Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 10.0
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 61 of 305 (385565)
02-16-2007 7:57 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Nighttrain
02-15-2007 8:24 PM


Re: Hang `em high
Hi Night. My (somewhat hazy) recollection is that nuts appear to be cyclic in nature. We tend to get periodic surges in the number of new posters putting out things like "U R go to Hell. Gd is Luv", especially around Christmas, Easter break, and the end of the school year.
As to the RoyBean Effect, I'm not sure I agree that it represents a decrease in tolerance. It may be more related to an increase in vigilance. The mod team seems more active now that it has typically been in the past - more mods, more interventions. That may just be my biased opinion, however. Do you notice something specific, or is this just a general impression?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Nighttrain, posted 02-15-2007 8:24 PM Nighttrain has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Fosdick, posted 02-21-2007 11:56 AM Quetzal has not replied

Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 62 of 305 (385622)
02-16-2007 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Nighttrain
02-15-2007 8:24 PM


Re: Hang `em high
Nighttrain writes:
I notice a lot of the old-timers are getting less tolerant, and who could blame them for having to explain misconceptions for the umteenth time.
Good observation. When I was still a lurker here, jar would write long explanations to work with newbies. Nowadays, I see more "you're just wrong" type of answer from him.
The only old timer who hasn't lost it is none other than Percy. Heck, even I have lost it and I'm still somewhat in the newbie category. This makes me wonder what sort of person he is or what he looks like. He appears to be several levels above the average joe. In fact, he appears to be several levels above the typical intellectual.
Percy, if you are reading this, any chance of posting a picture or perhaps tell us a little about yourself?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Nighttrain, posted 02-15-2007 8:24 PM Nighttrain has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Admin, posted 02-16-2007 1:29 PM Taz has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 63 of 305 (385629)
02-16-2007 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Taz
02-16-2007 1:03 PM


Re: Hang `em high
Tazmanian Devil writes:
The only old timer who hasn't lost it is none other than Percy.
I think it's more cyclical than a general decline for most of us. Stick around, I'll lose it.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Taz, posted 02-16-2007 1:03 PM Taz has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 64 of 305 (386257)
02-20-2007 3:37 PM


Regarding the "morality & society" thread
I strongly disagree that it is off topic to discuss the existence of objective morality in that thread.
It is entirely relevant to the OP, which claims that societies do not determine what is moral, but that people "just know" what is moral.
In fact, I think that discussing objective vs. subjective moraily is EXACTLY on-topic.
{Adminnemooseus inserts: This message is apparently a response to AdminPD message here.}
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above.

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by AdminPD, posted 02-21-2007 1:09 PM nator has not replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 65 of 305 (386378)
02-21-2007 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Quetzal
02-16-2007 7:57 AM


Re: Hang `em high
Quetzal wrote:
As to the RoyBean Effect, I'm not sure I agree that it represents a decrease in tolerance. It may be more related to an increase in vigilance. The mod team seems more active now that it has typically been in the past - more mods, more interventions. That may just be my biased opinion, however. Do you notice something specific, or is this just a general impression?
I don't know if periodic nuts and mod vigilance are the only reasons for this apparent decrease in tolerance. I suspect a demographic effect, owing to a sometimes broad disparity of age. This forum has a lot of hot heads, hot bloods, and hot crotches, which I attribute to the blazing furnace of youth. Has anyone ever determined the age distribution of EvC posters? My guess is that most of them are <40, and probably even <30. (When you're >60 you'll know how little you knew at 30.) There ought to be a thread just for old people like me; then you would see how civilized and sweet we really are.
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Quetzal, posted 02-16-2007 7:57 AM Quetzal has not replied

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 66 of 305 (386394)
02-21-2007 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by nator
02-20-2007 3:37 PM


Re: Regarding the "morality & society" thread
Sorry, just saw this.
quote:
It is entirely relevant to the OP, which claims that societies do not determine what is moral, but that people "just know" what is moral.
In fact, I think that discussing objective vs. subjective moraily is EXACTLY on-topic.
How?
In Message 64 anastasia is discussing society and morals. Basically stating that he feels society determines morals.
In Message 78 you state:
Your morality is relative, as is the morality of every person who has ever had a morality.
There is no, and never has been, an objective morality. It's all subjective, and always has been.
But you don't address what that has to do with whether society determines morals or not.
Which leads anastasia off on the "morality is objective" trail with no discussion of of how that pertains to society.
Then your "says who" and a request: Can you give an example of an "objective morality"?
But you never got to the point of what that has to do with whether society determines morals or not.
So since you feel that there is no objective morality, how does arguing about it further the discussion on whether society determines morals or not?
Make your point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by nator, posted 02-20-2007 3:37 PM nator has not replied

anglagard
Member (Idle past 837 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 67 of 305 (386480)
02-22-2007 12:32 AM


OK
Regarding Message 2
Adminnemooseus writes:
You may well have just proposed the least focused "Proposed New Topic" ever.
Always nice to be known for something.
We can't (or at least shouldn't) promote such a topic to general debate. There's that Forum Guideline 3. We can probably file it in the "Columnist Corner" forum as a reference piece (but close it to any debate?)
Admittedly, I figured it would be quite a stretch as a PNT but am unfamiliar with columnist corner. Please feel free to place the topic in any area you may deem appropriate.
I may be wrong but I think it may be an interesting discussion. Hope some others feel likewise.

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Adminnemooseus, posted 02-22-2007 1:01 AM anglagard has not replied
 Message 69 by Nighttrain, posted 02-22-2007 2:37 AM anglagard has not replied
 Message 71 by kuresu, posted 02-22-2007 11:57 PM anglagard has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 68 of 305 (386483)
02-22-2007 1:01 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by anglagard
02-22-2007 12:32 AM


Re: OK - Offhand remarks in return
1) As I see it, your replying in the PNT would be acceptable, and might still be the better place to carry on further discussion.
2) Having not replied there, the Considerations of topic promotions from the Proposed New Topics forum topic would have been the 2nd preferred location (you didn't read the fine print of the signature closely enough).
3) No matter what you do, and how nice you try to be, your still subject to having a wise-ass admin inflicted upon you.
Now, what I personally think would be a good thing, is for you to work with someone else in refining the content and form of your list. Perhaps we need a special "Great Debate" topic or something. I can't see throwing it open to any and all.
Well, there you have it - Another wishy-washy Adminnemooseus message. Maybe next time you'll get lucky, and get one of those high quality AdminPD messages instead.
I'm just wrapping up at work. Gotta go home and get to bed.
We'll now see if another admin, one with more than 2 functioning brain cells, will wander into this discussion.
Adminnemooseus

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], [thread=-17,-45], [thread=-19,-337], [thread=-14,-1073]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by anglagard, posted 02-22-2007 12:32 AM anglagard has not replied

Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 3994 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 69 of 305 (386491)
02-22-2007 2:37 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by anglagard
02-22-2007 12:32 AM


Re: OK
Well done, Angla. Far from being confined to Columnist`s Corner, I think it should be placed in the brand-new Handy-Dandy Rebuttal Corner, a.k.a. Not Another PRATT, Look Here for Openers Corner. :-p

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by anglagard, posted 02-22-2007 12:32 AM anglagard has not replied

Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3425 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 70 of 305 (386689)
02-22-2007 11:49 PM


Regarding "100 Reasons" promotion
I am not an admin and I didn't think it was appropriate to post on the PNT, but if I could offer my two cents.
I think it should be promoted with the stipulation that any subsequent posts be additions or subtractions to the list - NO debate on the specific points. It should also be posted in the Reference Library and/or the Links and Information forum so that it isn't too difficult to find. Any new threads dealing specifically with one of the points should link back to this post, not only to give credit to anglagard, but to also help advertise the post to people who might not have stumbled across it yet.
Anyways...just thought I'd pipe in.
Carry on

kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 71 of 305 (386691)
02-22-2007 11:57 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by anglagard
02-22-2007 12:32 AM


Re: OK
if RAZD can get his massive Old Earth threads passed (and three times, no less), and I can get my thread on evidence of abiogenesis passed, I don't see why your's can't. all three have the same idea, they just differ in size (RAZD's behemoths, your giant, and my shrimp). great list by the way--there was one I had a problem with (i think 43, don't remember). when it passes, I'll put in my input.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by anglagard, posted 02-22-2007 12:32 AM anglagard has not replied

AdminBuzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 72 of 305 (387829)
03-02-2007 11:31 PM


AdminBuzsaw's Suspends Buzsaw. Why?
Perhaps there are members who may question the action AdminBuzsaw has taken in suspending member Buzsaw.
The problem with member Buzsaw is that though this is Buzsaws first ever suspension in about 4 years as a member, member Buzsaw has consistently been nothing but a big pain in the butt for Admin who saw fit to ban Buzsaw twice in past years, skipping the suspension phase and who is presently showing signs of perhaps needing to do so the third time.
I, AdminBuzsaw am taking this action because member Buzsaw shows no signs of being anything but what member Buzsaw has been for 4 long years, a pain in the butt for Admin and to some of the other prominent members of EvC, some of who have been aboard as long or nearly as long as member Buzsaw and had to put up with his (alleged) nonsense.
Imo, as moderator, this action is necessary to make EvC a more peaceful and tranquil site, especially in the science forums where IDist nonsense has no scientific bearing and where the conventional more secularist elitist members can discuss conventional elitist science without the (aleged) nonsense which member Buzsaw posts whenever he shows up.
If member Buzsaw wishes to discuss science, let him find a physics or science site that will tolerate his (alleged) stupid logic and the (alleged) IDist nonsense which he insists on posting.
I know there will be members who will say "I don't give a sh_t." However there may be others who were wondering why this action. There you have it for the record.

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by DrJones*, posted 03-03-2007 12:28 AM AdminBuzsaw has not replied
 Message 75 by cavediver, posted 03-03-2007 7:45 AM AdminBuzsaw has not replied
 Message 77 by nator, posted 03-03-2007 8:48 AM AdminBuzsaw has not replied

DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 73 of 305 (387833)
03-03-2007 12:28 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by AdminBuzsaw
03-02-2007 11:31 PM


Re: AdminBuzsaw's Suspends Buzsaw. Why?
However there may be others who were wondering why this action.
Based on the quote below (bold added) it appears that this action allows AdminBuzsaw to assist Buzsaw in playing the martyr card.
conventional more secularist elitist members can discuss conventional elitist science

Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by AdminBuzsaw, posted 03-02-2007 11:31 PM AdminBuzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by PaulK, posted 03-03-2007 4:35 AM DrJones* has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 74 of 305 (387844)
03-03-2007 4:35 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by DrJones*
03-03-2007 12:28 AM


Re: AdminBuzsaw's Suspends Buzsaw. Why?
Exactly. Buz is just annoyed that he can't pass off bullshit as science.
What for instance is scientific about his idea that the pre-Flood atmosphere disrupts dating evidence ? It lacks both empirical evidence AND any viable theoretical basis. It's just bullshit made up to deny the significance of the real evidence. I guess that honesty is something that only elitist secularists care about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by DrJones*, posted 03-03-2007 12:28 AM DrJones* has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 75 of 305 (387852)
03-03-2007 7:45 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by AdminBuzsaw
03-02-2007 11:31 PM


Truly pathetic....
in the science forums where IDist nonsense has no scientific bearing
Buz, ID is perfectly welcome in the science threads. It is often discussed here. There are many legitimate discussions on ID. Let's recap:
In the beginning, ID hypothesises that observed levels of complexity in organisms is incompatible with random mutation and natural selection. ID makes the prediction that there will be irreduciably complex (IC) units that cannot evolve naturally. ID brings forth several examples of such IC units.
THIS IS SCIENCE, Buz !!!!! Not the bullshit you bring forth from nutball sites - you are simply parrotting complete nonsensical gargbage. You are doing ID no favours whatsoever. When we say you are talking bollocks, Buz, it is not an attack on ID, faith, religion, Christianity... it is simply becasue you are so far out of your depth and are simply talking bollocks.
Briefly back to ID: it just so happens that every example of IC has been counter-demontrated to not be IC, or at least suggestions have been made as to how such units could evolve. And thus the vast majority of scientists dismiss ID and the concept of IC. Unfortunately for ID, they don't seem to be moving beyond "oh yes it is IC, nah nah nah".
the conventional more secularist elitist members can discuss conventional elitist science without the (aleged) nonsense which member Buzsaw posts whenever he shows up
Buz, "conventional elitist science" is more commonly known as "science". The whole point of science is to separate out the bullshit - the alchemy, the astrology, the numerology. You are just firmly in the alchemy/astrology/numerology camp and you don't like it. Tough. Science is not kind to bullshit - it cannot be and remain science.
let him find a physics or science site that will tolerate his (alleged) stupid logic and the (alleged) IDist nonsense which he insists on posting
What you want, Buz, is a site that will say "hey Buz, really neat idea... you're really clever... how do you come up with such amazing ideas?" There are a billion idiots out there ready for you. Go find them. The rest of us here will carry on learning from each other.
Truly pathetic...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by AdminBuzsaw, posted 03-02-2007 11:31 PM AdminBuzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by AdminPD, posted 03-03-2007 8:18 AM cavediver 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