Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,912 Year: 4,169/9,624 Month: 1,040/974 Week: 367/286 Day: 10/13 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

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


Message 153 of 302 (276605)
01-07-2006 1:41 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by arachnophilia
01-07-2006 12:57 AM


Re: Not a debate thread
is it not a "general discussion?" and if the topic is "moderator procedures" between members, shouldn't that be allowed?
Perhaps I could have worded that better, but I was trying to be brief.
The kind of debate I was trying to halt had drifted into discussion of member behavior, rather than just moderator behavior. And that's not appropriate for this thread.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by arachnophilia, posted 01-07-2006 12:57 AM arachnophilia has not replied

AdminNWR
Inactive Member


Message 159 of 302 (276712)
01-07-2006 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by Trixie
01-07-2006 3:39 PM


Re: Conflict Resolution Thread
A quick note. This issue is under discussion in the Private Adminstration Forum. In fact, it has been under discussion for several days. I'm afraid you will have to be patient.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Trixie, posted 01-07-2006 3:39 PM Trixie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Trixie, posted 01-07-2006 3:53 PM AdminNWR has not replied
 Message 162 by Faith, posted 01-07-2006 3:57 PM AdminNWR has replied

AdminNWR
Inactive Member


Message 163 of 302 (276727)
01-07-2006 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by Faith
01-07-2006 3:57 PM


Re: Conflict Resolution Thread
Thanks for posting that.
I can tell you this much. The primary concern of the administrators, in their discussion, is in avoiding or minimizing personal conflict.
Perhaps you and Trixie can help with that too. There have been a couple of instances of miscommunication, where one of you says something not intended to be an insult, while the other takes it as an insult. So I am asking both of you to be careful in your communications to avoid triggering an incident. And if one of you sees a message from the other as an insult, I am asking that you stop reacting for a while, and think about the possibility that it might not have been intended as an insult.
The debates on a forum such as this are, of course, all about conflicting ideas. That's the nature of debate. But we would like to keep to conflict to be about the subject matter, and not about the debaters.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Faith, posted 01-07-2006 3:57 PM Faith has not replied

AdminNWR
Inactive Member


Message 261 of 302 (282141)
01-28-2006 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by Silent H
01-28-2006 6:47 AM


Re: nosey's attack
Hopefully this will be taken as well meant...
That is certainly how I take it.
... (which I guess put me on some shit list)
You are not on any such list that I know about.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Silent H, posted 01-28-2006 6:47 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by Silent H, posted 01-29-2006 5:32 AM AdminNWR has not replied

AdminNWR
Inactive Member


Message 265 of 302 (282184)
01-28-2006 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by Cold Foreign Object
01-28-2006 2:57 PM


Re: Plargiarism Charge not found
By asserting I "cut and pasted" what I wrote = saying I plagiarized what I wrote without attribution.
I took crashfrog as saying that what you wrote was badly wrong, but that he would give you the benefit of the doubt by assuming it was only cut and paste and not something you would write yourself.
I agree with AdminJar that you were not being accused of plagiarism.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-28-2006 2:57 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-28-2006 3:36 PM AdminNWR has not replied

AdminNWR
Inactive Member


Message 295 of 302 (283635)
02-03-2006 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 294 by macaroniandcheese
02-03-2006 10:20 AM


For the record
I take your message to be a response to Message 187. You should have provided a link.
The message to which you were responding (Message 186 also had little useful content. It at least had some minor justification as a response to your earler Message 185. You had no need to give an essentially empty response in Message 187, since you had already posted your position.
Please remember that what you post is not a private conversation. It is part of a public discussion. Before hitting Submit Reply, try to think about how your post will appear to somebody who is reading the thread as the result of a Google search.
You are capable of making intelligent comments. You damage your own credibility when you post too many messages that look more like schoolyard chatter.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by macaroniandcheese, posted 02-03-2006 10:20 AM macaroniandcheese 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