Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 77 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-26-2019 6:26 AM
17 online now:
PaulK, vimesey (2 members, 15 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,246 Year: 5,283/19,786 Month: 1,405/873 Week: 301/460 Day: 1/52 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1617181920
21
Author Topic:   General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 13.0
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 301 of 312 (444387)
12-29-2007 7:26 AM
Reply to: Message 300 by molbiogirl
12-28-2007 9:29 PM


Re: AdminPD.
quote:
Gently reminding creos of Forum guidelines is a habit shared by many. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Off the top of my head: Percy, CK, Dr. A, RAZD. Were I to do a thorough search, that list would be much longer.
Gentle reminders are not frowned upon. Unfortunately your technique is not so gentle. As I said, you play moderator. A moderator can post just to correct someone, you don't have that option. As a participant, your posts are supposed to contribute to the discussion and move it forward. We do allow the originator of the thread some leeway in keeping participants on topic if they choose.

When a moderator takes action, participants have a chance to comment on that action in the moderation thread, just as you have. When you post primarily to correct, the participant doesn't have that option. Their only recourse is to argue with you in the thread, which can take the thread off topic or inflame the discussion.

Aside from Percy, those you listed tend to remind those they are in discussion with. I don't notice them posting just to remind someone of the rules.

In that thread (which has ended), you posted twice on 12/22 and it was not to Buz. So what motivated you to respond to his post on 12/28 since you felt it didn't say anything? Why did you feel it necessary to call attention to a "piddly" post? Your subtitle called attention to it. Were you really trying to move the discussion forward or just embarrass Buz?

As you noted to AdminNem in Message 295, you can be as biased as you wish since you aren't a moderator. So when I feel that you have inappropriately zinged someone for a rule violation, it is appropriate for me to counter your "ruling."

quote:
Cites.

Your cut and paste style and short comment posts don't seem to be swayed by any admin, so this is the only blatant one.

Message 251 of the Childhood Vaccinations – Necessary or Overkill?
You did not comply.

Now as for my personal bias. From what I can tell you feel that because we have been on opposite sides of a discussion in the past that any admin action I take against you is generated by spite. Is that correct?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 300 by molbiogirl, posted 12-28-2007 9:29 PM molbiogirl has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 303 by Percy, posted 12-29-2007 8:16 AM AdminPD has responded
 Message 311 by molbiogirl, posted 12-29-2007 4:48 PM AdminPD has not yet responded

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 302 of 312 (444392)
12-29-2007 8:14 AM
Reply to: Message 297 by nator
12-28-2007 9:10 PM


Re: AdminPD.
quote:
I think it is hilarious that you are constantly encouraging people to "let go" of issues such as this, yet here you are, trying to bolster your position by implying that the reason I stopped "pushing the issue" was because I didn't think I was justified.
I didn't bring this up hon, molbiogirl did. I can only go by what you wrote. I can't read behind the lines. The subsequent discussion did not support her point.

Might you be inappropriately using your Admin status to lean on me, perhaps because you are resentful of what happened to you in the Misunderstanding Empiricism thread?

What exactly do you feel happened to me in that thread, that would warrant "leaning" on you almost a week later?

(ABE: BTW, my disagreement in that thread was with Percy. You didn't add anything new that we hadn't already debated earlier.)

Just because you retaliate because you don't like what someone says doesn't mean everyone else reacts that way.

Message 5
The whole reason I called him out on this thread is because he took a shot at liberals in another thread, specifically calling most of us "irrational".

The moderation action (Message 17), did not stop you or anyone else from discussing the supposed topic. As I suspected it was just a call out to a specific member and since he didn't wish to participate and Admin called a halt to insults and denigrations, the thread stalled. You didn't even try to continue it.

So you accuse me of leaning on you because I stopped you from leaning on someone else.
I can live with that.

Edited by AdminPD, : Added ABE comment


This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by nator, posted 12-28-2007 9:10 PM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 306 by nator, posted 12-29-2007 1:29 PM AdminPD has not yet responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 18377
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 303 of 312 (444393)
12-29-2007 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 301 by AdminPD
12-29-2007 7:26 AM


Re: AdminPD.
AdminPD writes:

Aside from Percy, those you listed tend to remind those they are in discussion with. I don't notice them posting just to remind someone of the rules.

Gee, I agree with you that members, including moderators while in regular member garb, should only be noting Forum Guidelines violations, not performing all but the equivalent of a citizen's arrest. Hopefully I haven't hoisted myself too high up my own petard!

Not replying to you now but to everyone, just writing some thoughts that have occurred to me as I've watched this discussion, it feels to me that a good moderator has to have some of the qualities of a good doormat, because strict moderation seems to discourage discussion and encourage a sense that moderation is biased. This happens even when there's no clear moderator bias in evidence, as shown by the countless times that moderators have been charged with bias by both sides at the same time.

So it probably works best when moderators are slow to act and quick to forgive. As others have noted, moderation is an odd kind of task that often feels thankless for long periods of time because the positive effects can't be measured, since we can't know what other outcomes might have come about had moderation taken a different approach.

But then comes that rare moment when a thread once bogged down in discord and dissension suddenly starts humming along while all sing your praises, and then it's all worthwhile!

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by AdminPD, posted 12-29-2007 7:26 AM AdminPD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 305 by AdminPD, posted 12-29-2007 8:27 AM Percy has not yet responded

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 304 of 312 (444394)
12-29-2007 8:17 AM


Note To Admins
Once Molbiogirl and nator have each replied to me, I will close this thread.
That way they each get to have the last word.
I will not continue this discussion to the new thread.
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 305 of 312 (444395)
12-29-2007 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 303 by Percy
12-29-2007 8:16 AM


Re: AdminPD.
quote:
Hopefully I haven't hoisted myself too high up my own petard!
:laugh:

Since you are an admin (actually The Admin) you sometimes step in to guide as well as engage in discussion (as do some other admins) in personal mode. But still you don't warn the same way you do when in Admin mode.

That was the only reason for the separation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 303 by Percy, posted 12-29-2007 8:16 AM Percy has not yet responded

nator
Member (Idle past 281 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 306 of 312 (444438)
12-29-2007 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 302 by AdminPD
12-29-2007 8:14 AM


Re: AdminPD.
quote:
What exactly do you feel happened to me in that thread, that would warrant "leaning" on you almost a week later?

We called you on pretty much what you are doing now.

You like to play dumb in order to avoid addressing rebuttals.

We also illustrated the illogic and inconsistency of your position regarding alternative health, showed that you tend to stonewall to avoid rebuttals, and are pretty much unwilling and/or unable to tell the difference between good evidence and bad evidence.

quote:
Just because you retaliate because you don't like what someone says doesn't mean everyone else reacts that way.

When have I ever "retaliated" as a Moderator?

That's the material difference, PD. I wouldn't care at all if you had "come after me" as Purpledawn, but you did it as AdminPD.

quote:
I didn't bring this up hon, molbiogirl did. I can only go by what you wrote. I can't read behind the lines. The subsequent discussion did not support her point.

Right.

That's why I am letting you know nowwhy I didn't "push the issue" then. I am setting the record straight, lest you erroniously think that I didn't believe I was justified in having my suspicions, as your recent comment to MBG implies.

Bored now.

Edited by nator, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 302 by AdminPD, posted 12-29-2007 8:14 AM AdminPD has not yet responded

  
AdminNWR
Inactive Member


Message 307 of 312 (444448)
12-29-2007 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by molbiogirl
12-28-2007 10:44 AM


Re: AdminPD.
In my opinion, you have yet again taken the opportunity to advance a personal agenda as a moderator (and it's not just with me -- you've done this with other participants as well).

As a (currently inactive) former Admin, the only agenda I can detect in AdminPDs actions is one of keeping the discussion clean and on topic.

Doubtless, you disagree with her administrative style. But I think you are detecting bias where there is none.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by molbiogirl, posted 12-28-2007 10:44 AM molbiogirl has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 308 by Percy, posted 12-29-2007 1:58 PM AdminNWR has acknowledged this reply

Percy
Member
Posts: 18377
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 308 of 312 (444455)
12-29-2007 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 307 by AdminNWR
12-29-2007 1:50 PM


Re: AdminPD.
Members can change their account back and forth between active and inactive status at their profile page.

Welcome back and happy holidays!

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 307 by AdminNWR, posted 12-29-2007 1:50 PM AdminNWR has acknowledged this reply

  
AdminNem
Inactive Member


Message 309 of 312 (444488)
12-29-2007 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 295 by molbiogirl
12-28-2007 8:59 PM


Re: AdminPD.
PD specifically asked me to support my contention that she is biased. I did so.

You are certainly welcome to believe that AdminPD is exhibiting a bias, however, it would do more to advance your assertion by giving possible motives. If she is exhibiting a bias while in her admin status, what is she gaining by doing so?

I am not a moderator. I can exhibit whatever bias I wish.

AdminPD is a very good moderator in my estimation. She is so good, in fact, that I honestly can't make heads or tails of almost any of her personal feelings on just about any given topic. I wouldn't know if she would characterize herself as an evolutionist or a creationist, pro-choice or pro-life, etc. Quite frankly, I don't care what she believes in because she does an excellent job of detaching herself from personal issues, which speaks of her impartiality.

Some members on the forum who are in an admin role participate almost solely as a moderator as opposed to an average member who posits any given philosophical or scientific position. (AdminPD, AdminAsgara, AdminMoose to name a few). I appreciate that sort of detachment because it does not cloud their judgment. I enjoy debate too much to distance myself only as a moderator. I'm glad there are some at EvC who choose to take up this role.

For clarification, do you think she is coming to the aid of Buz? If so, what is she gaining by it? Is it so inconceivable that what she said is her honest opinion rather than bias?

Unlike some, I provide support for my assertions.

You often provide a paragraph to substantiate any given one sentence blurb. That is neither here nor there right now. I only mention it because it seems rather hypocritical to chastise someone for doing the very same thing you are doing.

I would like to get at the heart of your grievance.

Detail your grievance and what actions you would like a moderator to take against Buzsaw. We can go from there.

Or you can take Jar's advice and just let it go for something of more substance.

As a member, you have a right to lodge a complaint about Buz or PD. I am not trying to dissuade from doing so. But I need more to go on.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by molbiogirl, posted 12-28-2007 8:59 PM molbiogirl has not yet responded

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 310 of 312 (444491)
12-29-2007 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 295 by molbiogirl
12-28-2007 8:59 PM


Re: AdminPD.
mobiogirl writes:

When you (or Buz), as a participant in a thread, accused me of "lengthy CnPs", I showed you in no uncertain terms that my cites were no more than 3 sentences long in that thread.

When you (or Buz), as a participant in a thread, accused me of "not using my own words" to support my position, I pointed out that I had used an average of 128 words per post to buttress my assertions in that thread.

When you (or Buz ... it's so hard to keep differentiate between the 2 of you), as a participant in a thread, accused me of "posting bare links", I pointed out that I have not posted nothing but an URL. Ever.

Funny.......I don't remember of ever accusing you of any of the above. All I remember is you accusing me of a relatively short bare link which said what I wanted conveyed in terminology that I am not capable of, not being that scientifically astute about the subject.

This from you and other counterparts who disregarded the creationist linked evidence, focusing on personal opinionated poster improprieties.

I appreciate PD's moderation on my behalf which was not the popular thing for her to do. May God bless her for doing the just thing knowing full well it would likely arouse the ire of my antagonists.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by molbiogirl, posted 12-28-2007 8:59 PM molbiogirl has not yet responded

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 753 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 311 of 312 (444495)
12-29-2007 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 301 by AdminPD
12-29-2007 7:26 AM


Re: AdminPD.
In that thread (which has ended), you posted twice on 12/22 and it was not to Buz.

It wasn't in that thread. It was within the last month.

I would post quotes, but I was unable to find it via the search function.

I hate that search function.

Message 251 of the Childhood Vaccinations – Necessary or Overkill?

OMG. PD. You got me! I didn't post a link!

Oh I am truly sorry.

Your cut and paste style and short comment posts don't seem to be swayed by any admin, so this is the only blatant one.

PD, I know you and your creo pals have a problem with evidence, but you can't whine about my providing cites that support the point I'm trying to make.

Short comment posts?

Oh. Please.

As a participant, your posts are supposed to contribute to the discussion and move it forward.

Oh horse twaddle.

Correcting someone, especially a newbie, is moving the discussion forward.

Finis.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by AdminPD, posted 12-29-2007 7:26 AM AdminPD has not yet responded

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 312 of 312 (444496)
12-29-2007 4:55 PM


End of Thread
300's the limit
Stow the prose,
No more discussion
It's time to close.

Finis

See you in another thread. Magic Wand


RewPrev1
...
1617181920
21
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019