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 13.0
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 211 of 312 (437757)
12-01-2007 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 210 by Admin
12-01-2007 8:40 AM


Re: some action needed in the Logic thread
When someone starts a topic they should be allowed to wander on it or to stay stuck in a rut if they so choose - it's their thread. If they want to reach the 300 post limit with no argument being completed then that is the best case one can make that their argument is a failure.
This would be an argument for re-opening Beretta's thread and directing his misinformation on evolution to that thread and Beretta can use up his own threads with nonsense instead of being off topic on other threads.
http://EvC Forum: Your reason for accepting evolution -->EvC Forum: Your reason for accepting evolution
Similar behavior should not be allowed on other threads where the is some actual discussion of the topic by the person who started it.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Admin, posted 12-01-2007 8:40 AM Admin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by Fosdick, posted 12-01-2007 11:49 AM RAZD has not replied
 Message 214 by molbiogirl, posted 12-01-2007 3:55 PM RAZD has replied

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


Message 212 of 312 (437765)
12-01-2007 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by RAZD
12-01-2007 10:36 AM


Re: some action needed in the Logic thread
I agree with your sentiments. Beretta was being bitched at incessantly by molbiogirl, who herself has complained so pathetically about being "bitchslapped" on this forum. Maybe she needs to go out and buy a new dress.
...bitch, bitch, bitch, birch, bitch.
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by RAZD, posted 12-01-2007 10:36 AM RAZD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by nator, posted 12-02-2007 4:45 PM Fosdick has not replied

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


Message 213 of 312 (437827)
12-01-2007 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by kuresu
12-01-2007 12:10 AM


Re: Nem closes Positive Evidence for Atheism thread
so, is any one going to comment on this case of admin abuse?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by kuresu, posted 12-01-2007 12:10 AM kuresu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by jar, posted 12-01-2007 3:59 PM kuresu has replied
 Message 217 by ringo, posted 12-01-2007 4:09 PM kuresu has not replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 214 of 312 (437833)
12-01-2007 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by RAZD
12-01-2007 10:36 AM


Re: some action needed in the Logic thread
This would be an argument for re-opening Beretta's thread and directing his misinformation on evolution to that thread and Beretta can use up his own threads with nonsense instead of being off topic on other threads.
Is there any hope of this happening?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by RAZD, posted 12-01-2007 10:36 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by RAZD, posted 12-02-2007 9:41 AM molbiogirl has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 215 of 312 (437834)
12-01-2007 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by kuresu
12-01-2007 3:36 PM


Re: Nem closes Positive Evidence for Atheism thread
Nah. No harm no foul. The thread reached its appointed our, the bell tolled and it died a deserved death.
If you think there is any merit to continuing the farce, propose a continuation thread.
Edited by jar, : No reason given.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by kuresu, posted 12-01-2007 3:36 PM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by kuresu, posted 12-01-2007 4:07 PM jar has replied

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


Message 216 of 312 (437837)
12-01-2007 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by jar
12-01-2007 3:59 PM


Re: Nem closes Positive Evidence for Atheism thread
I don't want to continue the farce of a thread, but don't you find it fishy that the admin who makes the last comment also closes the thread and does not make the closing message in his admin account?
To be clear, I find what NJ did to be a misappropriate use of his admin powers. Do you not find this wrong? It's akin to buz debating in his admin account, except on a worse scale.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by jar, posted 12-01-2007 3:59 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by jar, posted 12-01-2007 4:12 PM kuresu has not replied
 Message 219 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-01-2007 7:52 PM kuresu has replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 217 of 312 (437838)
12-01-2007 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by kuresu
12-01-2007 3:36 PM


Re: Nem closes Positive Evidence for Atheism thread
Well, we need creo admins (thus saith the lord), so unless they actually find a way to commit murder over the Internet, they'll probably get away with a lot, just like the civilian creos.

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by kuresu, posted 12-01-2007 3:36 PM kuresu has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 218 of 312 (437841)
12-01-2007 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by kuresu
12-01-2007 4:07 PM


Re: Nem closes Positive Evidence for Atheism thread
No, I have no problems. Having been an Admin I'm sure I too was guilt of taking the easy route and simply doing what was needed without thinking about which account I happened to be in. However to close the thread Nem used his Admin account. The only possible case I see is he did not add yet another message where he announced closing.
Like I said, no harm no foul (other than the topic itself).

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by kuresu, posted 12-01-2007 4:07 PM kuresu has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 219 of 312 (437904)
12-01-2007 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by kuresu
12-01-2007 4:07 PM


Re: Nem closes Positive Evidence for Atheism thread
don't you find it fishy that the admin who makes the last comment also closes the thread and does not make the closing message in his admin account?
First off, what is "fishy" about it if I happen to be the last one making a post? 300 has been an EvC limit for a long time. Secondly, anyone, including you, can request a sequel thread.
If there was any looming question you had, its not like you couldn't just ask me or the person you wanted to answer a question.
Thirdly, I didn't respond in my Admin account. I responded in my member account.
To be clear, I find what NJ did to be a misappropriate use of his admin powers.
Why though? Explain to me what you find objectionable.

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by kuresu, posted 12-01-2007 4:07 PM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by kuresu, posted 12-02-2007 3:48 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 222 by crashfrog, posted 12-02-2007 3:58 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 220 of 312 (437913)
12-01-2007 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by kuresu
12-01-2007 12:10 AM


Re: Nem closes Positive Evidence for Atheism thread
I really don't think an admin who participated to a fair degree should close that thread (in general).
I especially disagree with the admin who participated to a fair degree closing the thread after making the last post. (in general)
It is traditional here to close threads soon after the 300th post.
It seems to be a new tradition for an admin to call for closing summaries before closure.
Sometimes threads do go a little over 300 posts, especially to give people a chance to make their closing statements.
Would have been better if Nem, despite participating, announced that he was going to close the thread soon, and then limited himself to one more summary statement? I see nothing objectionable to that.
That said, would it be correct the problems you see if the thread were reopened to give people a chance to write their summaries (but not to continue debate)?
I don't have a horse in this race -- just trying to suggest a compromise that everyone would be happy with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by kuresu, posted 12-01-2007 12:10 AM kuresu has not replied

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


Message 221 of 312 (437947)
12-02-2007 3:48 AM
Reply to: Message 219 by Hyroglyphx
12-01-2007 7:52 PM


Re: Nem closes Positive Evidence for Atheism thread
do I have to spell it out in painfully clear terms?
You participated in the thread. You made the last post, and promptly closed it. You also, last I checked (several hours back), had no message with your admin account closing the thread.
I am well aware of the 300 limit (to all). My problem is not that the thread was closed at the 300 limit. My problem is that it was closed by a participant immediately after that participant made the final post.
Do I have a problem with you making the final post in the thread? No. It is by closing it yourself when you've made the final post.
It's incredibly similar to "This is why and that's that, now shut up, no more debate".
Am I really the only person who sees this as a problem?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-01-2007 7:52 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-02-2007 1:59 PM kuresu has not replied

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


Message 222 of 312 (437949)
12-02-2007 3:58 AM
Reply to: Message 219 by Hyroglyphx
12-01-2007 7:52 PM


Re: Nem closes Positive Evidence for Atheism thread
No, it's fishy as hell, like it usually is when mods moderate threads they've participated in.
It would have been better if you had taken steps to avoid the appearance of mod power abuse. Did you abuse your power? I'm not saying that you did. But the appearance is there, and it's best avoided.
I know it seems like there's not enough mods to go around and that people who see something that should be done - like a 300-length thread needs closing - should just do it, but there's something to be said for avoiding apparent conflicts of interest and abuses of power. One shouldn't use one's moderator power to privilege their own posts. And one of those privileges is the privilege of the last word.
First off, what is "fishy" about it if I happen to be the last one making a post?
You didn't just "happen" to make the last post. The appearance is that you used your moderator power to ensure that yours was the last post. It looks fishy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-01-2007 7:52 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 223 of 312 (437970)
12-02-2007 9:00 AM


Re: Nem closes Positive Evidence for Atheism thread
About the 300 post limit, while actual practice varies quite a bit, and while the appropriate way to close a thread can also vary widely, there are a few moderator practices that I like pretty well. One is to remind participants when the 300 post limit is approaching, another is to allow a thread to go a little beyond 300 messages to allow final responses (at least in cases where discussion is still productive), and another is to request that participants post summaries and that no one reply to them.
The first two are simple and straightforward, the last requires general cooperation and breaks down easily when participants insist on carrying the discussion right up to thread closure, but I still think it's a good idea.
About AdminNJ getting the last post in a thread he himself closed: oops!

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-02-2007 2:06 PM Admin has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 224 of 312 (437972)
12-02-2007 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by molbiogirl
12-01-2007 3:55 PM


thread restriction as admin technique
Admins can (and have) restricted posters to certain threads. If we have a problem poster (Beretta, Simple, Ray, Faith, Randman, Whatever, Syamsu, ... just to name a few off the top of my head), rather than shelve them to the "showcase" zoo we could let them start threads promoted to any forum, but restrict them to posting on their threads, along with anyone who wants to play along. If they play nicely, dealing with issues, etc. then the restrictions can come off.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by molbiogirl, posted 12-01-2007 3:55 PM molbiogirl has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 225 of 312 (438011)
12-02-2007 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by kuresu
12-02-2007 3:48 AM


Re: Nem closes Positive Evidence for Atheism thread
do I have to spell it out in painfully clear terms?
You participated in the thread. You made the last post, and promptly closed it. You also, last I checked (several hours back), had no message with your admin account closing the thread.
So what? I'm still not seeing any reasonable objection here. Because I was participating on a thread means that I can't close it after we reach a 300 limit?
Seems like a totally specious argument to me since anyone could just open a sequel thread if there were any looming questions. It just sounds to me like you should stop using drugs. They're making you paranoid.
I am well aware of the 300 limit (to all). My problem is not that the thread was closed at the 300 limit. My problem is that it was closed by a participant immediately after that participant made the final post.
Look, Kuresu..... *sigh*..... I happened to be browsing through the forum list when I decided to open the link to the forum (I can't even remember which forum it was in, its that unmemorable).
Anyhow, something GDR said sparked my interest. I decided to respond. I just so happened to be the last one posting before it reached the 300 limit. I informed GDR that because we have a 300 post limit, that I was closing it. I gave him, you, or anyone the option to request a sequel thread.
If I was trying to avoid something (I assume this is where you are going with this) ANYONE could just copy it from the old thread and paste in the new forum.
Seriously...... what....... is........ the....... problem?

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by kuresu, posted 12-02-2007 3:48 AM kuresu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by crashfrog, posted 12-02-2007 2:03 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 228 by ringo, posted 12-02-2007 2:14 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 249 by Omnivorous, posted 12-02-2007 6:37 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