Report discussion problems here: No.2

IMO, the use of the "Links and Information" forum is problematic.The link is somewhat spamish in that the source member seems to have registered just to post the link.Pretty feeble, but it is material relevant to this forum. We shall see if the topic originator ever posts again here. I'd bet on the "no" side.Adminnemooseus

---

Thanks for the research. The IP numbers are very similar - They are almost certainly the same person. I have replied to his message, and have just edited in some further comments. He has replied to my message, which of course is a no-no in itself.In all, he's on pretty thin ice.NO REPLIES TO THIS MESSAGE, UNLESS YOUR MEMBER NAME STARTS WITH "ADMIN".Adminnemooseus

Per meeting standards for promotion, Homunculus's two new topics both left a lot to be desired. But it would have been a long messy battle to whip them into shape. Thus I turned into "Mr. Easy" and promoted them anyway.I consider these topics to really be "enter at your own risk" sort of things. Don't expect anything approaching a high quality debate.That's how I see it. Other admins may see it different.Adminnemooseus

---

Admin noticed the situation even prior to your message, and lifted the suspension. (source)Adminnemooseus

I had noticed this just prior to you posting this message.My impression of the moment is that it is a highly dubious and irrelevant reply to a moderately dubious and irrelevant message (300+ messages back) in a rather dubious topic.Whatever quality once existed in that (now past 300 messages) topic seems to be well in the past. I'm thinking once again, that it's time to shut that topic down. Or something like that.Adminnemooseus

To Purpledawn - These theological and/or philosophical situations are tough for the science minded admin staff to deal with. I had hoped that you, the master of moderation skill that you are, would be successful in properly guiding the discussion.Hopefully, just the fact that you posted your "discussion problem" message has had a positive influence on the discussion nature.To EMA - I point out to you that Purpledawn is a retired admin here at this forum. This retirement was NOT because of any deficiency in AdminPD's moderation skills. Indeed, I am of the opinion that her such skills were outstanding, even relative to those of the still active admins. But, it was decided by Percy/Admin that the forum needed to simplify it's moderation team down to a much fewer number of admins. Thus many admins of various skill levels were retired. I am somewhat mystified that I was not included in the retired list.Short version - I have the highest regard for Purpledawn and her methodologies. I suggest that if you find that she is making some sort of objection about topic procedures, you strongly consider that she is probably right.That's how I see it. Other admins may see it differently.Adminnemooseus

---

I think CS is referring to RRhain. As best I can tell, this all goes back to message 341.Some stupidity and counter-stupidity happening.As best I've noted, RRhain is doing the better job of actually having some on-topic content in his messages. I've previously "hidden" a CS reply related to the above cited.Who knows, there may yet be some suspensions coming out off that affair.Adminnemooseus

Sorry about what happened at you new "Proposed New Topic". I was trying to help and it ended up that we were both doing good things but in the process we were working against each other.I'll stay out of that PNT any further. You do the fix ups.Again, sorry about my counterproductive efforts there.AdminnemooseusAdded details by edit:Peg initially posted a short message 3. I replied to that with message 4. I then saw that Peg had added by edit to message 3, making it pretty suitable as the topic starter. So I went to edit message 1 to direct attention to message 3. Unfortunately, while I was editing (hiding text) in message 1, Peg was editing (hiding or deleting text) in message 3 and directing attention back to message 1. So, last time I looked, there was no useful visible text in either message 1 or message 3. At least that's what I think happened.Moral of story - I should have stayed out of the topic after posting my message 4. Peg was doing good and I was blotching things up. Sorry about that.2nd edit: Peg re-re-edited message 3 to have the topic starting material. That version of the PNT has now been promoted to be the new open to debate topic.Far goofier than that time AdminAsgara and I were both editing a message at the same time.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above.

I didn't dig into the material at the linked site, but my impression is that it is at least vaguely on topic. Sort of a "drive by preaching" via a link.I suspect we'll not hear from the poster again, and if we do, it might prove interesting.I say, let it pass without any action.AdminnemooseusAdded by edit: OOPS - Replied to message 238 when I meant to reply to message 237. Indeed, the re: message 238 poster has been banned as being a signature spammer.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above.

The original message is legitimate. The following messages are not. This is NOT a discussion topic. Suspension announcement.Adminnemooseus

---

General impressions from skimming the topic in question:Big_Al35 is Big_Al35.Wounded King is doing a pretty impressive job of interfacing with Big_Al35. Pretty much, the topic would have been much better off if the rest didn't post their messages.If you don't have anything to post beyond griping that the other guy isn't posting anything of value, then you are not contributing to the topic.Or something like that (note Percy/Admin quote in "signature").The above is not intended to say that members should not post problem alerts to this topic. But post them in this topic, rather than bitching at the topic in question.Or something like that.Replies to this message welcome, but please make them good.Or something like that.Adminnemooseus

---

My impression is things got even worse since you posted your message.I try my hardest to not suspend those of the creationism side, but here I found that it had to be done (suspension announcement). The various admins need to consult on this matter - That will probably happen in the Private Administrative Forum. Time will tell, what public pronouncement comes out of that.PLEASE, NO REPLIES TO THIS MESSAGE. Doing such may get you a suspension of your own.Adminnemooseus

I think the length and number of quotes is getting a little out of hand.They are fine quotations, but I think that's a lot of text to be tossing out every message.My Adminnemooseus "signature" probably has more text than any other members, but I think it has moderation purpose behind it and I don't always activate its display.My Minnemooseus "signature" is also rather lengthy, having one little statement going way back, plus four quotations. But...1) I don't post very many Minnemooseus messages.
2) I have eliminated a quotation or two down through time.
3) I put it in the smallest possible font size.
4) I more often than not choose to not activate its display.No real big deal, but you might also consider doing 2, 3, and 4.Adminnemooseus

Done, but... Your reply to the offending message also left a lot to be desired. And some of your content/style does invite undesirable counter-comment (or something like that).I personally tend to think of your messages as lawyer like - Accurate, precisely worded, and difficult to follow/understand (or something like that).NO REPLIES TO THIS MESSAGE.You can get surly with Minnemooseus, but you're not going to out-cranky Adminnemooseus (or something like that).Adminnemooseus (or something like that)