Change in Moderation?

Yes Quetzal, it seems an overreaction by Admin. However Jet seems to have been a victim of his own careless reading or incomprehension. "Wind" was used in a reference to aerodynamics. A common tool of thet trade is the wind tunnel. Jet thinks so lowly of others that he assumes an unintended meaning.I've seen at least one unregistered poster who appears more deserving of suspension.

I don't think a balance of evolutionist and creationist moderators is important. The important features are the integrity and fairness of the moderators, irrespective of their views on the topics. I think that moderation on this board has been very good, which was why the action on Jet seemed uncharacteristically precipitous. However I now understand the intention and it seems that Jet has become the victim of his own tendency to think the worst of others and the bad impression which he has left after his previous performances. As ye sow?

I strongly suggest tht salty not be banned or suspended. His style is very irritating but that is a cross which many are prepared to bear. His intention appears to be to get banned and thereafter play the martyr or to incite personal attacks on himself so that he can proclaim that others cannot defeat his position so they attack him personally.I think that allowing him the opportunity to respond to criticism of his position is the most effective technique to demonstrate the paucity of his position.

I think a recent comment by salty at Terry's board is revealing:

quote:

---

predict they will ban me at evcforum. They don't handle criticism very well. I'll be darned if I will retire voluntarily. They will have to cut me off. What I can't understand is why they keep going after me. Why not just declare me daft and let it go at that, don't you know? They just can't refrain from getting personal, especially Scott. and some guy in Germany. salty

---

from here

I may be wrong but Darwin's Terrior seems to have been suspended without warning. I think that all participants deserve the courtesy which was extended to simple in at least being warned first.[This message has been edited by wj, 02-22-2004]

An alternative way to view the situation is that a long term contributor who has generally behaved well and errs by posting an unacceptable single message is deserving of a warning rather than precipitous punishment. A new member without any track record of good behaviour posting the same material would be strongly suspected of being a troll, should be warned and then suspended if the trollish behaviour continues.If in this particular case the offending message warrants suspension of the author, I would have thought that the message itself warrants deletion. To my knowledge the offending message(s) remain in the thread. I fail to see the logic in this situation.

quote:

---

Management VERY rarely edits messages for content.

---

Given that suspension is also a very rare event, I fail to see why an offense which warrants suspension does not also warrants corrective action by removing the offending material. The message(s) appear(s) to be devoid of any useful information or redeeming quality.

Surely the rules are comprehensible so that a violation of the rules can be recognised without providing examples. And, if leaving the offending message in position is supposed to be of educational value, having it buried in the body of an obscure thread is hardly an efficient way of making it an example.However, this is a diversion. My main point is that a warning would have been appropriate.

Admoose, I find your post rather disappointing. You seem to be resorting to a sledgehammer to crack a peanut without using other tools in the first instance.Random, unpredictable punishment inconsistent with the infraction is not a rathonal method of applying discipline. And if you get kicks from handing out apparently unreasonable suspensions and waiting for the reactions then maybe it is worth reviewing why you are moderating in the first place.

quote:

---

wj has defended DT and protested your suspending him and I assume most of us agree with wj.

---

By way of clarification, I am only defending DT right to say something and the appropriateness of the censure meted out. Personally I found DT's post in poor taste and fairly offensive, along with others which followed. Nevertheless I don't the punishment fitted the crime.

No problem.[This message has been edited by wj, 02-26-2004]

I think the uneven treatment of creationist and evolutionist posters is detracting from the quality of the board. A quite word is likely to be effective on most participants, particularly the evolutionists, rather than the big stick approach.Protection of creationists, particularly where their behaviour verges on trolling, provides no benefit to the board and only generates frustration for those who make the effort of providing thoughtful messages which are ignored.

I think it would be worthwhile for moderators / admin to keep an eye on new members for a while. If the new member is exhibiting trollish behaviour or violating guidelines then a gentle nudge early is likely to cure the behaviour if the new member is genuine. If the new member does not correct the misbehaviour then penalties should be applied.This strategy would reduce the risk of waste of bandwidth and frustration for genuine posters.

Much as I hate to see anyone suspended, I think that admin had no choice since willow suffered a brain explosion and started spamming his various threads with a couple of deluded, self-serving messages. Is it possible for willow to retun to some form of rational debate? I suspect not.