General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consequtive Consecution

I agree. You did. I was glad. I tried to use a tone that reflected that. I assume that I failed.. You have every right to feel that way. It's not about being right or wrong. It's about debating the issues, not the people.With that said, Then maybe it's worth discussing. Not as a side-comment in a thread, but in another thread. In theory, we should be able to talk about debate without making personal attacks. Since I don't remember ever seeing it done... I'm highly dubious whether such a thread would get promoted. My intuition says that the right solution is for the original poster to wrap up the debate. Part of that might be "calling someone on it". I think within that context, a comment about a specific instance is fine.Generalizing to many instances... I don't see how such comments will be taken constructively. To do so from the outside coming in, and as the only line in a post... it's a no-brainer.I'd suggest, when you are in an exchange with schraf, and you feel she blows you off, then engage her there. Not as a personal attack or a generalization of behavior, but pointing out what you see happening. I think that is more constructive--and happens to be a technique that schraf often uses effectively. So maybe that will work as you'd like.Hope that helps clarify what I'm looking for. Thanks for your comment.AbE: Change to admin mode. Been a while since I goofed that up!This message has been edited by AdminBen, Saturday, 2005/12/31 12:29 PM

Having thought it over, I'll just continue to pray and work at getting along with Jar and Arach. Truth eventually wins in the end, though finding it often requires digging through tough terrain on the part of all of us as iron sharpens iron. It was suggested that one option was just to avoid them, but I really don't want that option. Jar and Arach, peace, at least until the next INTENSE SHOOTOUT!! your tags have to close in the opposite order as they are opened if you opem them I then B...B has to close before I - the QueenThis message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 12-31-2005 02:50 PM

---

From "THE MONKEY'S VIEWPOINT: Man descended, the ornery cuss, but he surely did not descend from us!"

After this post of mine, AdminAsgara created a post using large red Caps declaring that the POTM thread was not a debate thread. The problem is that there wasn't even a debate going on.I realized it looked like it could LOOK like I was debating, so I specifically added language explaining what I was doing. When Ned answered, I only replied to explain why the nature of his rec had confused as to if he had correctly linked to the correct post.Its not like that has not happened before. I thought I was being helpful, both times. I certainly didn't leave anything that could be debated, nor indicated that I felt I wanted to say anything more.Thus asgara's post addressed something that was not happening and if anything added to the length of OT discussion.The question I am raising is if it isn't possible that admin's are getting a bit jumpy these days? I understand if there is a blatant problem, or something is running on a bit, but it does seem like there is a bit more activity from admins recently, and not completely necessary.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

very well.

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. 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.

---

If it is ok to second a POTM then it should also be possible to post a disagreement. The discussion should NOT discuss the merits of the content of the post but the quality of the post.Thus saying that I nominated a post because (in part) it was being "nice" but that, in the opinion of someone else, it was not nice seems to me to be valid here. It is, of course, not easy to avoid arguing the contents of the post as well but I think that was avoided.Others could argue with NSBF's nomination too if they disagree with my asseseement but NOT just because they disagree with what NSBF had to say (which I do myself, totally).

In repsponse to your message
EvC Forum: Should a Deist pray? Response to jar's idea of God.
I do understand your concerns about the debate not advancing, but debate cannot advance when you find yourself deliberately misquoted.Ordinarily, I would have dropped it, but since the deliberate and subsequently denied misquoting was carried out by an Admin (granted not in admin mode) who had accused me more than once in the chatroom of lying on the thread, I was not prepared to let this flagrant breach of Forum Guidelines go.How can I debate in good faith with someone who has indulged in the dubious practice of misquoting his opponent? And how can I have any faith in the impartiality of AdminRandman if he sees it as acceptable to call his opponent a liar in the chat room (obviously leaving no record of it as he would have done had he posted it on the board)?The next time randman indulges in deliberate misquoting, I will request Admin intervention immediately.

Hey Trixie,I posted the halt, not Phat.I understand your feelings concerning misquoting and the need for your detracter to understand their mistake. I didn't see the discussion bringing you the satisfaction you are looking for.

quote:

---

The next time randman indulges in deliberate misquoting, I will request Admin intervention immediately.

---

That is probably a good idea.I am in Chat right now if you wish to discuss more.

I wasn't meaning to question in the sense of "challenging" his choice, but rather questioning if he linked to the one he had intended. His description of the post did not fit what I went to and read. Thus a very real question was raised in my mind, as others have in the past if for example they are told they are going to a specific numbered post or author and they end up somewhere else when following the link.In my first post I ended with an apology if that was not the case. Ned explained that it was correct and why he described it the way he did. I ended by explaining why... coming from a different assumption... that had confused me. This seems highly relevant, and I'm not sure where else such info could be relayed.But I want to get this straight.In the past people have errantly linked to or cited directly a post different than what they had meant to. It was brought to their attention, or the issue was raised, by someone posting in response to the nomination in the POTM thread. That allowed for correction.That is now considered "discussion" and off limits? That seems a bit bizarre to me. 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)?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

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. 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.

I agree. I actually think there should be NO discussion (seconding or disagreement); the whole point is to avoid clutter. POTM is a nice, clean index. If we open things up to disagreement, we open things up to a lot more discussion, and the POTM forum loses a lot of it's value.What would be absolutely AWESOME, IMHO, is if each POTM nomination automatically included a survey, and we could vote on the quality of any POTM nomination. That would help point out where there's disagreement about POTM nominations, while completely eliminating the need for any discussion.I know there's no way Percy can do this. The Queen set up a poll a while ago; I'm wondering how hard it would be to do it manually for each POTM nomination.If anybody wants to discuss the idea, I encourage you to take it to the "Feature Requests" thread in the "Suggestions and Questions" forum.

Much of the previous discussion concerning POTM messages seems to be concerning 2 or 3 of NosyNed's nominations in the "December, 2005, Posts of the Month" topic: Message 57, nominating Schrafinator. Message 58, nominating NotSoBlindFaith. Message 59, nominating The Golfer.-----While much can be said for having only a single nomination and no secondings, my impressions of the past are that only particularly great messages get "seconds". The vast majority do not. As such, "seconds" may function well to point out truly exceptional messages. I agree.I'm not sure if the The Golfer nomination of message 59 has been controversial, but it is well outside of being a normal POTM. My impression (non-admin mode) is that The Golfer has done a lot of effort in that topic, in citing and using quality scientific references, in the course of doing an epic "snow job". I wonder if, to those of the creation side, it looks like The Golfer is putting up a masterful scientific argument? To me, it looks like he is just putting out a tremendous amount of irrelivent data. But all this is perhaps something that should be a topic of its own.Moose

Well, that sort of makes any religious or science topic outside the parameters of Coffee House, which imo is a mistake. For one, on the incident in Pennsyslvania, it's as much about politics and government secrecy as anything. Keep in mind former Clinton chief of staff, John Podesta, and his group suing for the records to be released is not some sort of ideological comrade of my way of thinking.On the story of the guy being raised from the dead, I still think Coffee House is where it belongs. There is not a scientific study of the event, just the testimony, so I hardly see where it should be "In the News" or science and religious forums. It's a topic of interest, but still Coffee House, imo.And frankly, I am not inclined to argue with disbelievers in miracles and things. It's generally a waste of time, and imo, their comments add nothing to the discussion, nor is there anything usually to learn by debating with them. At least if I debate a hardcore materialist evolutionist, I can sharpen my own stance in the process. In talking about spiritual matters, the disbeliever has so little to add that it just adds nothing usually to debate with them.To me, it'd be like someone claiming Europe doesn't exist. It's a known, observed fact from my perspective, repeated many times, etc, etc,....but to someone that doesn't want to accept it, there just is no convincing them. At least that's been my experience.

Perhaps you would accept a moderator role at EvC Forum?

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Again, I was given a warning for posting off-topic in the thread about Why has God not given us proof of his existence? My post explained that through the believers in God, He is showing his existence as stated in 2 Corinthians 5:20, "We are therefore, Christ's ambassadors as if God were making his appeal through us." 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 propensity for the non-creationist moderators on this forum to drum up reasons to suspend or ban Christians is obvious by the fact that most of those who have been suspended or banned are creationists. This statistic shows much bias as does the fact that the warnings I've received don't apply to my posts at all. They are simply attempts to squelch the Word of God. This has happened to me repeatedly even though I have been right on topic with every post I've made, but I've seen MANY off-topic posts by evolutionists, including flaming and blatant lying which have been completely left alone. So if you consider yourselves open-minded, then you need to demonstrate this through your actions rather than just your words. Otherwise, they are just empty statements.