Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 11.0
anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 181 of 304 (412168)
07-24-2007 1:33 AM


WTF?
I don't understand Minnemooses' comment here Message 12 on The Matt's thread concerning the credit to talk origins for the discovery or description of basic geologic principles. If one mentions calculus or gravity, are they required to cite the precise relevant pages of the Principia lest they be accused of plagiarism? Or are they required to give talk origins the credit for both????
Or did I not get the joke?

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by Adminnemooseus, posted 07-24-2007 1:51 AM anglagard has replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 182 of 304 (412169)
07-24-2007 1:36 AM
Reply to: Message 179 by Adminnemooseus
07-23-2007 9:56 PM


Re: Adminnemooseus needs to step down
Adminnemooseus responds to me:
quote:
Bottom line - You were warned.
Indeed.
But here's the thing: I didn't violate the warning. Post 116 was not, as you claim, about "THIS WHOLE NJ/BERBERRY THING."
Ergo, you screwed up.
You owe me an apology. The fact that you can't even consider the possibility shows that you have lost your perspective and you need to step down. You have vaguely admitted that you made a mistake:
Yes, I now see that your message 116 was in reply to Admin's message 112. And yes, I see that there may be some significant conflict between my and Admin's messages.
And yet you still end with an, "But I'm not going to say I'm sorry," attitude:
Bottom line - You were warned.
Now, what are you going to do about it?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Adminnemooseus, posted 07-23-2007 9:56 PM Adminnemooseus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by Adminnemooseus, posted 07-24-2007 2:04 AM Rrhain has replied

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


Message 183 of 304 (412170)
07-24-2007 1:51 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by anglagard
07-24-2007 1:33 AM


Attributes and references are a good thing
I thought my message 12 was pretty clear.
I think that Matt is pulling his information from some website without attributing that site. Much of his phrasing really sounds like "I've read that before somewhere else." So yes, I am suspecting that at least some of his messages are tainted with plagiarism. But I may be wrong - Perhaps he is pulling the information from his memory of general geological knowledge.
Don't get me wrong. I like the topic and his input. But one should still give credit where credit is due.
In general, I find a lot of the evolution side presenting information and/or making assertions without including any references. Doesn't this fall under either plagiarism and/or unsupported assertions?
I'm trying to hold the evolution side to the standards that the evolution side sure seems to like to hold the creation side to.
Attributes and references are a good thing.
Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by anglagard, posted 07-24-2007 1:33 AM anglagard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by anglagard, posted 07-24-2007 3:02 AM Adminnemooseus has replied

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


Message 184 of 304 (412173)
07-24-2007 2:04 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by Rrhain
07-24-2007 1:36 AM


Re: Adminnemooseus needs to step down
But here's the thing: I didn't violate the warning. Post 116 was not, as you claim, about "THIS WHOLE NJ/BERBERRY THING."
From message 116:
And he is. For you to call him "she" and then say that somehow you are doing this "for her own good" (that somehow you know what berberry will regret) is an example of both sexism and homophobia. I made a suggestion to you previously, Percy. Let me try to convince you of it:
What on earth makes you think that berberry or Dan or I are behaving in an "impulsive" manner?
Everybody can clearly see that n_j directly and specifically insults gays. Dan Carroll pipes up with a perfectly reasonable response (have the admins tell n_j to stop being an ass)....
...and he gets banned for it.
All of your message ties into the "THIS WHOLE NJ/BERBERRY THING."
If "THIS WHOLE NJ/BERBERRY THING." hadn't happened, there would not have been that message 116.
Now how about dropping the matter?
Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Rrhain, posted 07-24-2007 1:36 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by Rrhain, posted 07-24-2007 4:02 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 185 of 304 (412182)
07-24-2007 3:02 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by Adminnemooseus
07-24-2007 1:51 AM


Re: Attributes and references are a good thing
I agree with you to a point.
I agree that "Attributes and references are a good thing."
I also agree that some of us, myself included, should do a better job of supporting our assertions with references.
However I disagree that the earth sciences should be held to a different standard than all others. Namely that every basic principle in earth science should require a reference to some, many, or all freshman college texts in geology when this is clearly not required by any other field.
I believe that you have indeed read the basic principles of geology somewhere else, most likely in your own studies. However, I also believe The Matt is completely innocent of any plagiarism, he is simply stating basic concepts in simple terms. If Coragyps mentions ionic bonding, is he required to cite a freshman chemistry book? If Cavediver mentions the general theory of relativity, is he required to cite a freshman astrophysics book? Do we really need a citation to freshman biology texts every time someone mentions natural selection?
Or would they be accused of plagiarism for not citing the source?
I mean come on, I can recite the basic laws of geology, I bet you can, and I bet The Matt can, all from memory alone. I think any accusation of plagiarism is uncalled for.
I also believe, as I assume you do, that further discussion of this topic should be relegated to a PNT, so as not to clutter this thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Adminnemooseus, posted 07-24-2007 1:51 AM Adminnemooseus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by Adminnemooseus, posted 07-24-2007 3:40 AM anglagard has replied

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


Message 186 of 304 (412192)
07-24-2007 3:40 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by anglagard
07-24-2007 3:02 AM


Re: Attributes and references are a good thing
Not a new issue on my part:
Unsupported Assertions / Unattributed Sources
I've just now added the "/ Unattributed Sources" part to the topic title.
However I disagree that the earth sciences should be held to a different standard than all others.
I was directing this towards the evolution/science side in general:
Adminnemooseus writes:
In general, I find a lot of the evolution side presenting information and/or making assertions without including any references. Doesn't this fall under either plagiarism and/or unsupported assertions?
I'm trying to hold the evolution side to the standards that the evolution side sure seems to like to hold the creation side to.
Yes, I do pay more attention to the geology topics. And my geology course work (even the very basics) is badly faded in my memory. Certainly, I subconsciously know the basic principles, but to list them out is another matter.
Adminnemooseus
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Keep on spelling "unattributed" with a "t" missing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by anglagard, posted 07-24-2007 3:02 AM anglagard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by anglagard, posted 07-24-2007 5:00 AM Adminnemooseus has replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 187 of 304 (412195)
07-24-2007 4:02 AM
Reply to: Message 184 by Adminnemooseus
07-24-2007 2:04 AM


Re: Adminnemooseus needs to step down
Adminnemooseus responds to me:
quote:
From message 116:
And he is. For you to call him "she" and then say that somehow you are doing this "for her own good" (that somehow you know what berberry will regret) is an example of both sexism and homophobia. I made a suggestion to you previously, Percy. Let me try to convince you of it:

And how is that about "THIS WHOLE NJ/BERBERRY THING"? This is a comment about Percy and Percy's actions. That it was brought up by the gripe between n_j and berberry is merely incidental. It had nothing to do with n_j or berberry being right but rather that Percy called berberry "she" and then treated "her" as an hysteric, thus showing that [I][B]PERCY[/i][/b] was engaging in sexism and homophobia.
Or are you implying that Percy is actually one of n_j and/or berberry?
What on earth makes you think that berberry or Dan or I are behaving in an "impulsive" manner?
Again, this has nothing to do with "THIS WHOLE NJ/BERBERRY THING." It has to do with [I][B]PERCY[/i][/b] and his claim that those who are taking him to task are behaving in an "impulsive" manner. That the reason he is being taken to task has to do with a gripe betwen n_j and berberry is merely incidental. It is irrelevant why Percy was psychoanalyzing people over the internet. The fact remains that he was.
Everybody can clearly see that n_j directly and specifically insults gays. Dan Carroll pipes up with a perfectly reasonable response (have the admins tell n_j to stop being an ass)....
...and he gets banned for it.
Again, this has nothing to do with "THIS WHOLE NJ/BERBERRY THING." It has to with AdminModulous' reaction to Dan Carroll. That the reason AdminModulous is being taken to task because of a gripe between n_j and berberry is merely incidental. It doesn't matter why AdminModulous banned somebody for suggesting a way for the administrators to handle people who are getting out of line. The fact remains that AdminModulous did.
quote:
All of your message ties into the "THIS WHOLE NJ/BERBERRY THING."
Incorrect.
None of them did.
You do know what the term "incidental" means, yes? It is indicative of an item that leads to a larger topic that is not about that item in the first place. Literarily, it is the "macguffin" (do you know that term?) or "meet-cute" (do you know that one?) that serves as the reason why everything else is happening but is completely irrelevant to what follows.
This thread isn't about the gripe between n_j and berberry. At least, not any more.
It is about the administrators being unable to perform their jobs and living up to their own rules. The gripe between n_j and berberry was merely "incidental" to that discussion. As you can tell by the mere fact that this thread even exists in the first place, there is a need to discuss the behaviour of the administrators. It doesn't matter what incident brings it up. What is important is that it was brought up.
Or are you saying that we commoners are not allowed to question the actions of the administrators?
quote:
If "THIS WHOLE NJ/BERBERRY THING." hadn't happened, there would not have been that message 116.
Irrelevant. That the admins...and in this particular instance, you...hold these values that lead you to circle the wagons whenever an admin screws up, then this discussion would have taken place eventually. It really doesn't matter why we're discussing the inability of the moderators to respond to criticism with any semblance of dignity or respect. The fact remains that the moderators are incapable of doing so.
What are you going to do about it? Ban me for showing you to have made nothing but wrong decision after wrong decision in this matter? Are you capable of listening to criticism and admit you made a mistake without lashing out at the one giving it to you?
Note, I am not daring you to ban me. I am simply predicting that if you respond to this post the same way you responded to the other one, you will. And just as before, it won't have anything to do with "THIS WHOLE NJ/BERBERRY THING."
It will simply be because somebody dared to criticize you and point out in detail where you went wrong at every single turn.
quote:
Now how about dropping the matter?
I'll be happy to.
Can you?
Here's a hint: If you don't want me to respond to you, don't respond to me.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Adminnemooseus, posted 07-24-2007 2:04 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

AdminModulous
Administrator
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 188 of 304 (412198)
07-24-2007 4:41 AM


Comment on suspensions
In case anyone was still confused as to why Dan got suspended:
Dan: And remember... when you take the test? Peel the banana first. THEN eat it. Common rookie mistake.
The Dan suspension specifically:
Mod: You've not explicitly broken any rules Dan, but my best judgement is that you just disrespected a member of this forum, namely myself. Right now since you have stated you are not going to continue with the discussion I am going to make a judgement call and not suspend you for 24 hours. If your tone continues on this forum, my best guess is that my judgement call will be to suspend you to cool down.
Dan: Your judgement is balls-on accurate.
Mod: You're suspended for breaking rules 1,2 and 10.
1: Follow all moderator requests (calm down the tone or I'll suspend you)
2: Please stay on topic for a thread (the discussion of moderation procedures).
10: Always treat other members with respect. Argue the position, not the person. Avoid abusive, harassing and invasive behavior. Avoid needling, hectoring and goading tactics.
It had absolutely nothing to do with Dan criticizing the moderators and everything to do with the manner of his criticism. This thread is not about calling the moderators names or disrespecting them. It is entirely possible to criticise actions or procedures without getting personal, being disrespectful or such. Doing so will likely get you suspended: and playing a martyr card about how the evil moderators are suppression constructive criticsm will be viewed with equal amusement whether it comes from creationist or evolutionist, theist or atheist.
People complain that moderation isn't fair. Maybe it isn't, but it isn't about being fair, it is about allowing debate to continue and if we suspend those that hold controversial or even offensive counter-opinions I would have suspended the entire 'other' side of the debate by now and there'd be no discussion - obviously counter to the goal of allowing debate to continue.
A reasonable criticism of recent moderator action was put forward by Percy, and I think it takes into account the spirit of the anger some members have expressed while also allowing the moderators to help keep flamewars exploding all over the moderation threads. On the back of this criticism: it will be my practice in the future, where reasonable, to suspend people's privelages for varying lengths from the 'Suggestions and Questions' forum only - if they are no longer contributing anything to the discussion of moderation procedures but instead are using it to lash out or repetitively bitch and whine about it all. EvC wide suspensions will be limited to severe cases or cases where the lashing out spills out into other threads where they are offtopic and/or disruptive. Case by case basis and all that.
I have no desire to continue justifying the Dan Carrol suspension - different people have different views on it and that's fine. Any comments on the idea of forum limited suspensions as a moderation procedure will be interesting to read though.

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by Rrhain, posted 07-24-2007 5:50 AM AdminModulous has not replied

anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 189 of 304 (412203)
07-24-2007 5:00 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by Adminnemooseus
07-24-2007 3:40 AM


Re: Attributes and references are a good thing
My main point is that the insinuation that The Matt is guilty of plagiarizing is flat out wrong.
If you would like to discuss this point as an admin, I guess we have to do it here.
If you would like to discuss it as a regular member that can be replied to, then we can do it in the thread you suggested.
If you want to drop it, don't reply.
Personally, I think you owe The Matt an apology.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Adminnemooseus, posted 07-24-2007 3:40 AM Adminnemooseus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by Adminnemooseus, posted 07-24-2007 5:45 AM anglagard has replied

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


Message 190 of 304 (412206)
07-24-2007 5:45 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by anglagard
07-24-2007 5:00 AM


Re: Attributes and references are a good thing
My main point is that the insinuation that The Matt is guilty of plagiarizing is flat out wrong.
Adminnemooseus, in message 183, writes:
But I may be wrong - Perhaps he is pulling the information from his memory of general geological knowledge.
Things have shown to be that I was indeed "flat out wrong." Again it is shown that most everyone else has a better memory than me. BTW, I had Intro to Geology in 1975.
I do apologize.
What led me astray was that I found his content to be highly reminiscent of material such as at Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale.
If you would like to discuss this point as an admin, I guess we have to do it here.
If you would like to discuss it as a regular member that can be replied to, then we can do it in the thread you suggested.
Both this topic and the other topic are in the "Suggestions and Questions" forum. The other is more specific to the issue and thus would be the place for any further discussion. Regardless of the location, since it is a moderation issue, I would be probably be replying as Adminnemooseus.
A mind is a terrible thing to karst,
Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by anglagard, posted 07-24-2007 5:00 AM anglagard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by anglagard, posted 07-24-2007 6:04 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 191 of 304 (412207)
07-24-2007 5:50 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by AdminModulous
07-24-2007 4:41 AM


Re: Comment on suspensions
AdminModulous writes:
quote:
People complain that moderation isn't fair.
But nobody here is saying that. All the people who have been suspended agree that moderation is needed.
What we're complaining about is that the ones charged with carrying out that task don't know what they're doing.
quote:
it is about allowing debate to continue
But that's precisely crash's point:
[I][B]WHAT YOU'RE DOING IS NOT ALLOWING DEBATE TO CONTINUE![/i][/b]
The problem is not us, AdminModulous.
It's you. You're the one who keeps trying to defend the indefensible.
Take a look at what has happened here. Do you really think that debate is continuing? If you are truly concerned with allowing debate to continue, why don't you consider that [I][B]YOUR ACTIONS[/i][/b] are the ones that are causing the trouble and changing your actions?
quote:
On the back of this criticism: it will be my practice in the future, where reasonable, to suspend people's privelages for varying lengths from the 'Suggestions and Questions' forum only - if they are no longer contributing anything to the discussion of moderation procedures but instead are using it to lash out or repetitively bitch and whine about it all.
Then I suggest you suspend yourself.
You are the one causing the trouble. Debate is stifled because you can't take criticism and rather than simply [I][B]STOPPING[/i][/b], you keep trying to defend the indefensible.
You are the one that needs the timeout.
Make it voluntary if you have to. Simply don't respond to anything on this thread and see if anybody continues it. If it truly is an issue of us "lashing out" or "repetitively bitching and whining," then we'll keep it up even in your absence.
But if suddenly it goes quiet, then perhaps you might learn that the problem was you and that you need to re-examine your own behaviour.
This is a very simple question. I am asking it in all sincerity. If you find that you absolutely cannot help but respond to this post, I request that you ignore everything else and simply answer this:
Do you really think that debate is continuing?
Yes or no. That's all I want to know.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by AdminModulous, posted 07-24-2007 4:41 AM AdminModulous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by Admin, posted 07-24-2007 8:00 AM Rrhain has not replied

anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 192 of 304 (412209)
07-24-2007 6:04 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by Adminnemooseus
07-24-2007 5:45 AM


Re: Attributes and references are a good thing
A true gentleman.
ABE - any apology should be made to The Matt directly as he is the subject of the unintended slight.
Edited by anglagard, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Adminnemooseus, posted 07-24-2007 5:45 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

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


Message 193 of 304 (412221)
07-24-2007 8:00 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by Rrhain
07-24-2007 5:50 AM


Re: Comment on suspensions
It's been requested by moderators several times that we move on from this issue because it has become clear that no progress toward common ground or a mutual understanding is being made. Because of your persistence in pursuing this issue regardless, your permissions in the [forum=-19] forum have been removed. You may petition to have them back by sending email to Admin, but restoration of permissions is at the discretion of board administration.
You could have opened a new thread in this forum to discuss this issue, as suggested earlier, but as that option is no longer open to you I suggest you take your issues with moderators to the [forum=-14] forum.
Edited by Admin, : Spelling.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Rrhain, posted 07-24-2007 5:50 AM Rrhain has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 194 of 304 (412295)
07-24-2007 10:32 AM


Enmity and strife
I've been reading this whole dialogue now for two days straight, but I'm not seeing any headway. One group says this, while the other maintain that, and somewhere in the middle is a moderate group trying to wash their hands clean of it.
This discussion is concluded. Please Do Not Respond!
Any response to this post or continuation of this subject will lose access to this forum for roughly 24 Hours.

--AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

"The problem of Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it is difficult and left untried" -G.K. Chesterton

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 195 of 304 (412355)
07-24-2007 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by crashfrog
07-22-2007 5:57 PM


Re: Un. Fucking. Believable.
I'm not a moderator, and I'm certainly not the one being too obtuse to see that a gratuitous and unnecessary comparison between adult homosexuals and rapists is, by definition, offensive the first time and a forum-violating provocation every subsequent time.
When so many people are telling you're wrong, Mod, isn't it just slightly possible that you are?
Crash, Modulous is being spot on about my argument. As well, AdminPD has posted several of my former posts where I make a similar argument. Its unassailable at this point that I was, and always have been, making an argument against moral relativism.
Either way I don't see how you can be qualified to moderate this forum.
Come on, Crash.... Modulous is by far one of the most equitable Administrators on this forum. Please don't take out your frustrations for me out on him. Modulous is a terrific moderator.
Aside from which, his personal feelings concerning homosexuality are more akin to your own. Yet, he recognizes that the argument I've made had far less to do with homosexuality itself than it did with questioning how one can arrive at a moral conclusion about it while denuding another by the same premise.
If Nj was ever suspended for his conduct, it somehow passed beneath the notice of every single person here.
Which only serves to confirm that I was never in any violation, and that the argument made against me was one made purely out of an emotive response.
His Austin Powers thing, while off-topic, was intended to be humerous and I really didn't see the merit of a suspension.
I actually thought, this, of all things, was going to be what you most agreed with them on.
I assumed that Percy was just using that as a face-saving excuse to address his earlier conduct; the one that got us where we are now.
I kind of sensed that too-- that given the fragile nature of the thread, if he didn't suspend me for something (insert scapegoat here: _______) it would appear that his fairness would be in question. Austin Powers became that scapegoat, even though, ironically, it had everything to do with other people calling referring to Berberry as a "she."
Berb's frustration was certainly legitimate
Berberry seems to be flustered by just about anything. He seems to be a very touchy fellow. I'm not the only one who noticed it. He makes it so that no one can ever question homosexuality-- that if they do, we'll immediately be "offending" him. That's not how debate works. I suggest that he grow some thicker skin, because if what trivial thing I've said offends him, he's going to blow a gasket when somebody actually uses some derogatory comments about homosexuals against him.
This discussion is concluded. Please Do Not Respond!
Any response to this post or continuation of this subject will lose access to this forum for roughly 24 Hours.

--AdminPD
Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : Fixed quote box
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

"The problem of Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it is difficult and left untried" -G.K. Chesterton

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by crashfrog, posted 07-22-2007 5:57 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by crashfrog, posted 07-24-2007 2:36 PM Hyroglyphx 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