General discussion of moderation procedures

The issues currently being discussed are not new. Many relevant good messages already exist. I encourage all, and especially the newer members, to go back and read from the beginning the "Suggestions and Questions" topic that is the precursor to this topic.You don't need to go all the way through message 302 there, but I do suggest at least perhaps the first 100 messages. Change in Moderation.Adminnemooseus

Everyone - Quit the sniping back and forth. Nothing good is or will be coming from it (other than maybe give me ideas that the participants might all need suspensions). WARNING! WARNING! WARNING!I also still recommend the reading of the cite in message 121.Going to close this topic for a while. Any real, worthy comments will need to wait for it's reopened. MEANING: DON'T START A NEW GRIPE TOPIC - Doing such WILL induce a suspension.Adminnemooseus

Topic reopened.See previous message - The recomendation and WARNINGS there still apply.AdminnemooseusThis message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 05-05-2005 11:06 PM

I think we may need to restart the "Boot Camp" for some of you.Closing this topic for a while.DON'T START ALTERNATE TOPIC!Adminnemooseus

If you're going to post here, make it good.Adminnemooseus

From here.

Re: Rrhain is a very intelligent person - Closing topicMy comments there are my sincere beliefs - Really and truly. No insults intended.The very humble Adminnemooseus

I love that last sentence.Personally, I don't know and at this point don't care who was right and who was wrong. The bottom line is that there was a major disruption of the forum operations over a rather insignificant detail. So, to Rrhain and anyone else involved in the posting of so many words and messages about this whole affair - DROP IT; LEAVE IT BEHIND.I suggest to the various admins, that automatic suspensions be passed out to any member who does not follow the above request.I am once again going to close this topic for a while, so that this message doesn't just get buried in the pile.If you have comments/questions about moderator issues, save them for when the topic reopens.Adminnemooseus

participents may wish to look at the previous message, especially if you haven't before.Adminnemooseus

Re: Messages 224 and 225 of this topic.Rrhain suspended for yet to be determined amount of time.Adminnemooseus

See here.Adminnemooseus

The AlasdairJC ID has been deleted.It has also been added as an alias to your Alasdair ID, such that (I hope) all the messages created by both ID's will be connected to you.Admin/Percy - Please confirm that this process I just did is the way to handle such things.AdminnemooseusAdded by edit: OK, at the moment it seems I've just turned AlasdairJC into an unregistered member.This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 05-14-2005 04:28 AM

I think I've said it before, and I'll say it again - You input into considerations of moderation issues is outstanding. The question is, do you function as such best as an "outsider", or should you also be an admin? I guess it's your decision - But if you are interested and willing to be an admin, please send me an e-mail.Once again, I must applaud Sylas/AdminSylas for his message 234. He has expressed my position far better than I ever could. I would in particular like to repeat the following: If we have a topic that has turned into an "out of control mess", the reality is that something needs to be done as soon as possible (ASAP). While the various admins may and have had "Private Administration Forum" discussions on particular issues, it still comes down to being that an individual admin needs to do a summary judgement and do a summary action. This action may or may not prove out to be the best possible choice, but under the ASAP need constraint, an admin needs to "do something, even if it's wrong". I think such is an example of such a "summary judgement and action". I think the various admins do try to be open to the general membership, about what the individual and collective admin positions are, but just as much of everything else at this forum, good and important information tends to get lost in the clutter. Work is currently underway, in the "Private Administration Forum", to try to come up with a method to prevent this "lost in the clutter". Again, I think such is an example of a needed "summary judgement and action". Just as standard topics that are deemed "out of control messes" are sometimes given temporary "cooling off period" closures, such did I judge to be the case and need for this topic. The topic was closed for about 24 hours.Adminnemooseus

The consensus opinion of the various admin seems to be that you are badly unable to discuss things science. You seem to be a theologian. Stick to the "Faith and Belief" and "Bible Studies" forums, and don't fret about being able to take part in the "Intelligent Design" or "The Bible: Accuracy and Inerrancy" forums.If you are inclined, I encourage you to propose the "Theology of Intelligent Design (A no science topic)" topic, to go into the "Faith and Belief" forum.Adminnemooseusps by edit, to Parasomnium: The science forums are available to Buzsaw, read only.This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 05-19-2005 06:09 AM

Science is secular. Its purpose is neither to confirm nor deny Gods existence. Invoking "God did it" does not apply in science, unless perhaps you can drag God out of the supernatural into the natural.In the "Science Forums" area, the "Intelligent Design" forum is to discuss the scientific merits of ID. Perhaps the "Intelligent Design" forum would better be termed "Intelligent Design - Is It Science?".If you wish to debate the theological merits of ID, independent of scientific consideration, then the topic (as previously suggested) belongs in the "Faith and Belief" forum.Per suggestions of creating other forums:We could have just one forum - "Evolution vs. Creationism". Indeed, that is the "super-forum" designation that covers it all. From there, things have been broken down into sub-forums (eg. "Science Forums"), which in turn have been broken down into the individual ("sub-sub") forums (eg. "Biological Evolution"). The "sub-sub" forums in turn are broken down into other forums, designated "topics".Now, we could always have more "sub-forums", and/or more "sub-sub-forums". We could have a "Theological Considerations of Intelligent Design" forum. Heck, we could even have a "For Buzsaw to say anything he wants to" forum. The trick is to find the best balance between splitting and lumping in the scheme of topic organization. But the default needs to be "lumping", unless it can be determined that there is a good reason for a split. As I see it, "Theological Considerations of Intelligent Design" can nicely fit in the "Faith and Belief" forum.Adminnemooseus (running in the babble mode?)