General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 10.0

I have historically been the point-man for selecting new moderators. This is not to say I don't have input from the other admins. In general, IMO, I think that members exhibiting moderator like behaviour tend to get stuck with that official duty. In general, I look for calm personalities, although there may be exceptions to that rule.I don't recall the AdminQuetzal specifics, but I do know that I attempted to recruit him as an admin many years ago (before most of the current admins came to be). He had declined, but apparently it got to the point that he was finding the quality of admin-ship to be so bad that something had to be done. So he decided it was "put up or shut up" time, and volunteered to becoming an admin.Or something like that.AdminnemooseusEdited by Adminnemooseus, : Put an omitted "so" in that final paragraph.

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

---

Re: EvC Forum: Chemical Evolution Sorry about it taking so long. I had to take the time to do an edit to change my ID at message 72. Also, the server seems to have been responding slowly. Message 72 was originally intended to the topic closing message. I felt I needed to post message 74 because of message 73's having snuck in there.Looking back through the messages posted at the topic in question, I must confess that I did find a barest of connections to the theme of the topic in one of the messages. Other than that, all the messages were totally off-topic. They weren't even good off-topic messages.Adminnemooseus

Fighting off-topic blather with off-topic blather? You and ArchArchitect had already posted a series of irrelevant messages. I choose to give you both credit for knowing if you are posting quality on-topic material. I decided you both were choosing not to do such. As such, the topic was getting thrashed. What was I to do? Post a message saying "The last bunch of messages are garbage. I'll give you a final 10 minutes to post your final garbage, then I'm closing the topic." Acting upon topics gone bad is absolutely an admins job. See above, two comments back. I'm under no obligation to THERE give you a place for further off-topic messages, to explain why your previous messages were off-topic. This topic (General Discussion...) is the place for such. That's why I have a link to this topic in my "signature", and why I usually specifically guide people to that link. Moderation messages tend not to work well. They tend to either not be seen or not be seen soon enough, or be seen but ignored. The type moderation message that can't be missed or ignored is a topic closure.I sometimes work on the philosophy "A tap on the shoulder doesn't work. Sometimes you have to hit them up side the head with a brick". Or something like that.Adminnemooseusps: I'll also quote RAZD's message 150, to try to keep it from being buried. That situation is something else we need to deal with:

Re: http://EvC Forum: Evangelical Support Group -->EvC Forum: Evangelical Support GroupI like the idea of have some limited participation topics such as the one Phat started. It should be interesting for the non-participants to look in at.Putting it into the "Showcase" had occurred to me. But instead, I, in the "Private Administration Forum", have proposed that it go to the "Great Debate" forum. There it will be tagged "Evangelical Christians Only".Another possibility is that we could create another new forum, with participation filtered like at the "Showcase". Probably not a good idea - It would just create more clutter.Adminnemooseus

This is the message that (more or less) started the whole mess. It was posted by Brennakimi at (as my system sees the times) 8:33 on 4-30-07. I bannered it as being off-topic at 8:47 pm. It was the most recent message at that time and was a reply to a message 54 messages back.In it's entirety: Then, at 9:07 pm (20 minutes after I had bannered the message), Crashfrog made an (IMO) equally off-topic reply. I then gave CF a 2 hour suspension. Now, there is a real possibility that CF had a pre-banner version displayed, but even then one needs to have some on/off-topic sense.Then, at 9:23, Brennakimi made her reply (subtitled "off-topic" no less) to CF's message. Also see the nature of BK's messages just up-thread. I then also gave BK a two hour suspension. At the time, I thought the topic would hit 300 messages an be closed before the 2 hours elapsed. Such was not the case.The dual suspension announcement is here. AdminPhat's follow up suspension announcement is the following message.My message, in its entirety: The referred to link is in my "signature", not shown in the quote.Please note the reasons I gave for the suspensions.I now go to the 24 hour suspension I gave Brennakimi, 5 days earlier.
I'm not going to discuss that one further, except to point out my ps. side message, which was: Yes, that was all I said about the upper case thing. A side comment to a suspension for other things. Admin, however, went on to add by edit his views. They were: There was then other discussion of the upper case thing, up-thread in this topic. I, nor Admin, were part of that discussion.Which gets us to the focus point of Brennakimi's current suspension by AdminPhat, messages 191 and 192, up-thread. Monitoring messages for problems is part of being an admin. Actually, it's pretty much is the purpose of being an admin. And just because no one else is complaining, it doesn't mean the message(s) are not a problem. Lastly, as noted above, her typing style was not an issue in the suspension.Now, IMO, these were childish tirades, amplified by the profanity use. Yes, perhaps a profane word is called for in certain situations. But one must beware of the power of those words. And I certainly wouldn't want such profanity use to become common place at . Are we to grant Brennakimi special "spoiled brat" privileges? I don't think so.I think all the mentioned suspensions were justified. If, upon return, Brennakimi continues such behavior, the suspensions are going to get very long.AdminnemooseusEdited by Adminnemooseus, : Forgot to do a subtitle.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Tweek formatting a bit.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add another link.

Re: http://EvC Forum: Evangelical Support Group -->EvC Forum: Evangelical Support Group and upthread (It would be nice if people posting to this topic would supply links back to the item in question).I am finding the above cited to be highly reminiscent of the topic where I suspended both Crashfrog and Brennakimi (see upthread here and further upthread). Not only message triteness, but also a series of messsages of dubious connection to the topic theme.Adminnemooseus

Maybe you need to disguise your one-liner by also including some on-topic content around it.Adminnemooseusps: I'm serious. What you posted really stands out as being bad (IMO).