|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 10.0 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5872 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3292 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Nighttrain writes:
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. 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. 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Quetzal wrote:
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. 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? ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
AdminPD Inactive Administrator |
Sorry, just saw this.
quote: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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 837 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Nighttrain Member (Idle past 3994 days) Posts: 1512 From: brisbane,australia Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Jaderis Member (Idle past 3425 days) Posts: 622 From: NY,NY Joined: |
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: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
AdminBuzsaw Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2284 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 6.8 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3643 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
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...
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024