Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consequtive Consecution
AdminNWR
Inactive Member


Message 76 of 302 (275279)
01-03-2006 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Carico
01-03-2006 8:42 AM


Carico off-topic posting
Carico writes:
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.
No, your post was completely off-topic. For reference, the off-topic post referred to is Message 163.
The topic for that thread has to do with scientific evidence and scientific proof of the existence of God. See Message 1.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Carico, posted 01-03-2006 8:42 AM Carico has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 77 of 302 (275321)
01-03-2006 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Admin
01-02-2006 8:32 AM


Me Moderator?
Admin writes:
Perhaps you would accept a moderator role at EvC Forum?
Hi Percy. My apologies for not responding earlier, but I just noticed your question. Your consideration for me to moderate is appreciated. The main problem I see is that where moderation is needed for Biblcal fundamentalists is in the threads that us few participate in, making it appear by the counterparts that my moderating would not be fair and objective. I believe I would be fair and balanced if you want to try me to see how it worked out. Perhaps I could work under the oversight of, say you, Ben or Moose. Either that, or if Faith would be interested maybe her and I could work together as moderators so as to have a second opinion if requested, as well as to moderate on behalf one one another or on behalf of someone who has a problem with one of us.
Also, I don't read that much outside of threads I'm not in, so there might need be some way to bring my attention to where moderation was needed. If I were moderator I would try to do a little more reading in the more lively threads pertaining to the forum/forums assigned to me. My participation is quite sporadic but I do try to check in sometime during the day.
I'm not sure what responsibilities are involved as I've never been a moderator, so I would need to be apprised on that. Think it over and if after reading this you think I might not work out, no problem, whatsoever. If you do wish to try me and later see it's not the best for the forum, I assure you, I would not make a fuss.
If you decide to try me, let me think and pray about it a day before going ahead with it. Thanks. buzsaw
Edited to change message title
This message has been edited by buzsaw, 01-03-2006 12:06 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Admin, posted 01-02-2006 8:32 AM Admin has not replied

Trixie
Member (Idle past 3705 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 78 of 302 (275389)
01-03-2006 3:38 PM


What is going on here?
To my statement
I'm not actually playing any game at all. I'm attempting to discuss the issue.
AdminRandman has posted the following message in the thread "Man raised back to life in Jesus' name"
You are an intelligent enough person to see that you are not just attempting to discuss the issue, or you would treat Faith and others a little differently.
If you are going to say my comments are like the pot calling the kettle black or some such, I will not defend myself, but still what I say to you above needs to be said.
See here
I see this as an accusation that I am being untruthful when I state that I'm not playing games, ie AdminRandman thinks I'm lying and has stated this in public, as an Admin.
Nowhere in the thread did I treat Faith with anything but respect and I will contrast that with her treatment of myself and Percy when he intervened as Admin. I withdrew from the thread because of the abuse I received from Faith rather than have it degenerate into a slanging match. And who are the "others" that AdminRandman refers to?
Since when did it become part of the Forum Guidelines that you don't accuse someone of lying unless you're AdminRandman?
Since when did it become part of the Forum Guidelines that asking questions of people will not be tolerated?
Since when did it become part of the Forum Guidelines that explaining your own beliefs from your own perspective counts as treating people badly?

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Faith, posted 01-03-2006 3:56 PM Trixie has not replied
 Message 144 by Trixie, posted 01-06-2006 4:33 PM Trixie has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 79 of 302 (275396)
01-03-2006 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Trixie
01-03-2006 3:38 PM


Re: What is going on here?
Nowhere in the thread did I treat Faith with anything but respect and I will contrast that with her treatment of myself and Percy when he intervened as Admin. I withdrew from the thread because of the abuse I received from Faith rather than have it degenerate into a slanging match. And who are the "others" that AdminRandman refers to?
You received no "abuse." That IS a lie. I said that what you were doing was irrelevant and insinuating, and said that after Percy had nagged me to it, and that your post struck me as manipulative because you seemed to be pretending that I wouldn't know that healing is a major part of the Biblical message, and were treating the theme of sin as the cause of disease as my own mere opinion though it is plain as day in scripture. Really I have no idea what you were doing. Taking me to task about something or other that didn't belong there, that's all I know. I suspect that you thought you were saying something else but I can't read it any other way than I did so you'd have to clarify. I found your post to be extremely irritating and unrelated to anything I'd ever said as well as off topic for that particular instance. It still reads as some kind of weird accusation that doesn't deal with the topic in hand. And the way you dealt with me on some former threads didn't give me much hope for this one for starters.
I'd think you could explain it better, but since now I'm merely "abusing" you by describing your post as it struck me, I doubt I'll ever find out.
This message has been edited by Faith, 01-03-2006 03:59 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Trixie, posted 01-03-2006 3:38 PM Trixie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by AdminPD, posted 01-03-2006 4:35 PM Faith has replied

Trixie
Member (Idle past 3705 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 80 of 302 (275404)
01-03-2006 4:09 PM


Admin action please
Once more an accusation of lying, see message above from Faith, where it states
You received no "abuse." That IS a lie.

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Faith, posted 01-04-2006 2:24 PM Trixie has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 302 (275407)
01-03-2006 4:20 PM


Other considerations
Hi again, Admin/Percy. It came to mind since posting message 77 that there's also Admin Randman and there's Profex as well as others I'm not thinking of who might be representative of Biblical fundamentalists who I might work with if Faith is still not interested. I haven't noticed that Admin Randman is very active as a moderator, but then I may not have read that much where he has done so. I'm not saying I would especially need someone else, but suggesting that it might be helpful. That, of course, is your call.

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by AdminRandman, posted 01-03-2006 5:31 PM Buzsaw has not replied

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 82 of 302 (275415)
01-03-2006 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Faith
01-03-2006 3:56 PM


Time to Confer
Ladies, the Admins will confer on this situation. Please be patient and refrain from confronting each other until the Admins have time to discuss the situation.
We will get back to you both. Thank you for bringing this to our attention.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Faith, posted 01-03-2006 3:56 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Trixie, posted 01-03-2006 4:49 PM AdminPD has replied
 Message 84 by Faith, posted 01-03-2006 4:49 PM AdminPD has not replied

Trixie
Member (Idle past 3705 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 83 of 302 (275421)
01-03-2006 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by AdminPD
01-03-2006 4:35 PM


Re: Time to Confer
I'd appreciate you also looking at my message 78 in this thread which started the ball rolling here. It was a request for Admin to have a look at a specific reply to me by AdminRandman.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by AdminPD, posted 01-03-2006 4:35 PM AdminPD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by AdminPD, posted 01-03-2006 5:25 PM Trixie has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 84 of 302 (275422)
01-03-2006 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by AdminPD
01-03-2006 4:35 PM


Re: Time to Confer
Tell you what. How about not conferring. It doesn't matter. There is no way this sort of thing ever gets sorted out properly. I'd rather that we both simply desist from ever saying another word to or about the other, and if you want to suspend me just because you feel like it, I'll accept that too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by AdminPD, posted 01-03-2006 4:35 PM AdminPD has not replied

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 85 of 302 (275449)
01-03-2006 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Trixie
01-03-2006 4:49 PM


Conflict Resolution Thread
Trixie and Faith
I have an option for you to help resolve your conflict if you both agree.
I will set up a thread in the Great Debate forum and you can participate in a monitored conflict resolution discussion.
The only participants will be you two and a referee you both agree on (not necessarily an Admin). I am willing if you don't have a preference.
There are some rules of engagement though:
Participants: Trixie and Faith
Referee: TBD
Rules of Engagement
1. Injured party calmly and rationally states grievance, providing links to pertinent posts, and states desired outcome (apology, admission of incorrect behavior, etc.)
2. No hitting below the belt (abusive language, personal attacks, etc.)
3. Address only the specific grievance stated. Don't dredge up old baggage.
4. Referee: Keep participants on track and make observations and judgments as needed.
Agreements
By participating in this discussion participants agree to the rules of engagement and to abide by the decision of the referee should a decision be rendered.
This thread is only for the participants and referee listed above. Contents of unauthorized posts will be deleted.
You can think about it and let me know tomorrow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Trixie, posted 01-03-2006 4:49 PM Trixie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Trixie, posted 01-03-2006 6:31 PM AdminPD has not replied
 Message 95 by Faith, posted 01-04-2006 2:27 PM AdminPD has not replied
 Message 156 by Faith, posted 01-07-2006 6:26 AM AdminPD has replied

AdminRandman
Inactive Member


Message 86 of 302 (275453)
01-03-2006 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Buzsaw
01-03-2006 4:20 PM


Re: Other considerations
buzzsaw, it would help if you were a moderator. I am often busy on threads and don't want to moderate on a thread I am on. I am also getting busier with work. I think if there is more than one moderator from an anti-evo position, it would be helpful, and perhaps you could be that person.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Buzsaw, posted 01-03-2006 4:20 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Trixie
Member (Idle past 3705 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 87 of 302 (275472)
01-03-2006 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by AdminPD
01-03-2006 5:25 PM


Re: Conflict Resolution Thread
I've already stated that I have withdrawn from the thread in question as I have no desire to take part in an uncivil discussion. That is my conflict resolution - I'm refusing to be drawn into it.
My intention in posting in the General Discussion of Moderation Procedures was to bring attention to the post by AdminRandman, not the posts by Faith. That Faith chose to reply to my post here is nothing to do with me and, other than drawing attention to being accused of lying, I have not responded to her OT post.
I see no benefit in having a discussion with Faith as the conflict which has raised it's head here is her statement that I have lied. That is against Forum Guidelines and as such it is not for me to attempt to resolve that conflict.
I do appreciate the suggestion and in different circumstances it may be an excellent way of resolving conflicts which don't actually involve breaches of Forum Guidelines. Sadly, in these circumstances, I don't see it working.
I may be wrong and someone may be able to suggest to me a different way of looking at this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by AdminPD, posted 01-03-2006 5:25 PM AdminPD has not replied

Carico
Inactive Member


Message 88 of 302 (275554)
01-03-2006 11:47 PM


I also want to add that I was just browsing through the common ancestry thread in Human Origins and the posters are talking more about me behind my back when I am not allowed to reply to them than they are about the topic of the thread. They are definitely flaming and off-topic but of course are not warned about it. So this simply proves the bias the moderators have against God's word. It also shows that the reasons for suspending people are bogus and merely a disguise for merely getting rid of posters who don't agree with them. People are allowed to post the lie that apes and humans can interbreed as Nuggins clearly said in bold capital letters, but try to get rid of anyone who will not accept those lies or slander. This only re-enforces that this forum openly endorses lies and slander and has no regard for looking at all sides of an issue, because people who point out the inconsistencies of the theory of evolution are banned. I, for one, consider it a compliment that I am not accepted on this forum because I don't value lies or slander.
This message has been edited by Carico, 01-03-2006 11:49 PM

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by AdminJar, posted 01-04-2006 12:07 AM Carico has not replied
 Message 90 by Adminnemooseus, posted 01-04-2006 12:07 AM Carico has not replied

AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 89 of 302 (275562)
01-04-2006 12:07 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Carico
01-03-2006 11:47 PM


Carico you are restricted to the GD thread.
Once you demonstrate that you can follow guidelines and discuss issues, your permissions can be restored.
We do not censor you for your beliefs, you are free to believe anything you want. Join in the great debate at this thread.

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • Message 1

  • Thread Reopen Requests

  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
  • New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
  • "Post of the Month" Forum

  • "Columnist's Corner" Forum
  • See also Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 88 by Carico, posted 01-03-2006 11:47 PM Carico has not replied

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


    Message 90 of 302 (275563)
    01-04-2006 12:07 AM
    Reply to: Message 88 by Carico
    01-03-2006 11:47 PM


    I'll look into it - Stand by
    The topic in question is http://EvC Forum: explaining common ancestry -->EvC Forum: explaining common ancestry
    I (and perhaps all the other admins?) have not been following that topic. I will look into it.
    Adminnemooseus
    OK, 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

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 88 by Carico, posted 01-03-2006 11:47 PM Carico 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