Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 9.0
AdminBuzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 151 of 301 (378640)
01-21-2007 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by arachnophilia
01-21-2007 12:35 AM


Re: About those Forum Guidelines
arach writes:
out of curiousity, how does one empirically document someone's intentions?
Rather than get into a debate about word meanings, AdminMod has reinforced my advice to allow the other person the benefit of the doubt by refraining from the inflamitory charge of lying since it is often difficult to draw a line between things like false assumptions/mistakes and lying. Nobody enjoys bickering and feuding going on at EvC. I don't know why a few of you apparently oppose measures to aleviate some of that by contending with moderation that serves to moderate inflamitory behavior.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by arachnophilia, posted 01-21-2007 12:35 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by arachnophilia, posted 01-21-2007 6:20 PM AdminBuzsaw has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 152 of 301 (378775)
01-21-2007 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by AdminBuzsaw
01-21-2007 1:17 PM


Re: About those Forum Guidelines
yes, i agree.
charges of lies are generally considered unacceptable behaviour around here. even if they're true.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by AdminBuzsaw, posted 01-21-2007 1:17 PM AdminBuzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Omnivorous, posted 01-22-2007 1:38 PM arachnophilia has not replied

Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 153 of 301 (378937)
01-22-2007 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by arachnophilia
01-21-2007 6:20 PM


An Elegy for Dr. Adequate, Over-Suspended Over A Troll
arach writes:
charges of lies are generally considered unacceptable behaviour around here. even if they're true.
It seems you can neither call a liar a liar, nor a lie a lie.
If Admin has recently been scrupulously fair to you, you will pay especially heavily if you persist in doing so; but if you are a troll who labels others liars but lacks the balls to use the word, "O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay! He chortled in his joy!"
In the spirit of that jabberwocky state of affairs, I offer:
An Elegy for Dr. Adequate, Over-Suspended Over A Troll
There once was an Internet forum
Where you could dazzle or b.s. or bore 'em:
You could even tell lies
Without fear of replies
That favored the truth o'er decorum.

Drinking when we are not thirsty and making love at any time, madam, is all that distinguishes us from the other animals.
-Pierre De Beaumarchais (1732-1799)
Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by arachnophilia, posted 01-21-2007 6:20 PM arachnophilia has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by PaulK, posted 01-22-2007 1:52 PM Omnivorous has replied
 Message 155 by Dan Carroll, posted 01-22-2007 1:55 PM Omnivorous has not replied
 Message 157 by crashfrog, posted 01-22-2007 2:15 PM Omnivorous has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 154 of 301 (378941)
01-22-2007 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Omnivorous
01-22-2007 1:38 PM


Re: An Elegy for Dr. Adequate, Over-Suspended Over A Troll
Sorry, I have to agree with the suspension. While Randman certainly has a history of blatant untruths it is not an adequate excuse for Dr. Adequates continued flaunting of the forum rules. (And I would add that I suspect that Randman actually believes his ridiculous falsehoods on the grounds that no liar would be so obvious about it).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Omnivorous, posted 01-22-2007 1:38 PM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by Omnivorous, posted 01-22-2007 2:04 PM PaulK has replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 155 of 301 (378943)
01-22-2007 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Omnivorous
01-22-2007 1:38 PM


Re: An Elegy for Dr. Adequate, Over-Suspended Over A Troll
How about if, instead of saying, "you are a liar," we say, "Although I'm sure your intent was as innocent as the sweet tears of baby Jesus, your statements have the vague ring of untruthfulness to them, not that I wish to imply you are a liar, or anything of the sort, in fact, you're probably telling the truth, despite the fact that you aren't, never mind, sorry I even brought it up."
Does that work for everybody?
Kidding aside, Dr. Adequate was suspended for a month? Good gravy. There's a mosquito buzzing around my office... do the mods think maybe they could pick up a Buick and start smashing it against my desk? That'd get him.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Omnivorous, posted 01-22-2007 1:38 PM Omnivorous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Jazzns, posted 01-22-2007 3:09 PM Dan Carroll has not replied

Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 156 of 301 (378946)
01-22-2007 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by PaulK
01-22-2007 1:52 PM


Re: An Elegy for Dr. Adequate, Over-Suspended Over A Troll
PaulK, one does not rebut Art.
I would add, however, that (A) a one week suspension was threatened for any further infraction, but (B) one month was imposed.
What does that make A?
Dr. Adequate sinned no more grievously than I did for my one day suspension.

Drinking when we are not thirsty and making love at any time, madam, is all that distinguishes us from the other animals.
-Pierre De Beaumarchais (1732-1799)
Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by PaulK, posted 01-22-2007 1:52 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by PaulK, posted 01-22-2007 2:31 PM Omnivorous has not replied
 Message 159 by Admin, posted 01-22-2007 2:44 PM Omnivorous has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 157 of 301 (378947)
01-22-2007 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Omnivorous
01-22-2007 1:38 PM


What would you have us do?
If accusations of falsehood are verboten, then one has to wonder how one is supposed to respond to this re-enactment of a common, yet completely surreal situation:
A: You asserted that the sky is yellow, but obviously, that is false.
B: I asserted no such thing.
A: Not so! These are your words from a previous message:
B: The sky is, obviously, blue.
A: See? There you are, clearly asserting that the sky is yellow - an outrageous error that calls into question your ability to reason, or to see colors at least.
B: But I've never stated the sky was yellow, and I certainly didn't do so in the message you quoted.
A: To the contrary; you asserted it then, and you're doing so now, and I proved it with my quote where you clearly said the sky was yellow.
B: That's a-
Oops, can't say "lie" anymore, because people who tell lies are liars, and we can't allow liars to be called liars to their faces.
The problem here is that it's fairly common for some people to completely misconstrue their opponent's comments by reference, or even by surreally quoting statements and then presenting a completely inaccurate interpretation. And as the discussion spirals out of control, it's fairly easy for moderation efforts to completely miss these instances. In some occasions, moderators have engaged in the exact same behavior, quoting the exact objectionable statements and then, in the very next line, denying that they had ever seen those very statements!
How are we supposed to respond to these surreal exchanges? I've been suspended several times in regards to pointing out this behavior in others, and I see that Dr.A has suffered an even worse fate. Without a detailed reading, it's often difficult to detect wrong-doing, but these tactics completely derail any discussion and quickly ramp up the frustration level.
What are we supposed to do, exactly? If it's obvious that a person is repeating things that they know are false - are directly misrepresenting statements right in front of them - how can there possibly be any doubt that they're being deliberately dishonest?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Omnivorous, posted 01-22-2007 1:38 PM Omnivorous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by AdminNosy, posted 01-22-2007 2:46 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 211 by arachnophilia, posted 01-22-2007 7:05 PM crashfrog has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 158 of 301 (378952)
01-22-2007 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by Omnivorous
01-22-2007 2:04 PM


Re: An Elegy for Dr. Adequate, Over-Suspended Over A Troll
I count 5 posts violating the guidelines, between the time the warning was given and the suspension. Under the circumstances I can understand why Percy went for more than a week.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Omnivorous, posted 01-22-2007 2:04 PM Omnivorous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Dan Carroll, posted 01-22-2007 2:45 PM PaulK has replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 159 of 301 (378957)
01-22-2007 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by Omnivorous
01-22-2007 2:04 PM


Re: An Elegy for Dr. Adequate, Over-Suspended Over A Troll
Omnivorous writes:
What does that make A?
I don't know, but it makes me a schmuck because I stuck up for Dr Adequate when Randman said he should be removed from Showcase. Had Dr Adequate merely stepped over the line he would have received the week I mentioned, but for some reason he went to extra lengths to do over and over and over again what he had been cautioned not to do.
EvC Forum is a serious debate site. Those who wish to have a fine old time by mixing it up with some good old-fashioned ad hominem in the equivalent of a cowboy's weekend in town should go elsewhere.
The Showcase forum is here only because so many people expressed an interest in discussion with the unmoderatable like Randman. But if the interest isn't so much in discussion but more in rattling the monkey cage, then Showcase should be eliminated because it simply attracts and emphasizes the worst from both sides.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Omnivorous, posted 01-22-2007 2:04 PM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by Omnivorous, posted 01-22-2007 3:58 PM Admin has not replied
 Message 213 by arachnophilia, posted 01-22-2007 7:16 PM Admin has not replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 160 of 301 (378958)
01-22-2007 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by PaulK
01-22-2007 2:31 PM


Re: An Elegy for Dr. Adequate, Over-Suspended Over A Troll
Yeah, I count five violations on one page.
"This is sheer idiocy."
"Another false smear on your part, and a dumb smear on that, not worthy of a response."
"...your smear is a lie by the way..."
"Your false data is the absurd notion I prefer fuzzy thinking."
"In fact, I don't think you even grasp intellectually the concept being discussed here."
Of course, all five of those are Randman's.
His one month suspension will, no doubt, be forthcoming.
Ha ha, no it won't. We offer a handicap to the creationists on this site. And I get why. It must be hard to argue a position that's... hm, I don't want to say "untrue", that might get me suspended. How about "the prevarications of one whose pants are rendered combustible." When it comes to matters of honest debate, they need some lax rules, and maybe even a special Shortbus Forum... sorry, "showcase"... to be able to play on the same field.
But I don't get, for the life of me, why civility rules are included there. One doesn't require rudeness to make an argument more effective. You only need a rudness handicap if you want to be a smartass, like me.
Randman and Dr. Adequate call eachother liars. Randman throws in a few accusations of idiocy, and, despite Percy's warnings, brings up QM and Haeckel. Again.
The result? Dr. Adequate, and only Dr. Adequate, is suspended. For a freakin' month.
Edited by Dan Carroll, : No reason given.

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by PaulK, posted 01-22-2007 2:31 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by PaulK, posted 01-22-2007 2:58 PM Dan Carroll has replied

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 161 of 301 (378959)
01-22-2007 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by crashfrog
01-22-2007 2:15 PM


Re: What would you have us do?
I understand the degree of frustration involved Crash. My ire gets up still when I read such nonsense even when I'm not involved and t h i n k I'm ignorning the nitwits.
However, the rules say that you can't call someone a liar. So you either stop wasting time with wackos or you carefully keep simplifying things:
He says "There you are, clearly asserting the sky is yellow..."
You have to (it is harder in the real case) get it down to fewer words and posts. Ask -- "In that post of mine, where is the word "yellow".
At some point, if you want to waste time with such a game, you may have to resort to going over the rules of grammer. It may be that the individual is actually not lying !!!! They are so narrow minded and focussed that they misread even a fairly simple bit of English.
You can see if you can get them to look at each word of your posts and show how they read them. Personally I think that this is a waste of time with a number of the utterly crazy (or at least working hard to appear to be-- perhaps just in order to play with you) here.
Given that they aren't just playing the fool then you can make their own posts prove the lie by getting them to say something as clear as in your simple example.
You will have to have unbelievable discipline to control the wild gyrations onto other issues that they will resort to but it would be fun to watch.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by crashfrog, posted 01-22-2007 2:15 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by crashfrog, posted 01-22-2007 3:45 PM AdminNosy has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 162 of 301 (378962)
01-22-2007 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Dan Carroll
01-22-2007 2:45 PM


Re: An Elegy for Dr. Adequate, Over-Suspended Over A Troll
Randman is in the Showcase forum BECAUSE he is incapable of following the guidelines. That's why he wasn't suspended. He can do pretty much what he likes there. By all means point out his violations to anyone who suggests he's fit to be let out into the relatively civilised areas of this forum but until he is let out he isn't going to be punished for disrespect, personal attacks or baseless accusations. If he was going to be punished for that he'd be permnently banned because he just can't stop himself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Dan Carroll, posted 01-22-2007 2:45 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by Dan Carroll, posted 01-22-2007 3:04 PM PaulK has not replied
 Message 194 by AdminSchraf, posted 01-22-2007 4:56 PM PaulK has not replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 163 of 301 (378965)
01-22-2007 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by PaulK
01-22-2007 2:58 PM


Re: An Elegy for Dr. Adequate, Over-Suspended Over A Troll
He can do pretty much what he likes there.
If that extends to calling people idiots and liars, then the Showcase Forum is a waste of time. The result will be that anyone who attempts to engage someone in the Showcase will just have ad hominem attacks hurled at them.
So the use is... what, exactly? How is the "serious debate" to which Percy refers aided in any way by its presence?
Hell, why not just ban him?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by PaulK, posted 01-22-2007 2:58 PM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by NosyNed, posted 01-22-2007 3:08 PM Dan Carroll has replied
 Message 166 by Jazzns, posted 01-22-2007 3:14 PM Dan Carroll has replied
 Message 217 by arachnophilia, posted 01-22-2007 7:40 PM Dan Carroll has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 164 of 301 (378966)
01-22-2007 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by Dan Carroll
01-22-2007 3:04 PM


The showcase
You have to ask to be allowed into the Showcase forum if you want to "debate" with one of the denizens. That should be enough of a warning that you are wasting your time.
It is to separate those out who such well-meaning individuals into post replies to them and wasting the time invested. Then those who choose to post in Showcase should know what they are getting into.
Personally, I have no interest in wasting time with them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Dan Carroll, posted 01-22-2007 3:04 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Dan Carroll, posted 01-22-2007 3:15 PM NosyNed has replied

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 165 of 301 (378967)
01-22-2007 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by Dan Carroll
01-22-2007 1:55 PM


Re: An Elegy for Dr. Adequate, Over-Suspended Over A Troll
I think Dr A's suspension has more to do with the fact that he completely and blatantly ignored Admin's request.
There are ways to expose people for dishonesty without shouting, "liar liar pants on fire!" Randman is a difficult poster to debate with and it is obvious that he got quite high on Dr A's shit list. Dr A kept saying the he wanted to debate rand but in practice he had no more debate than randman has ability to refrain from mentioning Haeckel.

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Dan Carroll, posted 01-22-2007 1:55 PM Dan Carroll has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by crashfrog, posted 01-22-2007 3:47 PM Jazzns has replied
 Message 220 by arachnophilia, posted 01-22-2007 7:50 PM Jazzns has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024