General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consequtive Consecution

I'll start a new Wikipedia topic, perhaps using some of the material posted above. I may even just spin-off one of the messages.Adminnemooseus

Although I think there has been some administrative opinion to the contrary, I think that topic moderation in general and topic drift control in specific is a job for all to do.The facts as I see it (insert I'm an evo disclaimer here):1) Creationists are in short supply. We need to give special considerations to the "endangered species".2) The evolution side is usually the more rational side (see above disclaimer again). They need to "help keep the sanity".The way to fight topic drift and maintain topic focus is for an individual (not a dog pile) to respond to off-topic material with a simple "that's off-topic here, so I'm not going to get into it".Or the ever popular "Or something like that".Adminnemooseusps: For what it is worth, at the time I replied to NWR in that other topic, I was not even thinking that he also had admin status.

Re: Message 24 of the "Nuggin & Carico - Evolution Explained" topicIn 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.One idea that has come to me, however, is to start a "Misc. side comments to things in "Great Debate" topics" topic. I could then move Mark24's content to the new topic, and substitute a link at the "GB" topic.Other "Great Debate" non-participents could also use this (possible) new topic, by posting their comments there and then posting just a link at the "Great Debate" topic. BUT (as in BIG BUT) I see such as getting out of hand - Members would be posting quite a few links at "Great Debates".The other alternative has been to have "Peanut Gallery" side topics - I don't think the above cited currently has a "PG". The "PG" concept does not include (rightfully IMO) having links posted at the "Great Debate" topic.Another alternative might be to have a "General Purpose Great Debate Peanut Gallery" topic. This is simular to my idea of paragraphs 3&4, but without links at the "Great Debate" topic.Bottom line: I feel strongly against non-designated members posting at "Great Debates". Had it been pre-arranged, I guess Mark24 could have been designated a topic moderator (without admin status). But even then, I think the nature of Mark24's cited message goes beyond what a moderator should post (not that admin status moderators haven't done the same in the past ).The big question: How should we handle "Great Debate" intrusions by non-designated members?Another babble or babble like message from
Adminnemooseus

As I was doing my previous message, AdminNWR has deleted the content of the cited message 24. I agree with your message 16, and with AdminNWR's action.As I type this, there is still the non content deleted message 22 by Mark24 at that "Great Debate" topic. I had not previously noticed it. I guess its content should also be deleted, but I will leave that to AdminNWR.Adminnemooseus

It was a nice message in the well defined wrong place. You had to be shot. Sorry about that.Adminnemooseus

BTW, the now closed Were The Prophets/Messiahs Jesus and Mohammed Inspired By The Same God? is the topic in question.Maybe AdminBen should get an admin to admin POTM for that message.It's pretty tough for an admin to moderate a topic when the theme of the topic is of no personal interest, and is beyond your comprehension anyway. And it certainly doesn't help when topics accumulate new messages as fast as that one did.That topic illustates the (at least potential) advantage of the "Great Debate" forum. When Jar and Buz get into a clash, the moderating team can use all the help they can get. Maybe including getting a qualified moderator lined up right from the begining.What if that topic had been a "GD"? My guess is that Jar and Buz would still each be posting messages at a high rate. Maybe, at least in some situations, each "GD" participent should be limited to 1 message per day, or maybe a reply should not happen until the next day. Take it nice and easy. Keep things lean.Who do we have here at (admin or non-admin), that would have been a suitable moderator for that topic? Brian or DoctrBill may have the theological background, but I suspect they would have a hard time not having a pro-Jar / anti-Buz bias. Maybe AdminPD or AdminPhat. But do they deserve to have such a load dumped on them?Adminnemooseus

But even so, there's the real possibility that a specific topic may be an exception to that "rule".Each topic must be moderated based on its content, without excess considerations of a members past performances.Adminnemooseus

a reply to messages 39 and 40 might be more useful.Buz - AdminBen and I have conceded that there are big problems in moderating such topics.Adminnemooseus

The topic in question is http://EvC Forum: explaining common ancestry -->EvC Forum: explaining common ancestryI (and perhaps all the other admins?) have not been following that topic. I will look into it.AdminnemooseusOK, done. You had a valid complaint. I now suggest that you follow AdminJar's suggestion and stick to the "Great Debate" topic with Nuggin. In glancing at the early part of that topic, Nuggin appears to be treating you fairly. Time for me to look at it some more.This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 01-04-2006 12:27 AM

Most non-admin members probably don't even know such a thing exists, because there is no indication of such in the general public view (other than getting mentioned in messages), but does have a "Private Administration Forum".The Trixie / Faith / AdminRandman situation is under considerable discussion in that private forum.Please calm down and stand by. Eventually there will be some sort of public announcement concerning the situation.AdminnemooseusAdded by edit - OK, redundant to what AdminNWR got posted ahead of me. No need to reply to this message.This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 01-07-2006 03:58 PM

Faith - Thank you for that message.We have at least two situations where two members are apparently having trouble understanding/following what the other is saying (the Holmes/Rrhain thing being the other).We get situations where members get focused into long convoluted discussions. People get upset, and admins are expected to somehow step in and make sense of it all. Every once in a while an admin may pull of an admin-miracle and do such, but quite an effort is involved.I think I'm more inclined to say "I can't begin to make sense of what's going on. I'm going to declare this topic a terminal mess and close it. Please take a clear starting point theme to a new topic. Please DO NOT just move this whole mess to a new topic". And the topic gets closed.AdminnemooseusAdded by edit: Once again squirrel faster than moose. Second edit: Error was pointed out to me (squirrel also smarter than moose). Changed "Holmes/Arachnophilia" to "Holmes/Rrhain" above. Just shows, I can't even keep track of who's not getting along with who.This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 01-07-2006 04:45 PMThis message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 01-07-2006 04:57 PM

I have no idea of where the message in question is, so I can't check it out first hand.I wonder if someone was requesting a Biblical source from someone other than Faith, and Faith stepped in and supplied the source. Then is was inferred that Faith was taking a position based on that source when she had no such intent. Of course, considering what seems to be Faiths absolute faith in the Bibles content, one might be justified in jumping to the conclussion the passage represented her position.A possible parallel situation would be if someone requested a source for some piece of creationist information. If someone from the creationist side then supplied the source, the natural inferal, albeit possibly unwarrented, would be that the content of the source represented that creationist's position. Had the same source been supplied by someone of the evolution side, no such inferal would be made.If such is indeed the case, an added disclaimer such as "the material of the source does not represent my position" would make things clear.Might just be the babbling Adminnemooseus again

Faith suppied the quote at message 76.Trixie replied to Faith at message 77.Faith replied to Trixie at message 78.Trixie replied to Faith with a longer message at message 79.Faith replied to Trixie at message 80, the message being: Ideally, this message 80 should have been at message 78. Also, ideally, Faith could have been more explicit about why she supplied the quote. Really ideally, Faith could have explicitly stated why she supplied the quote in message 76.Yes, this is a 20/20 hindsight thing. I'm not trying to lay blame on anyone, but maybe we can learn from this incident.Adminnemooseus

Despite the public evidence to the contrary, the Golfer behaviour is not being ignored by the various admins.Please stand by for announcements of further developments.Adminnemooseus

See http://EvC Forum: Suspensions and Bannings Part II -->EvC Forum: Suspensions and Bannings Part IIAdminnemooseus