Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,810 Year: 3,067/9,624 Month: 912/1,588 Week: 95/223 Day: 6/17 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

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


Message 28 of 302 (273702)
12-28-2005 10:56 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Buzsaw
12-28-2005 10:29 PM


Re: Moderation Request
buz,
First, I wanted to say I do appreciate that you're trying to do the right things, to find appropriate ways to deal with things that you feel are inappropriate.
I took a look through the OP and later posts that seemed relevant. Seems the problem is simply that jar is asking questions without giving a reason behind them, and you don't see how they're relevant to the thread.
I think the most simple solution would simply be, ask jar how his questions are relevant to the thread. Both of your behaviors is a little bit strange to me; you could have asked jar why he thought the questions were relevant, and jar could have explained the relevance without your overt question, when he saw that it wasn't obvious to you why they were relevant.
To summarize, I don't think there's any need for moderator action; a simple question to jar about the relevance of the questions seems like a straightforward solution.
AbE: Looks like Jar explained his thinking process here.
I do wish everybody here (jar included) would get in the habit of asking people why they think certain questions / comments are on topic, and explaining why questions / comments seem off-topic, rather than making a bare statement that something is "off-topic." Without the comments, it's often not obvious why something is declared to be off-topic, and it just looks like dodging the issues.
I'll look at bringing this to greater attention if the trouble persists.
This message has been edited by AdminBen, Wednesday, 2005/12/28 08:00 PM

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures
  • 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 25 by Buzsaw, posted 12-28-2005 10:29 PM Buzsaw has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 29 by Faith, posted 12-28-2005 11:05 PM AdminBen has not replied
     Message 32 by Buzsaw, posted 12-29-2005 1:30 AM AdminBen has replied

    AdminBen
    Inactive Member


    Message 35 of 302 (274156)
    12-30-2005 10:07 AM


    randman's question about what is part of "the debate"
    I didn't see how this was related to the debate. It's a news story, and not a scientific story and so seemed best suited to Coffee House. It's not meant to be debated in a formal sense as the news story, nor the woman, nor I am doing anything more than retelling an event. It's not like we are going to try to experiment on people, flat-lining them and then see how many we can bring back via prayer.
    http://EvC Forum: Man raised back to life in Jesus' name -->EvC Forum: Man raised back to life in Jesus' name
    randman, please--bring such discussion off the thread and into here.
    Now, to get to the issue. This board is not a science board. It is discussion of creation and evolution, supernatural and natural, religion and science. Look at the breakdown of forums... religion and science.
    The topic you posted was suggesting people being raised from the dead due to some religious intervention. Did you honestly fail to think that some people might want to question / discuss this?
    Anything having to do with belief in the unknown / unexplained is part of the discussion. It's the whole "Goddidit" paradigm that is often ... explored here.
    Hope that helps explicate things. And I hope that helps clarify my comment in your UFOs thread.

    Replies to this message:
     Message 73 by randman, posted 01-01-2006 4:40 PM AdminBen has not replied

    AdminBen
    Inactive Member


    Message 36 of 302 (274160)
    12-30-2005 10:18 AM
    Reply to: Message 32 by Buzsaw
    12-29-2005 1:30 AM


    Re: Moderation Request
    buz,
    Thanks for outlining those messages to clear things up. I didn't see those when I went back to read.
    I get the feeling that the discussion between you and jar often becomes adversarial (sp?) and filled with unwillingness of each of you to bend. This is not meant to be an admonisment, but an observation.
    The two of you need to work that out. Either by not engaging in discussion together, or both of you finding a way to communicate and discuss more .. efficiently and accurately.
    I do think you are right that there's a problem of willingness and stubbornness there. I feel I see for many people who have debated many times before; I do agree that this sometimes includes jar when discussing with you or sometimes Faith. But I do think the stubbornness is on both sides, and it's something best worked out by you guys.
    It's also something that should be more closely watched by the Faith and Belief admins. Maybe AdminPD and / or AdminPhat can keep a closer eye; these aren't threads that I frequent, especially now that my board time is reduced. So I can't help by keeping up on the threads where this usually happens.
    I'll see what I can do to see if there's moderators who are reading through the Faith and Belief threads, but aren't necessarily actively participating in the discussion.

    Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures
  • 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 32 by Buzsaw, posted 12-29-2005 1:30 AM Buzsaw has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 38 by Buzsaw, posted 12-30-2005 11:27 AM AdminBen has replied

    AdminBen
    Inactive Member


    Message 39 of 302 (274185)
    12-30-2005 12:12 PM
    Reply to: Message 38 by Buzsaw
    12-30-2005 11:27 AM


    Re: Moderation Request
    All you need do to see who's the stubborn unbending one, even though he was leading off topic, is to look at the last page of the now closed prophets Jesus/Muhammed inspiration thread. I showed you in the exchange above how he was the stubborn one then and he simply confirmed this to be the case at the end of the thread.
    See, the thing is, I can't really tell. I can barely understand the subject matter, because I'm not versed in the Bible at all. I have a hard time understanding jar's hard line, whether it's on topic or not, and whether your refusals to answer his questions are valid or not. I can't tell.
    It seems to me that jar is trying to move forward very clearly, without distraction by only asking questions, and you don't think the questions are relevant, or have been answered already. Jar's approach can be very powerful, but it can also just be very stubborn. Your refusals can be right on, they can be missing the point, they can be stubborn. I can't tell, because I don't really know the subject.
    Clearly each of you thinks you're on topic and right; I don't have enough knowledge to figure it out. You're left to work it out for yourselves. Someone needs to bend and be willing to address the other person's concerns to the other person's satisfaction.
    That's the best I can do. I usually don't moderate Faith & Belief threads; I only did so to try and see what I could do, given your request. I wanted to show you willingness to address such a request. I wasn't comfortable that I understood the situation well enough to take a moderator action. But I tried, because you asked.
    As I said, maybe one of the Faith & Belief moderators can take a look. And I'll bring up the issue and see if we have moderators who are reading these threads without participating.

    Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures
  • 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 38 by Buzsaw, posted 12-30-2005 11:27 AM Buzsaw has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 40 by Adminnemooseus, posted 12-30-2005 1:00 PM AdminBen has not replied
     Message 41 by AdminNosy, posted 12-30-2005 1:19 PM AdminBen has not replied
     Message 46 by Buzsaw, posted 12-30-2005 2:01 PM AdminBen has not replied

    AdminBen
    Inactive Member


    Message 61 of 302 (274431)
    12-31-2005 3:28 PM
    Reply to: Message 60 by macaroniandcheese
    12-31-2005 2:53 PM


    really though ben, i kept it civil.
    I agree. You did. I was glad. I tried to use a tone that reflected that. I assume that I failed..
    but i'm right. she always does it.
    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,
    and it's not just her. it's a lot of people.
    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.
    but she gets to randomly decide that certain people with good arguments are wasting her time and not get called on it.
    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

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 60 by macaroniandcheese, posted 12-31-2005 2:53 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 64 by macaroniandcheese, posted 12-31-2005 4:42 PM AdminBen has not replied

    AdminBen
    Inactive Member


    Message 170 of 302 (277441)
    01-09-2006 2:17 AM
    Reply to: Message 166 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
    01-08-2006 11:22 PM


    This is all too much
    crashfrog writes:
    In addition to what? A nursing student's list of anecdotes? There's no indication in any of these stories that the recipients weren't told about their donors. A girl completing phrases of songs she's never heard before? I doubt a 16-year-old teenager is capable of writing anything but the most banal, predictable songs in the first place. I regularly am able to accurately predict the ending of movies I've never seen before. Am I a sorcerer? Or just somebody familiar enough with basic movie plotting to pick up on the forshadowing?
    Seriously, I'd recommend a little less credulousness on your part.
    Mr. Ex,
    Whether you perceive this post to be "juvenile" or not, crash has consistently addressed the issues. To respond to these valid questions and comments with one sentence--"how old are you?"--is not enough. You're in the wrong.
    Now, your "SO" comment is another story. Alone it would be a blatant ad-hominem in a post providing no value. But you buried it in a post where you also addressed issues, and made the comment as a side "barb" in your post.
    In other words, you gave crash a taste of his own medicine. If you did it to someone else, it wouldn't be very nice. But crash's posts are littered with these barbs. I find his complaint about that comment to be utterly ridiculous.
    If you're gonna take a shot at crash, make sure you do it within the context of addressing the issues directly.
    Let this be a warning. You're clearly an amateur at this whole ad-hominem / "poking barbs" thing. I'd suggest not to get involved in it. But if you're going to do it, do it right. If you don't do it right, you'll get suspended.
    Clear enough?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 166 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 01-08-2006 11:22 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 171 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 01-09-2006 2:30 AM AdminBen has not replied
     Message 173 by crashfrog, posted 01-09-2006 9:26 AM AdminBen has replied

    AdminBen
    Inactive Member


    Message 174 of 302 (277498)
    01-09-2006 9:38 AM
    Reply to: Message 173 by crashfrog
    01-09-2006 9:26 AM


    Re: This is all too much
    It's the hypocrisy, though, of Mr. Ex. lacing his posts with these clumsy barbs and then referring to me as the one who's getting personal.
    That may be what frustrates and annoys you, but I don't see it as the admin's job to moderate "spitting matches." If someone is way out of line (responding with no substrance except an ad-hominem attack), then it's our job to intervene. To referee petty claims of "who started what"? Absolutely not.
    If it's important to you that people "spit in good faith", then I think you're SOL. Best solution would probably be "spit abstinence", but just like in real life, that's probably not a realistic solution. Consider this "spit education". Unfortunately, I don't think we offer many forms of protection.
    But seriously, I don't think any of the admins are willing to referee this kind of "he said-she said" battle because it's completely unnecessary to start with. We draw a line, and if people cross it, we'll act. Disagreement about "who started it" is not close to that line for this admin. And I highly suspect it is the same for the others moderators as well.
    This message has been edited by AdminBen, Monday, 2006/01/09 06:39 AM

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 173 by crashfrog, posted 01-09-2006 9:26 AM crashfrog has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 175 by crashfrog, posted 01-09-2006 9:43 AM AdminBen has replied

    AdminBen
    Inactive Member


    Message 176 of 302 (277500)
    01-09-2006 9:44 AM
    Reply to: Message 172 by crashfrog
    01-09-2006 9:24 AM


    See, I'm wondering the exact same thing about you. Why is it that you're allowed to respond to a legitimate line of questioning by interrogating me about my age and referring to me as a "juvenile"?
    If you're asking why Mr. Ex wasn't suspended, it's because I've found him willing to follow warnings and because I don't see him acting like this.
    If you're asking why no comment was made in the thread before Mr. Ex's complaint... I was waiting for Mr. Ex. to drop the issue. The whole ordeal was not very "vicious", and you seemed to want to argue through it on your own. When things didn't resolve through your discussions, then we (mods) were forced to do something.
    Feel free to ask more questions about the thought process.
    AbE: I was uncloaked!
    This message has been edited by AdminBen, Monday, 2006/01/09 06:53 AM

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 172 by crashfrog, posted 01-09-2006 9:24 AM crashfrog has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 177 by crashfrog, posted 01-09-2006 9:46 AM AdminBen has replied

    AdminBen
    Inactive Member


    Message 178 of 302 (277502)
    01-09-2006 9:51 AM
    Reply to: Message 175 by crashfrog
    01-09-2006 9:43 AM


    Re: This is all too much
    I wasn't the one that demanded moderator action, after all.
    One quick comment, crash, and I hope it's helpful. When you don't as for moderator action and try to take care of things yourself, 8 out of 10 times we're going to let you guys try to work it out. The 2 out of 10 times we don't let you work it out is when you're dealing with less experienced posters who may feel threatened or attacked.
    If you want more moderation in threads where you participate and where you feel people are being unfair, I honestly recommend that you respond less to the offending content; maybe once to comment that you didn't appreciate it or that you thought it was ad-hom. By posting over and over to try and point out who is at fault, you bury the problem in an insane amount of reading, which makes it impossible and unpleasant for the mods to wade through and find the original issue. Which means that unless it jumps out clearly, or if someone goes to ask for help, it's very hard to moderate.
    This doesn't go just for you at all. Again, not meant to be an attack or anything; this is supposed to be helpful / constructive. If you feel you want more moderation in your threads, I would suggest posting less to avoid obscuring the problem. That makes it more difficult to moderate the thread.
    Damn admin mode to all ... heck (that one's for you PB)
    This message has been edited by AdminBen, Monday, 2006/01/09 06:52 AM

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 175 by crashfrog, posted 01-09-2006 9:43 AM crashfrog has not replied

    AdminBen
    Inactive Member


    Message 179 of 302 (277504)
    01-09-2006 9:56 AM
    Reply to: Message 177 by crashfrog
    01-09-2006 9:46 AM


    What I was asking is why the hypocrisy isn't immediately apparent to him. Only he can say, I guess.
    Fair enough. Although I don't think you're going to get an answer; that discussion is off-topic here and also in the original thread. Mr. Ex. has his warning, he's accepted it; it's time to move on for better or for worse.
    I'll look forward to his answering your questions. They were reasonable questions, and that's what we're here for anyway, right? Answers to reasonable questions.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 177 by crashfrog, posted 01-09-2006 9:46 AM crashfrog has not replied

    AdminBen
    Inactive Member


    Message 181 of 302 (277556)
    01-09-2006 12:58 PM
    Reply to: Message 180 by Silent H
    01-09-2006 12:25 PM


    Re: Sometimes you just have to declare a topic to be a terminal mess
    holmes,
    Is it too much to ask to not have an explanation of what I should do to rebut multiple claims of wrongdoing, which I can disprove with evidence, but would be OT in the thread where the claims were made, and the poster is likely to use them again in the future?
    No. I guess when we're discussing solutions "behind closed doors", we should make sure to let you know. We've been discussing ways to handle these things; I don't think we've come to a consensus. I'm confident that we'll pull something together after Friday night. There's a fair number of heavy administrative topics that we're working through, with a goal of resolution for Friday night.
    And is it too much to ask to have admins explain a decision, and if someone presents a reasonable argument for their actions, get more than a flippant reassertion? Maybe something not condescending?
    No, not too much to ask.
    I was pretty miffed to come back after a weekend break to find no suggestion of a practical solution... and yet another characterization of my dispute as being something that requested admin involvement.
    Take this as a note that you're not being ignored. We failed to let Trixie know we were giving her request a lot of consideration, and apparently we failed to let you know too. This post is to let you know: we're discussing the issue to come up with good solutions.
    It only got bad because an admin stuck his nose in where it was not requested and not required. Okay sorry sorry, it wasn't you. You're cool.
    I understand you didn't appreciate AdminJar's decision. He did what he thought was appropriate. If it was me, I probably would have taken the same action. I think you are right to ask what the appropriate means is.
    I don't think we have a good one. So we're trying to pull something together.
    Just as a note, about 1/2 of your post was clarification / defending yourself on a view that is not really relevant. I almost didn't finish reading this post because I thought it was all off-topic (discussion of moderator action).
    It is my heartfelt suggestion to let it go next time. Feel free to post a one or two line comment showing your disagreement or lack of appreciation for the interpretation. Anything more just serves to obscure the real points.
    I made a related point to crash this morning on this same thread. I would appreciate it if you read it; feel free to provide constructive feedback there as well.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 180 by Silent H, posted 01-09-2006 12:25 PM Silent H has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 188 by Silent H, posted 01-10-2006 6:02 AM AdminBen has not replied

    AdminBen
    Inactive Member


    Message 259 of 302 (282121)
    01-28-2006 8:39 AM
    Reply to: Message 256 by randman
    01-28-2006 3:18 AM


    Re: nosey's attack
    randman,
    Please add a link to the posts that you're referring to here.
    Thanks.
    This message has been edited by AdminBen, Saturday, 2006/01/28 05:39 AM

    Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures
  • 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 256 by randman, posted 01-28-2006 3:18 AM randman has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 260 by Admin, posted 01-28-2006 9:49 AM AdminBen 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