Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-27-2019 6:19 AM
25 online now:
(25 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,844 Year: 9,880/19,786 Month: 2,302/2,119 Week: 338/724 Day: 1/62 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
45
6
78
...
21NextFF
Author Topic:   General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consequtive Consecution Sequel
AdminBuzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 76 of 302 (300466)
04-03-2006 1:36 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Faith
04-03-2006 12:03 AM


Re: Admin responsibility to suspendees
Done, Fatih. I tried to put it so as to suit you as well as the other participants of the thread.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Faith, posted 04-03-2006 12:03 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Faith, posted 04-03-2006 2:41 AM AdminBuzsaw has not yet responded

Faith
Member
Posts: 31821
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 77 of 302 (300473)
04-03-2006 2:41 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by AdminBuzsaw
04-03-2006 1:36 AM


Re: Admin responsibility to suspendees
Thanks Buz, but I think really there is no way to notify people as any one-post notification is likely not to be seen. It would have to be in each post of the suspendee's and that would be too much to ask of an admin. Oh well, thanks anyway.

This message has been edited by Faith, 04-03-2006 02:46 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by AdminBuzsaw, posted 04-03-2006 1:36 AM AdminBuzsaw has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Admin, posted 04-03-2006 8:38 AM Faith has responded

  
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 12445
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 78 of 302 (300475)
04-03-2006 3:29 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by AdminBuzsaw
04-02-2006 11:15 PM


Re: Admin Offer Fair
I remember when you got suspended, Buzsaw! Its human nature to become part of the hangin posse, but I respected the fact that you hung in there and came back to even become an Admin yourself! You are still of the monority extreme, here, but your articulation is very good and your attitude is upbeat and positive!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by AdminBuzsaw, posted 04-02-2006 11:15 PM AdminBuzsaw has not yet responded

AdminOmni
Inactive Member


Message 79 of 302 (300515)
04-03-2006 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by randman
04-01-2006 8:53 PM


Re: Blind Spot
I suppose you may still read this reply, Rand, despite your renewed suspension.

My story was intended as a sort of parable about truth and lies...obviously it served no useful purpose, so set it aside.

Your quotes out of context were illuminating. In those cases I challenged you to tell me what conclusion I should draw from your written behavior. I have in the past exhumed long stretches of quotes to support my interpretation of our exchanges, but I won't do that work again. Anyone who wants to can, though it would have been easier if you had supplied links. I think I understand why you didn't.

If you do return, don't call people liars when they refuse to agree that your argument is conclusive or your evidence irrefutable. In fact, don't call people liars at all. Don't steal their stuff, either, or try to seduce their spouses. And don't kill them.

This message has been edited by Omnivorous, 04-03-2006 08:27 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by randman, posted 04-01-2006 8:53 PM randman has not yet responded

Admin
Director
Posts: 12602
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 80 of 302 (300520)
04-03-2006 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Faith
04-03-2006 2:41 AM


Re: Admin responsibility to suspendees
Hi Faith,

There are new features coming in dBoard 2.0, and one of them indicates if someone would be unable to reply.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Faith, posted 04-03-2006 2:41 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Faith, posted 04-03-2006 9:29 AM Admin has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 31821
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 81 of 302 (300532)
04-03-2006 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Admin
04-03-2006 8:38 AM


Re: Admin responsibility to suspendees
Just curious. Do you feel it was right of you to suspend me from my own thread, for doing nothing but defending the point the thread was about, and allowing jar, who is an admin, free rein, whose illogic is what the therad was challenging? If you say it's because I called everybody idiots, you know that was just the momentary excuse as you were already complaining about my argument itself, and I would also point out that I deleted that post before you had time to put the suspension into effect. You don't need to answer this.

ABE: Also, kicking someone out of the Coffee House forum seems a little strange. I can't even go and tell PD I like her gourd designs, but why the earrings freak me out.

This message has been edited by Faith, 04-03-2006 10:05 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Admin, posted 04-03-2006 8:38 AM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Admin, posted 04-03-2006 10:24 AM Faith has responded
 Message 83 by Buzsaw, posted 04-03-2006 10:44 AM Faith has responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12602
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 82 of 302 (300547)
04-03-2006 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Faith
04-03-2006 9:29 AM


Re: Admin responsibility to suspendees
Faith writes:

Just curious. Do you feel it was right of you to suspend me from my own thread...

Unfortunately we do not at this time have the ability to suspend members from individual threads. The finest gradation we have is forum suspensions, and so you're currently suspended from the Coffee House forum. When that thread closes (hopefully soon) I'll restore your privileges there. dBoard 3.0 should have the ability to suspend members from individual threads.

...for doing nothing but defending the point the thread was about, and allowing jar, who is an admin, free rein, whose illogic is what the thread was challenging?

I was actually focused on something else - you posted this in Message 162:

Faith in Message 162 writes:

A brand new conundrum has been established by EvC. When a tree falls in the sight of all assembled, it still didn't happen and the very few who say it happened are called wrong. Weird. Happens over and over. Emperor's new clothes. Nice to have proved to myself that this is what is happening at least.

This is minor, but as I've said elsewhere, moderators do not approach their job with amnesia. You have a history here, and I didn't want you to turn the thread into yet another general criticism of the site. It isn't that you can't critisize the site. You most certainly can. But threads have topics, and you can't keep resorting to complaints of "This site's not fair" in every thread where you feel the need.

So I asked you to focus on the topic and your next post after that (Message 165) called everyone idiots.

Fixed message number. --Admin

This message has been edited by Admin, 04-04-2006 09:22 AM


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Faith, posted 04-03-2006 9:29 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Faith, posted 04-03-2006 8:02 PM Admin has responded
 Message 86 by Faith, posted 04-03-2006 8:11 PM Admin has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 83 of 302 (300556)
04-03-2006 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Faith
04-03-2006 9:29 AM


Re: Admin Actions
Hi Faith. You may take this as buz becoming too pro-establishment, but the bottom line is that our team needs to focus on being the models for conduct we should be rather than how we are dealt with when we do mess up, especially us who represent NT Christianity. Regardless of how Admin handled the violation. you knew when you posted the inflamitory response that it would present a problem, calling those you think wronged you idiots. I say, take the relatively mild punishment in good faith and accept it as a means of polishing up your image here as Christ's representative. :)


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW
This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Faith, posted 04-03-2006 9:29 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Faith, posted 04-03-2006 4:45 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Faith
Member
Posts: 31821
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 84 of 302 (300677)
04-03-2006 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Buzsaw
04-03-2006 10:44 AM


Re: Admin Actions
I didn't call them idiots because I thought they wronged me, Buz, but because I think their thinking is idiotic after knocking myself out to get across what seems to me to be a clear enough point about an illogical argument. Nevertheless it is good to restrain such expressions, I agree.

This message has been edited by Faith, 04-03-2006 07:42 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Buzsaw, posted 04-03-2006 10:44 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 31821
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 85 of 302 (300724)
04-03-2006 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Admin
04-03-2006 10:24 AM


Re: Admin responsibility to suspendees
...for doing nothing but defending the point the thread was about, and allowing jar, who is an admin, free rein, whose illogic is what the thread was challenging?

I was actually focused on something else - you posted this in Message 151:

Faith in Message 151 writes:
A brand new conundrum has been established by EvC. When a tree falls in the sight of all assembled, it still didn't happen and the very few who say it happened are called wrong. Weird. Happens over and over. Emperor's new clothes. Nice to have proved to myself that this is what is happening at least.

Percy, I don't want to make a big moderator deal out of this, but post #151 which you link as supposedly my post is in fact your own post, not mine, and the one you quote of me isn't even the one that #151 was responding to, which was my #132 which says nothing about an evc conundrum but is answering nwr:

www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=14&t=1336&m=132#132 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=14&t=1336&m=132#132">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=14&t=1336&m=132#132

Faith writes:

nwr writes:

The assertion "one cannot be a Christian and an evolutionist" can be directly refuted by exhibiting an example of someone who is both a Christian and an evolutionist. That's where jar listed himself as that counter example

This was never said on this thread, and if it was ever said elsewhere it was simply a casual way of saying that Christianity and evolution are incompatible. It ought to be obvious in the context of EvC with all you who claim to believe in both that that simply could not possibly have meant anything else. And it has been corrected ad nauseum.

This is where your admin actions against me started and I see nothing here about a complaint about the evc site but merely a restatement of the argument I'd been trying to make throughout the thread.

You seem to be complaining partly that I answered nwr's post that was directed to Robin instead of leaving it to Robin to answer, which you treated as my disruption of the thread, an odd complaint that I've never seen anyone make before here, as anybody answers anybody's post to anybody.

Again, my answer to nwr was my reiteration of something I'd been arguing all along, it was no disruption, it was not off topic, to explain again that saying one "can't be a Christian and an evolutionist" is NOT saying that one can't have that belief but that it is illogical to have it. It had been said over and over and Robin had said it himself and continued to say it, but the opposition for some reason just could not hear it and kept repeating the same old straw man misrepresentation. Then you chimed in as Admin insisting that Robin HAD said it, when all he'd done was use nwr's phrasing in order to correct once again his straw man misreading of it.

Whether this argument is any clearer now or not, the point is that it was on topic and not out of line in any way and it was disturbing that you would intervene as an Admin on my argument on the topic itself.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Admin, posted 04-03-2006 10:24 AM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Admin, posted 04-04-2006 9:39 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 31821
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 86 of 302 (300729)
04-03-2006 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Admin
04-03-2006 10:24 AM


Re: Admin responsibility to suspendees
One more comment here. It was post #162 that was the one in which I made the conundrum comment and it was a way of saying that the point against jar had been made over and over and over but acknowledged by no one. I said that after telling jar that his argument had been refuted. Now, jar regularly announces without getting any admin notice that others' arguments have been refuted by himself, although they have not (and in fact I was answering just such an assertion from him), but if I make that announcement about how he has been refuted, which I devoutly believe he has, and then embellish it with a comment about how the refutation goes unrecognized, somehow I've committed some great crime.

This message has been edited by Faith, 04-03-2006 08:19 PM

This message has been edited by Faith, 04-03-2006 08:24 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Admin, posted 04-03-2006 10:24 AM Admin has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12602
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 87 of 302 (300821)
04-04-2006 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Faith
04-03-2006 8:02 PM


Re: Admin responsibility to suspendees
Faith writes:

Percy, I don't want to make a big moderator deal out of this, but post #151 which you link as supposedly my post is in fact your own post, not mine, and the one you quote of me isn't even the one that #151 was responding to, which was my #132 which says nothing about an evc conundrum but is answering nwr:

Oh geez, you're right, I'm sorry. Usually I check these things. As you apparently later discovered, it was your Message 162. I edited my post to have the correct message number, but that's no help now.

When someone references the wrong message you can often very easily find the correct one by searching for a few words in the excerpt. In this case, searching for "conundrum" would probably have done the job.

In Message 86 you say:

Now, jar regularly announces without getting any admin notice that others' arguments have been refuted by himself, although they have not (and in fact I was answering just such an assertion from him), but if I make that announcement about how he has been refuted, which I devoutly believe he has, and then embellish it with a comment about how the refutation goes unrecognized, somehow I've committed some great crime.

Going off-topic is not a great crime, but if you're feeling like I've singled you out lately then there's good reason for it: I have. If you have insights that will help the evolutionists see the beam in their own eye then I think it would be great if you would share them with us, but it communicates to us nothing but frustration by frequently resorting to, "There's that beam in your eye again that you evolutionists won't admit is there, but it is there, and that's why this site is unfair, and that's why I can't get my arguments across, and you people are just infuriating." Keep in mind that the sliver in the creationists eye might actually be a beam, too. It is best to just stay focused on the topic.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Faith, posted 04-03-2006 8:02 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 31821
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 88 of 302 (301546)
04-06-2006 12:09 PM


Request lifting of suspension from Coffee House
The thread you suspended me from is moving slowly and I don't want to rush it, have no interest in posting there either, but would like to be able to post on other Coffee House threads if you would be so kind. Thanks. Faith

P.S. It's been three days. See Message 82

This message has been edited by Faith, 04-06-2006 12:10 PM


Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by AdminJar, posted 04-06-2006 12:11 PM Faith has responded

  
AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 89 of 302 (301547)
04-06-2006 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Faith
04-06-2006 12:09 PM


Re: Request lifting of suspension from Coffee House
Restoring your posting pivs in Coffeehouse.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Faith, posted 04-06-2006 12:09 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Faith, posted 04-06-2006 12:13 PM AdminJar has not yet responded

Faith
Member
Posts: 31821
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 90 of 302 (301550)
04-06-2006 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by AdminJar
04-06-2006 12:11 PM


Re: Request lifting of suspension from Coffee House
Thank you for your prompt attention to this, jar.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by AdminJar, posted 04-06-2006 12:11 PM AdminJar has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
45
6
78
...
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