|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consequtive Consecution | |||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNWR Inactive Member |
This isn't the place to debate, except with respect to moderator actions.
Granted, there was a moderator opinion (but not an action). For further discussion on the issue, it would be appropriate to open a thread on wiki, or perhaps more generally on what evidence is reasonable or acceptable within debates. {New topic is started and is Wikipedia - A general discussion of its validity. - Adminnemooseus} This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 12-21-2005 04:08 PM To comment on moderation procedures or respond to admin messages:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNWR Inactive Member |
In the past I have, without hesitation, given such messages the "content deleted" treatment. In the above cited situation, however, I feel I must be more tolerant to Mark24, he being the long and distinguished forum member he is.
In this case I left the first of the mark24 posts untouched, since Carico had already responded. For the second, the content is mostly still there, visible via "Peek", but masked to not display.
The big question: How should we handle "Great Debate" intrusions by non-designated members?
In general, I think the contents should be deleted or masked. Maybe we need a dB code to make it easy to mask contents.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNWR Inactive Member |
What difference does it make if someone is a designated or non-designated member if he is speaking the truth?
It is about following rules, as is required for orderly debates. In The Great Debate, discussion is specifically limited to the designated participants. The problem with mark24's post was that he should not have posted anything in that thread. It is supposed to be a thread for only you and nuggin. This message has been edited by AdminNWR, 12-28-2005 09:21 AM To comment on moderation procedures or respond to admin messages:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNWR Inactive Member |
More comments on Were The Prophets/Messiahs Jesus and Mohammed Inspired By The Same God?.
I suppose I could have "moderated" that thread, and in a way I tried via my non-admin participation. But I would not have been considered fair by some of the participants. Here is how I saw it.The widely supported conventional wisdom, is that it is the same God. However, buzsaw and Faith were arguing a contrary position, and jar was defending the conventional wisdom with a socratic style of argument. My analysis here will likely be considered biased by some of the participants. C'est la vie. In support of their position, buzsaw and Faith presented an argument that would probably resonate with a narrow evangelical audience, but which would be seen by most Christians and most scholars as missing the point entirely. Their arguments depended on a confusion between meaning and reference, as I tried to point out in my non-admin-mode posts in that thread. The miscommunication between the two sides was annoying. But I find it difficult to fault jar for defending the commonly accepted view, particularly when no persuasive arguments were presented for the alternative position. And I cannot see any basis for considering jar's participation to be off-topic. I would like to compliment buzsaw for ending the discussion on a positive note in Message 298. This message has been edited by AdminNWR, 12-30-2005 12:56 PM To comment on moderation procedures or respond to admin messages:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNWR Inactive Member |
This shouldn't be a debate thread, so I won't comment on most of what buzsaw wrote. But I do want to comment on one point.
buzsaw writes:
Sorry, buzsaw, but that is wrong. If anything, "persuasive" is relative to those you are trying to persuade. This is a broad forum, so arguments should appeal to its broad audience. and you also know full well as an admin that "persuasive arguments" is often relative to one's ideological perspective. To comment on moderation procedures or respond to admin messages:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNWR Inactive Member |
OK, as you say this isn't a debate thread but I apparently missed this comment in your earlier post and I have to agree with Buz that you are totally off the mark.
Just a clarification. Commenting on moderator action (or inaction) is appropriate here. Your post is on-topic, except for that remark about arachnophilia. If I were to debate some of your comments, I would risk taking it off-topic. To comment on moderation procedures or respond to admin messages:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNWR Inactive Member |
You may not think you were debating. Nevertheless, you were debating (or "discussing" if you prefer that word).
You started Message 60 with "I'm not meaning to question a choice for POTM ...". Maybe it would have been better if you had just questioned it. At least that would be more clearly on topic for the POTM thread.
The question I am raising is if it isn't possible that admin's are getting a bit jumpy these days?
I don't believe so. They are allowing more off-topic drift now than was being allowed three months ago. The POTM thread is supposed to be strictly for nominations, seconding, and acknowledgement by the author of the nominated post. Questioning a nomination is arguably within what is allowed. Since, on your own posted words, you were not questioning the nomination, your postings were inappropriate, as was NosyNed's reply to the first of those two posts of yours. To comment on moderation procedures or respond to admin messages:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNWR Inactive Member |
That is now considered "discussion" and off limits?
I can't read AdminAsgara's mind. But my guess is that it was your second post on this that triggered her reaction. There is, or there ought to be, some tolerance for occasional slightly off-topic posts when there is a legitimate purpose. It becomes a problem when they seem to be forming a subtopic of their own.
Where should such notices go... or is no one supposed to point out that an error may have been made (or is that now going to only be allowed to admins)?
I agree that there is sometimes a need for off-topic communication, such as in pointing out possible errors, or indicating ambiguous wording. It would be nice if there were some form of back-channel communication available for this. If you have any suggestions on this, you could try posting them to Feature Requests and Suggestions Thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNWR Inactive Member |
Carico writes:
No, your post was completely off-topic. For reference, the off-topic post referred to is Message 163. My post was indeed relevant to the topic so the warning I received had nothing to do with being off-topic, but simply the desire to not want to hear God's word. The topic for that thread has to do with scientific evidence and scientific proof of the existence of God. See Message 1. To comment on moderation procedures or respond to admin messages:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNWR Inactive Member |
I didn't like your thread either, although I hadn't decided what to do about it.
I suggest you might be thankful that AdminJar got to it first and closed it, before a more activist admin chose to suspend you for starting what appears to be a personal attack thread (with an accusation in the thread title). Both of you (holmes and Rrhain) need to learn how to make a clear final statement of position, then withdraw from the battle without insisting on having the last word. Some other members might also benefit from adopting such a practice. To comment on moderation procedures or respond to admin messages:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNWR Inactive Member |
Sorry to break the bad news. However, if you expect moderators to read in full detail every message, and to do fact checking research on every message, then you would need a system of paid moderators, and well paid at that.
I stopped detailed reading of disputes between you and Rrhain some time ago. I generally respect you as a poster. You make many thoughtful comments. But when you get into a dispute like those, the posts that are part of the dispute quickly become unproductive, and quite boring. It is hard to say whether moderators should have stepped in and stopped it. There was fault on both sides. The dispute was in a Coffee Room topic, so not disruptive to the main debates. The level of personal attacks in what I read was not high enough to raise serious concerns. Sometimes it is better to let a fight work itself out. The title of your newest thread (the one AdminJar closed) was a little inflammatory, and made worse because it is a thread title and not just text within a thread.
This is NOT about having the last word. I already gave a final statement of my position.
Your new thread was about documenting your grievances. Don't you think that Rrhain would have felt entitled to respond in kind? Both you and Rrhain could have been wise enough to have broken off your debates several rounds earlier, at about the time they started to become unproductive and boring. Try to remember that what you are posting is being written for a broad public. When it stops being of interest to that public audience, it is time to withdraw from that particular debate. If Rrhain is reading this, he should take the same advice. And, truth to tell, I should be more careful to follow that advice myself. To comment on moderation procedures or respond to admin messages:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNWR Inactive Member |
I won't say much here, lest this become unproductive.
As far as stopping discussion when things stop being of interest to the public, how am I supposed to know when that is?
If you cannot tell, then you have become too emotionally involved.
And indeed if following public interest only is really a functioning rationale, shouldn't we be discouraging people "bumping" threads?
I am not a fan of empty bumping (i.e. without contributing anything to the thread). I admit to the possibility that I may have done that myself. As to your thread - as far as I am concerned, that is up to AdminJar. I am sure he has been reading our dialog. To comment on moderation procedures or respond to admin messages:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNWR Inactive Member |
Are you honestly telling me you know when things are of interest to "the public" or not? I honestly never know what is of interest to anyone else, even when I have no emotional involvement in a topic. Perhaps that is a lack of "public empathy" on my part?
You presumably had an emotional involvement in correcting what you saw as misrepresentations of your position. Yes, sure, judging what is of public interest is uncertain. But the more it becomes a dispute between two people, the less public interest.
In any case I do need a resolution, ...
From a moderators perspective, these problems are difficult to do with. There is usually some fault on both sides, although it might be predominantly from one side. If the moderator takes sides, that only causes increased argument. So the best choices for a moderator are either to do nothing and hope the problem solves itself, or to attempt to stop it without giving any appearance of taking sides. There has been a suggestion that we set up a conflict resolution process, where we would setup something similar to a great debate between the two parties, but with a referee. If both parties agreed, the dispute would be transferred to that conflict resolution thread. We don't have any experience in how well that would work. In retrospect, we possibly should have stepped in and stopped the disputes between Rrhain and you, and at a relatively early stage. To comment on moderation procedures or respond to admin messages:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNWR Inactive Member |
This thread is triggering the patented babblefest meter
To comment on moderation procedures or respond to admin messages:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNWR Inactive Member |
This is not a thread for debating between members Restrict posts here to comments on moderator action. To comment on moderation procedures or respond to admin messages:
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024