Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-18-2019 8:52 PM
28 online now:
DrJones*, jar, PsychMJC, Sarah Bellum (4 members, 24 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,095 Year: 9,131/19,786 Month: 1,553/2,119 Week: 313/576 Day: 116/98 Hour: 8/12


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
56
...
21NextFF
Author Topic:   General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consequtive Consecution Sequel
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6621
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 46 of 302 (299882)
03-31-2006 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by kjsimons
03-31-2006 4:37 PM


Re: Randman rises again!
The wording of the post does make it appear that AdminChristian is unilaterally reversing another moderator's decision simply because she doesn't agree with it.

On the other hand, it wasn't very clear whether randman's permanent suspension was not a unilateral action taken by AdminJar. I would add to kjsimons' opinion that one admin's opinion should not be enough to give a member more than the usual 24-hour suspension.

Edited to add:
Adminmooseus responded to kjsimon while I was writing this.

This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 31-Mar-2006 10:00 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by kjsimons, posted 03-31-2006 4:37 PM kjsimons has not yet responded

Admin
Director
Posts: 12602
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 47 of 302 (299897)
03-31-2006 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by kjsimons
03-31-2006 4:37 PM


Re: Randman rises again!
To be fair to AdminChristian, in the private forum I suggested that if she believed he should be let back in that she should go ahead and do that. She has indicated that she wants to study the thread that got him suspended in greater detail, and I encourage her to do that.

I encourage moderators to run their own show here, and permanent suspension does seem a bit extreme. With both evolutionist and creationist moderators on board it is important to seek consensus, and it is clear that we can't have moderators who believe they can act with impunity.

The new version of the board that will be released soon includes an automatic unsuspend feature. When a moderator suspends a member he selects the length of the suspension, which can be anywhere from one hour to indefinite. The default is one day. A list of suspended members can be listed on the Members page. Moderators can always unsuspend a member early, which is a good thing if a member's been suspended indefinitely. :D

Also coming is an "inactive" feature. Members may deactivate their accounts (so can moderators). Their names will be still be included with their messages, but no profile information will be available, and inactive members will not appear in member lists. Inactive accounts can be reactivated at any time.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by kjsimons, posted 03-31-2006 4:37 PM kjsimons has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by kjsimons, posted 03-31-2006 5:34 PM Admin has not yet responded

  
kjsimons
Member
Posts: 667
From: Orlando,FL
Joined: 06-17-2003


Message 48 of 302 (299900)
03-31-2006 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Admin
03-31-2006 5:25 PM


Re: Randman rises again!
As Chiroptera mentioned, it did appear that AdminChristian had acted on her own and threw out a little remark about reinstating him "for appearing to be completely logical". Because of that remark I just wanted to be sure that this was a bit more of a group decision, that's all. I appreciate all the responses! :)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Admin, posted 03-31-2006 5:25 PM Admin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by PaulK, posted 04-01-2006 5:28 AM kjsimons has not yet responded

PaulK
Member
Posts: 15040
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 49 of 302 (300003)
04-01-2006 5:28 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by kjsimons
03-31-2006 5:34 PM


Re: Randman rises again!
I have to say that "completley logical" is a wierd description of Randman's behavior in that thread. Even at the start one of his pieces of evidence wasn't even referring to the t.o website, instead referrign to some postings on the t.o newsgroup - and even that did not support hte accusations that were supposedly based on it.

In the revival of the trhead Randman was arguign that an essay claimed that universal common descent wa sa fact despite contianing an explicit statement to the contrary, based on a quote from ANOTHER essay, without weven making any connection between the two and even even based on the grounds that he had introduced the quote earlier.

Does Christian think that "I introduced this quote from another essay earlier in the thread so it is in the essay we are discussing now, even if it isn't?" is a logical argument ?

Does Christian think Randman's inability to recognise that HE personally had restricted discussion to a single essay is logical - even when links and quotes are produced to prove it ?

Quite frankly I think that Christian needs to think very carefully about the decision and examine the evidence more carefully, because so far as I can tell her judgement is completely at odds with the reality of the situation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by kjsimons, posted 03-31-2006 5:34 PM kjsimons has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by arachnophilia, posted 04-01-2006 5:48 AM PaulK has responded
 Message 55 by randman, posted 04-01-2006 3:59 PM PaulK has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 143 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 50 of 302 (300004)
04-01-2006 5:48 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by PaulK
04-01-2006 5:28 AM


Re: Randman rises again!
Quite frankly I think that Christian needs to think very carefully about the decision and examine the evidence more carefully, because so far as I can tell her judgement is completely at odds with the reality of the situation.

(...christian's an admin now? hey, uh, congrats christian.)

yes, well, anyways. "completely logical" has never been a good description of randamn's behaviour in any thread. nevermind the differences of opinions (the clash of the basic assumptions and points of view), but they all get out of hand pretty quickly. and if i hear anymore about haeckel, or quantum mechanics, i might just lose it.

that said, i do think the ban was a bit much. i think he just ticked jar off, or something. i wasn't paying too close attention to the thread, but i didn't really see anything suspension worthy. so, yeah, accusations of lies were flying about. guess what? people lie. and attempting to expose those lies has always been a major chunk of this debate -- how many times do "evolutionists" have to demonstrate quotes out of context, and other forms of intellectual dishonesty and outright fraud on the parts of the creationists? as long as the discussion is kept relatively civil, it should be fine.

randman being wrong isn't a good excuse, either. the differences in what we think is right, vs wrong, is the whole purpose of this forum. and we know he's a bit paranoid, and we know he sees things completely backwards from us. and part of that, suprise, is reading deception into whatever he can. and seeing special treatment, and double standards.

(and jar: friendly criticism, take some time off or something. everybody seems to be jumping down your throat recently, and i think you're letting it get to you. it's not that important. some of your admin actions don't seem as impartial as they should these days. you know i'm not saying this to attack you or anything, but this board's just been going crazy recently. try not to get too caught up in it)

This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 04-01-2006 05:49 AM


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by PaulK, posted 04-01-2006 5:28 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by PaulK, posted 04-01-2006 6:13 AM arachnophilia has responded

PaulK
Member
Posts: 15040
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 51 of 302 (300005)
04-01-2006 6:13 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by arachnophilia
04-01-2006 5:48 AM


Re: Randman rises again!
Personally I think that the ban was merited. I don't know if you've reviewed the relevant posts, but so far as I can tell he was reduced to abusive and irrational ranting.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by arachnophilia, posted 04-01-2006 5:48 AM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by arachnophilia, posted 04-01-2006 7:42 AM PaulK has not yet responded
 Message 54 by AdminNWR, posted 04-01-2006 10:00 AM PaulK has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 143 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 52 of 302 (300007)
04-01-2006 7:42 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by PaulK
04-01-2006 6:13 AM


Re: Randman rises again!
i'll look over it again, but from my quick scan through i didn't see anything out of the ordinary.

of course, that might not really say much.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by PaulK, posted 04-01-2006 6:13 AM PaulK has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Admin, posted 04-01-2006 9:30 AM arachnophilia has responded

Admin
Director
Posts: 12602
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 53 of 302 (300021)
04-01-2006 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by arachnophilia
04-01-2006 7:42 AM


Re: Randman rises again!
arachnophilia writes:

i'll look over it again, but from my quick scan through i didn't see anything out of the ordinary.

Saving you some time, this is from the Is talkorigins.org a propoganda site? thread and was already extracted for discussion in the admin forum:

Randman in Message 235 writes:

At this point, I have to question your integrity Modulous and PaulK...

Randman in Message 236 writes:

You owe me an apology, but I don't expect one from considering your belief system.

Randman in Message 241 writes:

You and PaulK did not do that, but have repeatedly chose to dissemble and deny what I have written, posting all sorts of lies and garbage...

Randman in Message 242 writes:

Own up to your mistake, or show a lack of integrity. it's up to you.

Randman in Message 243 writes:

Own up to your mistakes guys, or show you have no integrity.

Randman in Message 245 writes:

Either come clean, or admit you have no integrity in this debate.

Randman in Message 247 writes:

Another baldfaced lie on your part, modulous.

...

But once again, you refuse to engage my points, the substance of the debate, and imo, are spouting baldfaced lies here.

...

That's baldfaced deception and propaganda on their part.

Randman in Message 251 writes:

I consider that both a lie and a deliberate smear on your part.

Randman in Message 252 writes:

I question your integrity...

I think you're correct to imply it is unfortunately not out of the ordinary.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by arachnophilia, posted 04-01-2006 7:42 AM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by arachnophilia, posted 04-02-2006 8:47 PM Admin has not yet responded

  
AdminNWR
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 302 (300032)
04-01-2006 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by PaulK
04-01-2006 6:13 AM


Re: Randman rises again!
Personally I think that the ban was merited.

I also thought it was merited. However, if randman had sent me an email with an apology, I would have reduced the penalty to a 1 week suspension (with a warning about the need for more self control).


To comment on moderation procedures or respond to admin messages:
  • Discussion of moderation procedures
  • Comments on promotions of Proposed New Topics
  • Thread Reopen Requests
  • Great Debate proposals

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 51 by PaulK, posted 04-01-2006 6:13 AM PaulK has not yet responded

    randman 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 3064 days)
    Posts: 6367
    Joined: 05-26-2005


    Message 55 of 302 (300108)
    04-01-2006 3:59 PM
    Reply to: Message 49 by PaulK
    04-01-2006 5:28 AM


    Re: Randman rises again!
    PaulK, you are welcome to direct comments about the thread to the thread in question. Suffice to say, I think my points were perfectly clear, valid and logical, and not as you have characterized them.
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 49 by PaulK, posted 04-01-2006 5:28 AM PaulK has not yet responded

    randman 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 3064 days)
    Posts: 6367
    Joined: 05-26-2005


    Message 56 of 302 (300140)
    04-01-2006 5:16 PM


    One thing I have noticed is the frequency among certain admins to actually moderate a thread as an admin, even taking admin action and threats of admin action, on threads where they are debating someone as posters. That doesn't seem right, and I suspect if a creationist admin were to engage in such behaviour, that he or she would be banned or their admin status taken away.

    If you are participating in debate and particularly against the views of another poster, to then ban that poster or threaten to ban that poster, seems inappropiate. I realize that perhaps from the evo's perspective, that it is considered appropiate, but I can tell you that all others do not see that as evenhanded moderation.

    If a creationist, IDer, or critic of evolution is debating others, I think the if a rules violation comes up, it would be better for the evos on the thread to consider appealing to a non-evo mod to intervene and consider the case to get a more objective perspective on the matter from someone not personally engaged in the debate on the thread.


    Replies to this message:
     Message 57 by MangyTiger, posted 04-01-2006 7:55 PM randman has not yet responded
     Message 58 by AdminJar, posted 04-01-2006 7:58 PM randman has responded
     Message 61 by AdminOmni, posted 04-01-2006 8:24 PM randman has responded

    MangyTiger
    Member (Idle past 4518 days)
    Posts: 989
    From: Leicester, UK
    Joined: 07-30-2004


    Message 57 of 302 (300151)
    04-01-2006 7:55 PM
    Reply to: Message 56 by randman
    04-01-2006 5:16 PM


    One thing I have noticed is the frequency among certain admins to actually moderate a thread as an admin, even taking admin action and threats of admin action, on threads where they are debating someone as posters. That doesn't seem right,

    I tend to agree that as a rule participants should try and avoid moderating in a given thread but...

    and I suspect if a creationist admin were to engage in such behaviour, that he or she would be banned or their admin status taken away.

    Your paranoia is showing again.

    If you are participating in debate and particularly against the views of another poster, to then ban that poster or threaten to ban that poster, seems inappropiate. I realize that perhaps from the evo's perspective, that it is considered appropiate, but I can tell you that all others do not see that as evenhanded moderation.

    Ah, the sly innuendo that people who accept evolution are somehow morally inferior or corrupt.

    Before you've even been back a week.

    Color me stunned...


    I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 56 by randman, posted 04-01-2006 5:16 PM randman has not yet responded

      
    AdminJar
    Inactive Member


    Message 58 of 302 (300152)
    04-01-2006 7:58 PM
    Reply to: Message 56 by randman
    04-01-2006 5:16 PM


    One simple question.
    Did you call someone a liar?


    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 56 by randman, posted 04-01-2006 5:16 PM randman has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 59 by randman, posted 04-01-2006 8:05 PM AdminJar has responded

    randman 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 3064 days)
    Posts: 6367
    Joined: 05-26-2005


    Message 59 of 302 (300154)
    04-01-2006 8:05 PM
    Reply to: Message 58 by AdminJar
    04-01-2006 7:58 PM


    relevance?
    jar, the post you are responding to is not just concerning the thread where you banned me, and then also commented afterwards on my posts as a poster knowing that I could not respond, having been banned, but is more of a general comment. Others besides you do the same thing as far as moderate the people they are debating. All I am saying is that I think before taking such action, it would be a good idea to appeal to a moderator that doesn't hold your viewpoint so the admin can see whether or not, from the other's viewpoint, the actions are as unreasonable as you think.

    In fact, I thought it was advised very strongly that posters not moderate the threads and take moderator action against people they were debating, but perhaps that's not the case.

    On the thread you mentioned, I see no relevance bringing it up. Yes, I did, and that's in the past. I would only add that a great many inappropiate comments were directed towards me when I was very civil for a long time, and yet no moderator action taken at all.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 58 by AdminJar, posted 04-01-2006 7:58 PM AdminJar has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 60 by AdminJar, posted 04-01-2006 8:13 PM randman has not yet responded

    AdminJar
    Inactive Member


    Message 60 of 302 (300155)
    04-01-2006 8:13 PM
    Reply to: Message 59 by randman
    04-01-2006 8:05 PM


    There is only one thing that is relevant...
    Did you call someone a liar?

    If you did, then it is not a matter of viewpoint, or even if the allegation is true. It does not matter what the viewpoint of any poster might be, or any Admin.

    If you called someone a liar you should be suspended.

    That is all that is relevant.

    Did you call someone a liar?


    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 59 by randman, posted 04-01-2006 8:05 PM randman has not yet responded

    Prev123
    4
    56
    ...
    21NextFF
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019