Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 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: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 14.0
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 1 of 134 (444497)
12-29-2007 5:05 PM


This is not a debate thread!
This thread is provided for the general membership to present and discuss comments or concerns dealing with moderator procedures/actions or the need for moderator action.
Anyone disrupting this process will lose access to this forum until the situation is resolved.
Admins who have links to the "General Discussion..." topic in their signatures need to change the link.
The previous versions, from first to last:
Change in Moderation?
General discussion of moderation procedures
General discussion of moderation procedures: The Sequel
General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consecution
General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consequtive Consecution
General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consequtive Consecution Sequel
General discussion of moderation procedures - Part 7
General discussion of moderation procedures - Part
General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 9.0
General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 10.0
General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 11.0
General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 12.0
General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 13.0
Edited by AdminPD, : Wording

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 55 of 134 (447395)
01-09-2008 5:43 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by macaroniandcheese
01-08-2008 10:48 PM


Re: admin buz
quote:
who decides what is "obvious". considering the uses of "obvious" on this board, i'm unconvinced of the reality of the term.
The admins.
Each admin is going to call it as they see it. That's why we have this thread to allow feedback and appeals. As you see by AdminBuz's post, we also ask for input from other admins. We are a very diverse group, but we do our best to uphold the rules as evenhandedly as humanly possible.
If you are satisfied with the results of this discussion, I ask that we consider it concluded and no more discussion is needed concerning your specific issue.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by macaroniandcheese, posted 01-08-2008 10:48 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by macaroniandcheese, posted 01-09-2008 10:06 AM AdminPD has not replied

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 69 of 134 (449033)
01-16-2008 7:05 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by molbiogirl
01-15-2008 9:50 PM


Re: Little help, please.
That's what happens when you don't write a good opening post.
Since you only want to discuss the book, I have moved the thread to the Book Nook.
It would be nice if you provided your own review of the book following the admin msg.
Hope this helps.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by molbiogirl, posted 01-15-2008 9:50 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by molbiogirl, posted 01-16-2008 5:25 PM AdminPD has not replied

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 78 of 134 (449945)
01-19-2008 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Rrhain
01-19-2008 6:16 PM


Re: NJ's incestuous same-sex rape fantasies and same-sex marriage
Since monitoring is a volunteer job and I do have a life away from the computer, I'm only able to do spot checks of various threads.
Needless to say, I don't necessarily catch problems the moment they happen. Sometimes I wait to see if the situation will correct itself.
The off topic issue I addressed was not correcting itself.
You'll have to ask Subbie is he feels what you have presented in this thread to be on topic. If he does, you can continue along those lines, but not along the lines of the personal questions you asked in the posts I taggeed.
Argue the position, not the person.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Rrhain, posted 01-19-2008 6:16 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Rrhain, posted 01-20-2008 2:57 AM AdminPD has replied

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 85 of 134 (449997)
01-20-2008 7:39 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Rrhain
01-20-2008 2:57 AM


Re: NJ's incestuous same-sex rape fantasies and same-sex marriage
If you read the originator's response in Message 78 to NJ's Post 73.
Is has nothing, I repeat, NOTHING to do with the laws of the U.S., which to remind you for the umpteenth time is the topic here.
Since the originator had already noted, in very large lettering, that those issues were off topic; there was no need to act. In a situation like that I tend to wait and see if others heed the originator.
Unfortunately, you picked up on the off topic portion, made your question personal and inflammatory.
Whether you like what NJ wrote or not, he did not make it personal. He presented his position and the originator deemed it off topic.
quote:
How is my calling on him to justify his rhetoric "arguing the person" when his rhetoric is not?
I find it very hard to believe that you don't understand the difference in the wording.
NJ writes:
Either sailors are prone to debauchery (very likely, actually), or pedophilia is on the rise.
Rrhain writes:
Why is it you keep telling us about your fantasies of sex with children?
NJ writes:
When I mention things like pedophilia, rape, incest, etc, I am not attempting to equivocate the action of homosexuality to be as bad, less bad, or more bad than any of those things.
Rrhain writes:
Tell us, NJ, what is it about thinking of sex with someone of your own sex makes you think of raping your infant son? Are you trying to tell us something?
Why is it we allow heterosexuality but don't allow you to rape your infant son?
quote:
If we don't allow racism, why do we allow homophobia? If it is always inappropriate to call people who aren't white rapists, why is it acceptable to call people who aren't straight rapists?
If he had said that it would have been considered inappropriate and inflammatory, but that is not what he said.
It is not our job to censor minority or offensive views, but to make sure they are not presented in a manner contrary to the forum guidelines.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Rrhain, posted 01-20-2008 2:57 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by berberry, posted 01-20-2008 8:32 AM AdminPD has not replied
 Message 88 by Rrhain, posted 01-20-2008 8:35 AM AdminPD has replied

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 90 of 134 (450023)
01-20-2008 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Rrhain
01-20-2008 8:35 AM


Re: NJ's incestuous same-sex rape fantasies and same-sex marriage
I'm not going to get into a discussion concerning your personal issues with NJ's style of expressing his position.
My job is to moderate according to the Forum Guidelines in an attempt to keep the threads on track and civil.
Based on the Forum Guidelines and my understanding of what the originator wanted for the thread, your comments were off topic.
Your exception is noted, but my moderation action stands.
This concludes our discussion of the moderation action.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Rrhain, posted 01-20-2008 8:35 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Rrhain, posted 01-20-2008 3:10 PM AdminPD 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