General discussion of moderation procedures - Part οκτώ

My impression is that nwr appealed to the moderators in order to shut down justified criticism of his position. Again nwr was taking an anti-scientific position as he did when he made the false claim that science didn't use induction - a claim which he did not cease to "defend" long after it had become clear that it was indefensible.I am worried that this marks a move towaards a degree of censrship that I am uncomfortable with, especially in the light of Buzsaw's comments which suggest that he might use it a precedent to shut dowm inconvenient truths about ID "science" - and beyond.

Yeah, that sucks doesn't it? Why in this instance are you unable to take your own advice and just drop it? After all someone saying something that is false about you with no evidence should not be capable of provoking a response from you, correct?

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

What's the protocol for disagreeing with a POTM nominee? Adminnemooseus expects me to believe that a short "I disagree" is sufficient? Really?And when the nominator asks "why"? I'm just supposed to stay mum? I think what's pretty clear here is that there was no post I could have written that would have pleased AM. I elaborated on my opinion the way I thought was appropriate, so that it wasn't simply "I don't like Holmes", but an explanation of how I felt the post in particular fell short. And as soon as Tudwell pointed out how it was off-topic, I dropped it.Of course, that doesn't stop AM from blaming the whole business on me. How about holding Tudwell responsible for cluttering the POTM thread with a clearly undeserving nominee? Yeah, not gonna happen, right?{The message/topic in question - EvC Forum: November 2006 Post of the month nominations - Adminnemooseus}Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Added link info.

While I am beginning to understand your past frustration with holmes, I'd have to say that I haven't seen any rule putting limits and restrictions on the types of POTM being nominated. I say let Tuddy nominate whoever he likes.PS - Believe you me, I'll respond to holmes when they reopen the thread.

---

Place yourself on the map at http://www.frappr.com/evc

​

The thread about this map can be found here.

You're allowed to post to disagree with a nomination now ?

It doesn't appear so. For nominations, seconds, and acceptances. Not disagreements.But my bad for responding to crashfrog and cluttering up the thread. I apologize.

Well this sure is interesting. I remember when all I did was ask if a person meant to nominate another post, because the description in the POTM did not match the linked post, and I was slammed.Frankly I don't care if someone disagrees with a nomination, but it does seem likely that any post which is nominated may have some detractors and so will run into the issue of lengthy debate in that thread. Probably not a good idea to start that precedent.If someone disagrees with a nomination, I'd suggest sucking it up and realizing people might have a different opinion than onesself. For example Buz nominated a post in the showcase thread that I was not exactly thrilled with. BIG DEAL. It is a sign for those that might be interested to go and have a look, because SOMEONE found it interesting. You don't have to. It is not an official EvC stamp of approval.And if you strongly disagree with a POTM then go to that thread and reply to it, or open a new one and reply to it. Arguing with a poster who nominates something is not likely to change their opinion on the topic, or the post, only about how rude you might be.Gasby this is straight to you... if you disagree with my post then open a new thread on the topic. Don't wait for the thread to reopen as the conversation is admittedly OT. Frankly I am hesitant to continue posting on that topic given the lack of maturity some people here seem to have on that subject. If it can be held in check, no flinging around insults or insinuations, then I'd be more than happy to post there.AbE:
To admins... I am getting tired of this issue with the other poster. It is one thing to not like me or not want to post to me, or to start small arguments with me here and there. It is another thing altogether to harass other people that happen to like what I wrote. In this case personal insults were made against myself AND Tudwell. He didn't just question my post, he questioned the reading ability of the nominator? In the POTM thread? Edited by holmes, : to admins

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Thanks for the nomination and I am glad you liked my post. It was written rather late at night and I was worried it wasn't going to cover the full argument. Though like you, I had hoped it was going to raise the level of debate.I am sorry you had to go through this experience for simply nominating a post of mine. I mean it. It's almost surreal to me.

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Always have been, and I'm sure I can supply exmaples of people doing it before. You're just not allowed to turn the thread into a debate about the post.But one person making a nomination and a second person disagreeing is not a debate; any more than it's a debate when one person makes a nomination and multiple people chime in with their agreement.By the way, if Holmes wants to talk about me, he should just do so. This "a certain other poster" bullshit is infantile.

But what's the point in disagreeing with a nomination? The nomination still stands. There's nothing you can do about that. I'm sure a lot of people disagree with nominations, but they don't bother to say so in the thread, as it's useless clutter. If you think the post is that bad, reply in the appropriate thread (or start a new thread, if it's off topic).The only reason I can think of your posting your disagreement on the nomination was you wanted to debate.

What's the point in agreeing with one? Doesn't stop people.

They're called seconds.

As a joke. We're not operating under Robert's Rules of Order, here; nominations don't need to be seconded. It's just people saying that they agree.

We've already shut down one topic for discussing this, let's not shut down another.

Fair enough.