranos. Things happen in episodes that carry over to the subsequent episodes, and that happens a lot. I didn't see that happen a lot in Firefly, which I realize is a concession to people who tune in in the middle of a series.

​

I like episodic drama, like Carnivale. Series that bookend each episode the same way so that they fit together no matter the order just feel contrived to me.

---

SourceOh, shit! Absolutely no arguments or supported assertions there, right? Why, that whole message is nothing but an ad hominem, off-the-hinges screed against my opponents that contributed nothing to the discussion, right?Or this one:

quote:

---

The sense of taste operates in two ways: the detection of salty and sour through ion channels, and the detection of sweet, bitter, and umami through g-protien coupled receptors. On the other hand, olfaction (the sense of smell) operates through (it is believed) the detection of the frequencies of vibration of odor molecules in the infrared range by electron tunneling.

​

Furthermore there's the sense of spiciness, which is the irritation of mucus membranes in the mouth, throat, and nose by capcaicin; as well as the astringent sensation produced by the same irritation of membranes by the mustard oils found in (duh) mustards and horseradish/wasabi. Actually there's a number of "taste" sensations produced by means that have nothing to do with taste buds but rather chemical/tactile sensations in the mouth; fizziness, the tingle of ginger, the vapor of eucalyptus and vanilla, the burn of onion, etc. "Taste" doesn't seem to be the right word for those because you can detect them with your eye membranes too. (Ouch.)

---

SourceBoy, now there's a completely useless post, isn't it? I guess everybody already knew that the taste buds detected five, not four, different tastes? Nope, not a thing to be learned from my stupid ass.Or this one:

quote:

---

Doesn't the fact that we can set up quantum experiments that only produce a certain outcome when unobserved, and then get those outcomes, lead to the inescapable conclusion that there's no other observer besides us?

​

If there's an observer god watching everything all the time, how is it that we can successfully perform quantum experiments that only work when unobserved?

---

SourceGod, how can you people stand it when I ask such obvious and trivial questions? The existence of God? No real significance there, right?

quote:

---

That's not actually true. There's a significant body of experimental verification of both special and general relativity; for instance we can directly observe time dialation effects most spectacularly in experiments where accurate atomic clocks are taken on high-speed jet rides; a more common variation of this experiment is to accelerate particles with a known, short half-life and observe that their greater velocity leads to a longer half-life.

​

Hiroshima, and later Nagasaki, were both leveled at the end of World War II by the most famous demonstration of the veracity of Einstein's theories. Where, exactly, did you get this idea that we don't have any evidence for relativity? The only theory for which we have more evidence is probably the theory of evolution.

---

SourceMerciful Christ is there no end to my relentless, empty, value-less contrarianism? Is there any assertion I won't simply toss off with no supporting background or elucidation whatsoever? Apparently not. After all, every single one of my messages are "heat, not light." Not once in over eight thousand posts have I meaningfully contributed to debate. Or isn't that what the Moose would have us believe?The funny thing is, I'm not sure I can think of a single post in weeks where Moose's participation in a debate has been in his capacity as a participant and scientist and not as a moderator. Oh, right. It's not so much that I'm a bad guy; it's that I'm to be punished for the habits of others. Gotcha.{Added "Source" links - AM}This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 04-28-2005 07:17 PM

deleted - what's the point.This message has been edited by General Krull, 28-Apr-2005 06:58 PM

I never said anything of the sort, that you didn't also post good messages. The four you cite are fine, although the first one is in a "Coffee House" topic about a TV show (whoopie!).I note you didn't cite any from the topic that generated my original comment, the topic you cited in message 83. Are you equally proud of those? Minnemooseus has pretty much had nothing to say. Should I have posted messages anyway? Has there not been enough posted by others?As per General Krall - I see no need to give out individual personalized messages. He was a side comment in a message to you. Sorry, if doing such hurt either of your feelings.Adminnemooseus

And I mean all of you. Grow up.

---