|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Showcase Forum Issues and Requests | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
EZscience writes: Has Ray been granted to the right to admit and dismiss his opponents as he sees fit? In effect, yes, and I see Ray has changed his mind. Your access to [forum=-37] has been restored.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
Quetzal writes: For reference, the one exception is Peter Borger if he should return. I would very much enjoy involvement in a discussion of his idiosyncratic reinterpretation of Raup's Nemesis hypothesis in light of Peter's "creaton wave theory". Having a more than passing interest in and some slight knowledge of extinction theory, I feel that topic would be fascinating. Calling Peter Borger... Calling Peter Borger... Anyone know where he is?
Sorry Percy, I'm afraid I find the Showcase concept to be otherwise highly problematic... As does most of the moderator team, but expectations have to be set aside during experimentation. Think of Showcase as just one more experiment to help us understand how best to structure the discussion. In this case we're studying whether there are any beneficial effects from eliminating the distractions, like posts that are really only saying the equivalent of "you're an idiot", and like the piling on that often happens as many evolutionists jump into debate with a single creationist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
arachnophilia writes: remember bootcamp? Sure! But the more important question is, "What were the lessons of Bootcamp?" dBoard 3.0 will have an interesting new feature. As I describe this keep in mind that this will be a capability of dBoard 3.0 that can be enabled or disabled through the board's control panel. In other words, the presence of the capability does not mean that EvC Forum would necessarily use it or parts of it. That decision would be up to the moderator team. In dBoard 3.0, threads will be able to be defined as inclusive or exclusive. By default, all threads are inclusive - everyone is permitted access unless explicitly excluded. But a thread can also be set as exclusive, which means everyone is excluded unless explicitly granted access. This dBoard capability would, for example, allow us to create a forum that grants regular users the ability to start inclusive and exclusive threads. This means users could start an exclusive thread and choose who they want to participate, or an inclusive thread where they choose who's not allowed to participate. Think how much more smoothly things would run if Faith could start threads where Jar wasn't allowed to participate!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
Request granted to [forum=-37] forum for purposes of participating in the Creationist theory thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
CK writes: I *think* I understand what Percy is trying to do and what the underlying assumption is - that if you talk and reason with people enough they will be able to model "normal" behaviour. It's just not going to happen - it's not. I'm surprised at the long memories around here. It seems that most people see "Showcase" and think "Bootcamp". The idea for "Showcase" came from John Davison's blog. Here was Davison still getting lots of attention around the net, and demonstrating a lot of blog ineptitude at the same time. I wanted to claim the attention Davison was getting with his blog for EvC Forum. The problem was how to do that, and that's how "Showcase" emerged. The primary difference between "Showcase" and "Bootcamp" is that "Showcase" is not a rehabilitation forum where members are sent to improve their debating skills so they can return to the mainstream. It is a forum to showcase those who because of a combination of their unique views and their unorthodox debating style have a hard time retaining their permissions at many discussion boards around the web. There is no intention that those showcased in this forum will at some point transition to mainstream membership status.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
arachnophilia writes: oddly, i don't have an exceptionally good memory. I can never remember whether I have a good memory or not.
arachnophilia writes: so it's almost like a separate board then? Each forum is independently configurable, but since we've configured most forums here to have the same configuration, the [forum=-37] forum is sufficiently different that those who prefer to can think of it as a separate board. But there are other ways in which it is indelibly part of EvC Forum, such as the membership and the look and feel. Once dBoard 3.0 is up and running smoothly I intend to donate a board to the creationists. They can pick the domain name and configure everything and run things as they like.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
Mammuthus writes: I am not sure why the columnist corner forum did so poorly in generating discussion. My subjective view is that it did better than poorly, maybe around average. I think the concept needed tweaking, and neither of us had time to do that. Perhaps technical columns of the type we were trying to do may not work well as thread starters. How many of Gould's columns in the Smithsonians magazine would have generated much discussion had a discussion board been available for them? Probably not very many. It's not that columns shouldn't be thread starters. It's that expectations that a significant portion of them would generate much discussion were probably unrealistic. Columns that generated significant discussion would probably have to be either timely (about recent events), topical (about happenings at EvC Forum) or opinionated (i.e., controversial), or some combination.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
Showcase access is restricted:
Anyone who thinks they can do better than those in there now should request access. What's the matter, afraid of not making the grade?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
Hi Brad,
Access is granted to the [forum=-37] for purposes of participating in the A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
Access to the [forum=-37] forum granted in order to participate in the Creationist theory thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
Access granted to [forum=-37] forum in order to participate in the Why is the process blind ? thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
Access granted to the [forum=-37] forum in order to participate in the Creationist theory thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
Parasomnium writes: Having just written the following and tried to post it, I was crudely reminded that I don't have posting permission in Davison's Showcase thread. I don't know if I am crossing a line by posting it here, but since what I want to say is not directly connected with the showcase topic anyway, and merely in defense of someone who cannot currently defend himself, I'll post it here. Ban me if you must, here it is. Uh, you could request access, like everyone else. No promises it'll be granted, but you could request it. Your punishment: full membership privileges at Dembski's blog!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
Adminnemooseus writes: Also, I note that todays DaveScot posting is as being from an "Inactive" member. I presume it isn't the intent of Admin/Percy that "Inactive" members can post messages, so I guess there are still some dBoard version 2.0 fixes to be done. This is a good opportunity to clarify the "inactive" classification for members. Any member can go into their profile and set their status to inactive. This causes only your name and no other info to be displayed with messages, Your name is removed from the list of active members, and your profile becomes inaccessible. While inactive you cannot post messages. You can return to your profile at any time and set your status back to active. DaveScot wasn't actually able to post while inactive. What he must have done was set his status back to active, then posted his message, then returned his status back to inactive. While there's nothing in the Forum Guidelines against this, needless to say it isn't a behavior that we'll be encouraging - at least from the perspective of this moderator it seems inconsistent with forthright and honest behavior.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
The purpose of the [forum=-37] forum is to make available for debate those who because of the controversial nature of their viewpoints, or because they didn't prove amenable to normal moderation, or because of both, often find themselves banned from many discussion boards, even though they are (perversely) in great demand to debate with.
DaveScot writes: I was hoping I could pose the questions in an environment where I didn't have to put up with John replying using my real name and calling me endearing things like "genetic garbage", "goon", "coward", "Texas pig", "mongrel cur", "play with yourself and come all over yourself"... I trust you're happy that you caught up somewhat, but JAD's ability to produce frustration is one of the reasons he's showcased. Access to [forum=-37] is intended for those who can debate with the luminaries while staying within the Forum Guidelines.
DaveScot writes: I didn't mess with the active/inactive status on my profile. I did notice it allowed me to submit a comment while being inactive and didn't think much of it. I just figured the programmer... That would be me.
...made the assumption that if someone is posting a comment they aren't inactive at that moment. The behavior seems to have changed since it now pops up a message saying inactive members can't submit comments or something to that effect. If you can reproduce the problem, in other words, if you can make yourself inactive and find a way to post, please let me know how you did that. I've examined the code and it doesn't appear to have any obvious holes.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024