Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Change in Moderation?
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 168 of 303 (92238)
03-13-2004 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by Percy
03-13-2004 9:38 AM


Percy said:
quote:
If you have a copy,...
Fortunately, there is a copy of the entire topic, available at http://EvC Forum: Forum: Christian Ideology -->EvC Forum: Forum: Christian Ideology
quote:
...why not post it again...
http://EvC Forum: Forum: Christian Ideology -->EvC Forum: Forum: Christian Ideology might be a good place.
Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Percy, posted 03-13-2004 9:38 AM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by nator, posted 03-13-2004 2:40 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 177 of 303 (94699)
03-25-2004 12:42 PM


Moderation issues brought up in other topics
There has been at least two discussions of moderation procedures happening elsewhere.
One involves DNAunion, Mr. Hambre, and perhaps others. This lead up to Admin's message in the "Data, Information, and all that." topic.
I will, at least for now, make no comment on the above cited.
The other is in the "Who do you miss at EvC?" topic, which lead up to this message from Mammuthus:
quote:
Hi Hambre,
I have been around the entire time in lurker mode. I suspect Dan has been as well (either that or their is an Eliza Dushku show we don't know about that is keeping him occupied...like a Paris Hilton downloadable video sequel). Besides being extremely busy, the entire Moose anti-humor-protect-those-poor-creationists campaign ( specifically Syamsu) has completely soured me to the forum. I asked Moose to support Syamsu's statements since Sy refuses or explain why he has systematically picked off the likes of Scott Page, Darwinsterrier and is making a great effort to knock crashfrog off. He ignored the request and has since then been posting himself in the humor section and completely ignoring any and all forum rule violations by Syamsu and many other creationists. So I figure, I'm really very busy, none of the creationists on this site are interested in hearing what a scientist has to say anyway (since being ignorant must be so much fun), nobody will read any of the references I post, I don't even live in the U.S. anymore...so I figure to hell with it...more time for research. I will lurk until Moose picks you, Quetzal, mark24, holmes, schraf and crashfrog off. Then I will stop even that. EvC is just not as interesting or fun anymore. In any case, I am giving Moose his big birthday, Xmas, and groundhog day present wrapped up all in one nice package. I am out of here like Page and DT and he did not even have to go to the trouble of suspending or banning me. He can enjoy Syamsu's lucid and informative posts in peace (though he may have to suspend or ban Mr. Bound to get that peace back). I'm taking a break of indefinite length. If you need a reference barrage once in a while you can contact me through Percy.
I do think that extra protection is needed, for the endangered species "Creationist". If a rigorous guideline enforcement was done on the creationist side, we well might end up with a "creationist free zone" here.
Per specific members:
Syamsu - I think the perceived problem(s) would be minimized, if the offended members of the evolution side could enforce some self restraint. They complain that Syamsu is not worth replying to, yet they continue to do the replies. Often that descends into what seems to be trying to fight stupidity with stupidity. If you find Syamsu to be so offensive, just ignore him.
SLPx (Scott Page) - I certainly have had my conflicts with SLPx, including having issued at least 1 of his (at least) 3 suspensions. I must, however, point out that SLPx's current suspension was issued by Admin/Percy. The suspension announcement can be found here, in the "Evolution and Probability" topic. As is the case with any suspended member, SLPx is welcome to contact Admin/Percy by e-mail, to request reinstatement. Apparently SLPx has never done such.
Darwin's Terrier - Yes, a 4 day suspension was heavy handed, in dealing with the "little joke". But I thought a little heavy handedness would be useful, in making a strong impression upon DT and others. Subtlety does not seem to work. Anyhow, DT has posted once since the suspension. Since then, I have also personally e-mailed DT, explaining my position and attempting to welcome him back into participation.
Crashfrog - I think that my relationship with Crashfrog is well documented elsewhere. Essentially, I am focusing in on him as being the greatest of the "pile on the creationist" culprits. All I am trying to do, is to get him to slow down some, including to give others of the evolution side some space to post some messages. I strongly suspect there are a lot of the evolution side out there, who think "Well, I'd like to say something here, but Crashfrog has already covered it". I have also (as minnemooseus) sometimes challenged what I have perceived as Crashfrog presenting "shaky science". That is certainly my right, as a member of . If Crashfrog and others want to interpret that as administrative bias, that's their problem.
Mr. Hambre - I think I have attempted to suppress some of Mr. Hambre's misplaced attempts at humor, but it all, I do have a high respect for his input. In particular, I very much liked what he had to say at the "Finding Darwin's God" topic.
Quetzal, mark24, holmes, schraf - I don't recall having had any substantial problems with messages from these people. I know I have given Quetzal and Holmes "Posts of the Month" nominations. I have tried to recruit Quetzal, Holmes, Mark, (and Mammuthus) as moderators, without success. I make that comment now, despite my general reluctance to make moderator recruitment a public discussion.
The bottom line is, that we need more self-moderation by various members. It is beyond the practical abilities of the various admins/moderators to control things, short of many topic closures and suspensions happening.
Cheers,
Adminnemooseus

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by crashfrog, posted 03-25-2004 1:02 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied
 Message 179 by Primordial Egg, posted 03-25-2004 5:20 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied
 Message 182 by Syamsu, posted 03-26-2004 9:04 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied
 Message 185 by Dan Carroll, posted 03-29-2004 11:52 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 186 of 303 (95672)
03-29-2004 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by RAZD
03-28-2004 10:19 AM


Re: information please?
Personally, I find the writings of DNAunion to be akin to those of Brad McFall, only with better structure.
My impression is that DNAunion is one who is obsessed with "information theory". I could phase this as being a "techno-lawyer". With the exception of Admin/Percy, I don't think any of the moderating staff have any interest in, or feel for dealing with "information theory" type discussion.
My thoughts are, if you wish to do discussions with the likes of Syamsu, Brad McFall, DNAunion, a certain others, you're pretty much on your own. If you have serious problems with doing such, then don't do it.
Overall conclusion - I certainly don't think I have the insight or powers to fix all, or even most of the various perceived problems at this forum. If anyone thinks I do, they have massively overestimated my abilities.
Adminnemooseus
ps to all - Responses to other moderation issues are also in the works, but with my feeble intellect, it takes me a fair amount of time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by RAZD, posted 03-28-2004 10:19 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by RAZD, posted 03-29-2004 2:54 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied
 Message 192 by RAZD, posted 04-08-2004 10:18 AM Adminnemooseus has replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 193 of 303 (98736)
04-08-2004 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by RAZD
04-08-2004 10:18 AM


Re: moving topics
I certainly think that the title needs improving.
At the time I moved the topic, the "geologic ages" consideration caused me to put it into the "Dates and Dating" forum. Indeed, perhaps the "Geology..." forum would be the better place. I'm not yet going to re-move the topic. Let's see where it goes first.
Thanks,
Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by RAZD, posted 04-08-2004 10:18 AM RAZD has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 200 of 303 (127659)
07-26-2004 5:17 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by entwine
07-26-2004 4:43 AM


Re: what do you want to do?
I must defer to AdminNosy's opinion on the matter, as he is far more up the the situation than I am.
That said, the The Reluctant Messenger book and the related website looks to have good potential of being its own topic.
Perhaps you would like to start the "The Reluctant Messenger" topic in the "Book Nook" forum?
Adminnemooseus

Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
Thread Reopen Requests

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by entwine, posted 07-26-2004 4:43 AM entwine has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by entwine, posted 07-26-2004 5:42 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 204 of 303 (132654)
08-11-2004 2:13 AM


The many short postings vs. a single large posting question
JT, at message 199 of the The Nature of Scientific Inquiry - Contrasted with Creation "Science" topic:
JT writes:
I have a question for anybody. Ever since Jar requested that I "use the little red button," my post count has increased dramatically and the topic's activity meter has spiked (both of which I think are cool), but I was wondering if the numerous small posts are annoying? Thanks.
Much of this question is, as I see it, a "symptom" (for lack of a better term) of the creationist vs. evolutionist imbalance here at . One creationist posting results in multiple evolutionist member responses. How does the creationist handle it?
This is a question with no easy answer. Personally, I'm inclined to favor the large unified message instead of fragmenting things into mini-messages.
To do this, however, one should probably use the "General Reply" button, which does not connect the response to any specific message. Unless (I guess) the primary message responded to can be selected.
If the creationist's gung-ho were up to it, s/he could list the individual message names and numbers as s/he responds to multiple message by one message.
Comments from others?
Adminnemooseus

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by jt, posted 08-14-2004 9:37 PM Adminnemooseus has replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 206 of 303 (134104)
08-15-2004 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by jt
08-14-2004 9:37 PM


Re: The many short postings vs. a single large posting question
I note that JT has used the "reply to many in 1 message method" here.
I know that this is (more or less) what I suggested above, but seeing it in reality, I see that there is no advantage to having done the individual messages, and there is the disadvantage that the message links are lost.
I recomend that the individual message method be gone back to.
Perhaps further comments from me later.
Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by jt, posted 08-14-2004 9:37 PM jt has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by lfen, posted 08-17-2004 12:11 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 208 of 303 (139186)
09-02-2004 1:34 PM


Comic book topic location

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 209 of 303 (140929)
09-08-2004 10:53 AM


BUMP - This topic is the place to discuss moderation issues
In my signature I include a link to this topic (as below). Members seem to rarely make use of that link.
I would truly prefer that responses to the moderator interjections (by their nature off-topic) at the various debate topics, not be responded to (more off-topic) at those topics.
Please bring the moderation issue discussion (with a link to the message in question) to this topic. This will reduce the topic disruption at the other topics, and will unify discussion of moderation issues into one location.
Thanks,
Adminnemooseus

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
Thread Reopen Requests

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 218 of 303 (146056)
09-30-2004 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by Wounded King
09-30-2004 11:40 AM


quote:
Maybe you could rope off a little corner of the forum as a petting zoo for the irredeemably irrational. Much in the way the 'free for all' forum acted when Syamsu or others had their posting priveleges restricted.
Very perceptive of you. There is an ongoing discussion about this very concept, in the "Private Admin Forum". I had just bumped the topic early this morning.
Care to become an administrator? Please don't respond in this topic. Rather, send me an e-mail at mnmoose@lakenet.com
Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Wounded King, posted 09-30-2004 11:40 AM Wounded King has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 219 of 303 (146057)
09-30-2004 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by Admin
09-30-2004 11:35 AM


Summing up mode - Great idea
Sounds like a wonderful idea!!!
After the summaries are done, there would be the option of going back to "normal mode".
AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Admin, posted 09-30-2004 11:35 AM Admin has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 227 of 303 (148213)
10-07-2004 7:34 PM


At the "Junk DNA..." topic
At the "Junk DNA..." topic:
Crashfrog:
quote:
Admins, at this point, I don't know what else JAD has to do to substantiate that he has no plans to engage in productive discussion. What else does it take to get some action taken around here? Maybe when the Moose gets done sitting on topics he can get his ass in gear, here?
My reply:
quote:
Do you not have the free will of not responding to Salty/JAD?
Make any response to the "Changes in Moderation?" topic. Link back here.
Willowtree's reply to me (he also quoted the Crashfrog bit):
quote:
IOW, this tone expects you to side with him. I wonder where this expectation originated from ?
You are a puppet.
The fact that you acted like no insult was made to you demonstrates fear of a debater/inmate who is running the asylum.
You have given one of your own a sweetheart pass when he should of been disciplined.
For now, no further comment.
Adminnemooseus
{Above 3 links edited to reflect topic move to "Boot Camp" forum - AM}
This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 10-08-2004 01:51 PM

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by AdminNosy, posted 10-07-2004 9:09 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 230 of 303 (148245)
10-08-2004 1:09 AM
Reply to: Message 229 by crashfrog
10-07-2004 9:34 PM


Apology accepted
I figured any perceived insult reflects worse on you than on me.
I think most members have licence to insult away at least a bit (at the risk of above comment situation).
Rocket, however, didn't have that licence. Any digital lip out of him, and he was gone.
Adminnemooseus
ps: Ya know, both "licence" and "license" are considered correct spellings?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by crashfrog, posted 10-07-2004 9:34 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-08-2004 2:28 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 233 of 303 (148420)
10-08-2004 3:16 PM


Odd couple of days
It was an odd couple of days.
10/6/04 (1:22 pm) - I start a new topic, based on something Whatever said in the Which religion's creation story should be taught? topic.
10/7/04 (1:04 am) - Later in the same topic, I suspend Whatever.
and
10/7/04 (3:59 pm) - I rebuke Crashfrog, pertaining his forum relationship to John A. Davison (Salty).
10/7/04 (6:52 pm) - Later in the same topic, I suspend JAD/Salty.
Adminnemooseus
ps: JAD is back.

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-08-2004 5:22 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 234 of 303 (148424)
10-08-2004 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by mike the wiz
10-08-2004 3:00 PM


I apologize for not reopening the topic in question. If you had only submitted the request to the "Thread Reopen Requests" topic, things might have been different. Now, since you only get one such reopen request, we shall never know.
Adminnemooseus

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by mike the wiz, posted 10-08-2004 3:00 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by mike the wiz, posted 10-08-2004 3:31 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024