|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consequtive Consecution Sequel | |||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Crash's posts range from the trivial, the off-topic and the inappriately acerbic to the brilliant. My guess is that he's paying for past sins. I posted out of anger so I had no objection to the suspension. Thanks, Dan, for sticking up for me. Hopefully it puts Tal under the glass a little bit more. Guess I need to try to stick more to the "brilliant" end, or failing that, "appropriately acerbic." Not getting involved with discussions with Holmes would probably be the beginning of that. This message has been edited by crashfrog, 03-05-2006 10:07 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3956 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
The "dodging" around here is being done by the evos who can't think their way out of a paper bag but lord it over the creos though they can't follow the simplest point. i think faith is crossing the line here. she has a nasty habit of succinctly insulting half of this board all in one go and this is only the most recent example. post 153 'can those outside of science'. This message has been edited by brennakimi, 03-05-2006 01:21 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminModulous Administrator Posts: 897 Joined: |
mark24 writes: Modulus, She called my position idiotic, where were the mods then? Mark 1) I agree with your general position, but disagree with the way it was worded.I disagree with Faith's position and the way it was worded. It would have been stronger bias to call Faith on it than to call you on it. So why didn't I call both of you? Reason two... 2) A lot of what is said here isn't particularly respectful, but there is definite area that is across the gray fuzzy line. Calling someone's idea 'idiotic' is on the border, and I'd be loath to be so heavy handed as to jump in right there. However, it is my opinion that mark's post was beyond simply calling someone's idea idiotic. I thought for the sake of not wanting the topic to degrade into a slanging match such a post should be commented on.
mark24 writes: Who's the idiot, Faith? Me, who knows what it is, or you, who are so ignorant of logic you are still misciting circular arguments? mark24 writes: What a stupid, stupid thing to say. What you need, Faith, is a sense of shame. In my opinion this is far beyond saying that someone has had an idiotic idea but is calling them an idiot ignorant of logic who says very stupid things. I consider this a worse offense of disrespect than Faith's. It appears that Faith did respond, but had second thoughts, so my fears that the thread could get out of hand were, I believe, confirmed. Mark didn't help matters by refusing to take the matter to this thread, but instead taking the opportunity for a cheap shot at both Faith and moderator impartiality.
mark24 writes: I would, if I thought pointing out Faith's favoured position would help. That she can evade, dodge, claim evidence at the same time saying she doesn't need it, be a hypocrite, unashamedly illogical, insult their opponents position, & then their opponents get admonished when they do a fraction of that. Faith responded in kind.
The "dodging" around here is being done by the evos who can't think their way out of a paper bag but lord it over the creos though they can't follow the simplest point. In my opinion Faith went from walking on thin ice to falling right through It would probably be on equal footing with mark24's post had it been as long. 3) I had already entered into the debate as my non-moderator alias, and am loathe to do any moderating actions against somebody in a thread I am participating in. 4) Faith was making overtures to leave the thread. I do consider that some moderator action might be considered to those involved, but I also accept that my interjection may have made the situation worse. As such I'll defer to the other Admins. Also, I have a hot dinner waiting
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Start back on the flood thread, where all the evos -- the usual dogpile of same -- just ignore the obvious point that a worldwide flood does do a nice job of accounting for the particulars I mentioned, and do nothing but raise OTHER points as they always do, thinking that somehow answers mine. And you might also note the personal ridicule they included in their evasive answers. In fact, as I should have known from the start, the whole thread was nothing but an excuse to bash Faith, under the pretense of dealing with the scientific questions of course.
This message has been edited by Faith, 03-05-2006 02:09 PM This message has been edited by Faith, 03-05-2006 02:29 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminModulous Administrator Posts: 897 Joined: |
In my opinion that thread was a bit of a disaster. Issues that you may have on that thread really should have been left there, and not dragged (by either party) into a coffee house thread.
This message has been edited by AdminModulous, Sun, 05-March-2006 07:41 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
It isn't a coffee house thread. I don't know what you mean. But it was the way they are treating me on that thread that started all this. Sorry I allowed it to get to me but that is the cause of it.
This message has been edited by Faith, 03-05-2006 02:52 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminModulous Administrator Posts: 897 Joined: |
I took the moderator action in the thread where the hard feelings seemed to have spilled over into. (Message 146)
This message has been edited by AdminModulous, Sun, 05-March-2006 07:57 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Are comments like this from a moderator acting in moderator mode really necessary?
I can't help it - My "stupidity happening" meter is buzzing loudly.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Hi Robinrohan, I think you must be looking at the wrong messages when you conclude this: robinrohan writes:Now, as you can see, I have not made any personal comments about you. The personal comment that's been mentioned came in your Message 74 where you said: A typical tactic by Jar. If he doesn't want to talk about something, he says it's off-topic. In my reply I said that I felt that Christ's sacrifice for our sins needed explanation for how it tied into the thread's topic, otherwise it would be best taken to a more appropriate thread. That's not what I'm talking about Percy. Look at message #121 and tell me there's no bias there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2198 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: LOL!!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Being helpful, just because I wanted to find out what you are talking about, I tracked down the reference you left out:
http://EvC Forum: The TRUE reason for the EvC controversy, and why it can not be resolved. -->EvC Forum: The TRUE reason for the EvC controversy, and why it can not be resolved. I think you are confusing a previous incident with the present one, aren't you? Please clarify. This message has been edited by Faith, 03-26-2006 08:39 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
No mistake.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13038 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Hi Robinrohan,
Are you trying to clarify a misunderstanding, or have you encountered a problem with moderation procedures? If the former, then I see no misunderstanding serious enough to warrant further attention in untangling. If the latter, please describe the problem.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminAsgara Administrator (Idle past 2330 days) Posts: 2073 From: The Universe Joined: |
Robin's issue seems to be this post in a totally different thread from a week ago.
I inadvertently replied to robin instead of a general reply, but it was a regular ol' "lets stay on topic" message. The thread had begun to revolve around what's "wrong" with theistic evolution and jar's beliefs instead of the topic of "What evidence absolutely rules out a Creator"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
The thread had begun to revolve around what's "wrong" with theistic evolution and jar's beliefs instead of the topic of "What evidence absolutely rules out a Creator" No, it was a claim that I was personally attacking Jar, which was not the case. Moreover, my remark was not off-topic. An obvious bias. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024