Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Change in Moderation?
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 90 of 303 (43757)
06-23-2003 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by mike the wiz
06-23-2003 1:02 PM


Re: The context
Oh-kee doh-kee
Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by mike the wiz, posted 06-23-2003 1:02 PM mike the wiz has not replied

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


Message 91 of 303 (44992)
07-03-2003 4:29 PM


The cranky-mode SLPx
Mammuthus, from http://EvC Forum: The Nature of Mutations II
quote:
Hi salty,
There is some reinforcment i.e. when someone regularly gets out of hand they can be suspended (not that it ever happened to me)and if it persists, they get banned. I will point out (since he seems to be the object of your ire) that Scott has been suspended before so it is not that he is completely free to say things any way he likes.
However, in any situation you will encounter those who are not civil or behave the way you wish...it should not be a reason to hide.
Maybe Admin would like to comment further?
SLPx seems unable to supress the expression of his "crankyness gene" for any extended period of time. Thus, he seems to be continuesly residing is the gray zone between acceptable and unacceptable behaviour.
What to do? Right now, I once again ask SLPx to try to be nice.
Adminnemooseus
ps: I believe that Peter Borger is one of about 3 people that Admin put on posting permission suspension, for an indefinite period. This is close to, but not the same as being banned. Peter has "read only" access to this site. I think (but may be wrong) that a full banning could go so far as to exclude a person from any access to the site.

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Mammuthus, posted 07-04-2003 3:57 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied
 Message 96 by derwood, posted 07-18-2003 11:41 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

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


Message 95 of 303 (46115)
07-15-2003 2:18 PM


Admin said, in another topic
From http://EvC Forum: Retire Free For All Forum? -->EvC Forum: Retire Free For All Forum?
quote:
To everyone,
If I could provide just a little more clarification...
It is often asked, "Why are you warning me about following the guidelines when no one else is following them either?" A good question.
It helps to think of the guidelines as traffic laws. Our traffic laws are not strictly obeyed, but they're obeyed well enough that our roads are pretty safe. But consider how many traffic laws aren't followed. Most people roll through stop signs. Some people roll through right-turn-on red. Some people think it's okay to cut off traffic at yield signs. Almost everyone goes over the speed limit. In other words, our traffic laws aren't hard and fast. In some respects they're a little like guidelines - mostly follow them and you'll do fine.
But some violations are worse than others. Going 5 or 10 miles per hour over the speed limit is fine. In fact, on some roads this isn't fast enough and you have to follow the non-statute but well-known rule of "keeping up with traffic." But go too fast and you'll get pulled over - not always, not even most of the time, not even very often in fact, but if you make a common practice of it probably a couple times a year. Run red lights and you likely won't get pulled over since the odds of a policemen being there at the right time is small, but you'll be spending a lot of time filling out accident reports and insurance forms.
There's additional variation between policemen, and even between time of day with the same policeman. Blow through a speed trap at 13 mph over the limit and some policemen give you a pass, others pull you over. Maybe they're looking for the big "double penalty" speeders of 20 mph or more over the limit that day. Maybe they're in a good mood or a bad mood. Who knows? Sometimes you commit a moving violation and get pulled over, sometimes you don't. Maybe even sometimes you get pulled over when you didn't do anything. I once got pulled over three times in two days - I later found out a car similar in appearance to mine had been reported involved in a robbery.
So, if you get a warning about following the guidelines, it's possible you didn't do anything wrong, but you probably did. And you've probably been doing it a lot. And other people have been doing it, too, but probably not as much as you, or maybe just not with quite as much panache. Anyway, if you get warned, please just say, "Okay, okay, I'll be good." And then be good. Or at least better. Thanks!
------------------
--Percy
EvC Forum Administrator
Admin and I are spread pretty thin here. I think I need to reactivate my efforts to bring in some new moderators, to help out.
I have been in contact with a number of members in the past - You know who you are. If you are interested in giving being a moderator a shot, please send me an e-mail at mnmoose@lakenet.com.
I think we also need to have more "self moderation" happening around here. It would be ugly, if the various moderators were to interject messages as often as the situations may actually call for it. Every third message or so would be a topic drift or behaviour warning message.
People (per "self moderation"), let's pay more attention to the topic titles, the topic contents, the forum areas, and what is the intended area of discussion/debate in the various topics.
Cheers,
Adminnemooseus
[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 07-15-2003]

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


Message 104 of 303 (53678)
09-03-2003 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by Dr Jack
09-03-2003 10:20 AM


quote:
I think you're overreacting, Crash, my impression was that Moose simply wanted you to consider toning down the level of 'low-content' posts. That perhaps EvC was experiencing an overweight of blathering or trivial posts, and that this inevitably was increasing the noise-to-signal ratio unfavourably.
I don't think he meant to brand you less-than-helpful member #12, but instead to suggest a lowering of the level of low-content posts by all members would improve the quality of discussion.
In the old nutshell, the above states my position pretty well.
An extreme example of a bad signal to noise ratio (and I say this not having read most of the string), is the "Evolution of Light" topic. Probably, both Admin and I have written that one off as being a total wasteland, not worthy of even bothering to look at. Has a really nice message been buried in there somewhere? If so, my guess is that most will never see it.
Very busy lately, and same for the immediate future.
Gotta go,
Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Dr Jack, posted 09-03-2003 10:20 AM Dr Jack has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by crashfrog, posted 09-03-2003 11:30 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

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


Message 108 of 303 (59047)
10-02-2003 3:24 AM


Copied from another topic
Admin posted this at the "Retire Free for All?" topic a while back, and I long intended to get a copy to this topic. I may even give it a "Posting of the Month" nomination.
quote:
To everyone,
If I could provide just a little more clarification...
It is often asked, "Why are you warning me about following the guidelines when no one else is following them either?" A good question.
It helps to think of the guidelines as traffic laws. Our traffic laws are not strictly obeyed, but they're obeyed well enough that our roads are pretty safe. But consider how many traffic laws aren't followed. Most people roll through stop signs. Some people roll through right-turn-on red. Some people think it's okay to cut off traffic at yield signs. Almost everyone goes over the speed limit. In other words, our traffic laws aren't hard and fast. In some respects they're a little like guidelines - mostly follow them and you'll do fine.
But some violations are worse than others. Going 5 or 10 miles per hour over the speed limit is fine. In fact, on some roads this isn't fast enough and you have to follow the non-statute but well-known rule of "keeping up with traffic." But go too fast and you'll get pulled over - not always, not even most of the time, not even very often in fact, but if you make a common practice of it probably a couple times a year. Run red lights and you likely won't get pulled over since the odds of a policemen being there at the right time is small, but you'll be spending a lot of time filling out accident reports and insurance forms.
There's additional variation between policemen, and even between time of day with the same policeman. Blow through a speed trap at 13 mph over the limit and some policemen give you a pass, others pull you over. Maybe they're looking for the big "double penalty" speeders of 20 mph or more over the limit that day. Maybe they're in a good mood or a bad mood. Who knows? Sometimes you commit a moving violation and get pulled over, sometimes you don't. Maybe even sometimes you get pulled over when you didn't do anything. I once got pulled over three times in two days - I later found out a car similar in appearance to mine had been reported involved in a robbery.
So, if you get a warning about following the guidelines, it's possible you didn't do anything wrong, but you probably did. And you've probably been doing it a lot. And other people have been doing it, too, but probably not as much as you, or maybe just not with quite as much panache. Anyway, if you get warned, please just say, "Okay, okay, I'll be good." And then be good. Or at least better. Thanks!
--------------------
Percy
EvC Forum Administrator
I also encourage all, to read this topic from the start.
The only true way we can have successful moderation at , is if the various members do "self-moderation". Ask yourself, "Is this a good message to be posted at this time, in this topic?".
Cheers,
Adminnemooseus

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


Message 111 of 303 (64753)
11-06-2003 1:43 PM


The previous 2 messages, and particularly NosyNed's, are responses to my "Universal Perfection" topic closing message.
There, DNAunion was the focal point, although not the only culpret, of the disruption of the topic.
It seems that DNAunion has been doing much less objectionable methodology since that topic closure. I thank him.
Of course, Brad McFall is a whole nother issue. Brad has been granted special licence to post as he does, despite his communications dificulties. I think all have ongoing hopes that Brad can have some success in refining his messages into something more concise and coherent. Every now and then it does (or almost does) happen.
Perhaps we need to limit Brad to a certain number of words per message, to try to guide him into better writting.
Cheers,
Adminnemooseus

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Rei, posted 11-06-2003 3:06 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

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


Message 116 of 303 (65378)
11-09-2003 3:58 PM


messenjaH - Might I ask where you are getting your information, that Iron Man was suspended?
Adminnemooseus

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Trump won, posted 11-09-2003 4:33 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied
 Message 118 by Trump won, posted 11-09-2003 4:35 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied
 Message 120 by Trump won, posted 11-09-2003 4:42 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied
 Message 121 by Trump won, posted 11-09-2003 5:45 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

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


Message 125 of 303 (65503)
11-09-2003 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by Trump won
11-09-2003 6:57 PM


Up to reading your message about Iron Man's suspension, I was unaware of it.
Upon further investigation, I discovered that:
1) Iron Man was indeed suspended.
2) His and your IP numbers were exactly the same.
and
3) The only public record of the suspension was your message.
So, apparently you had some sort of personal contact with Iron Man. Just for fun, I thought I'd fish to see what your story on this was.
Cheers,
Adminnemooseus
[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 11-09-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Trump won, posted 11-09-2003 6:57 PM Trump won has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Skeptick, posted 02-02-2004 10:22 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

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


Message 131 of 303 (82614)
02-03-2004 1:45 PM


Moderation debate elsewhere
There was a considerable amount of moderation policy debate happening in another topic, until I (hopefully) ended it with the following.
quote:
Any further moderation discussion in this topic is deemed cause for suspension.
Crashfrog had one in progress, as I was posting the above. He went back, and deleted that content - I thank him.
I find the discussion of moderation procedures to be interesting, and I welcome such things. But it needs to be confined to this topic, where 1)It won't be disruptive to the other topics, and 2) It can be found for future reference.
So, gripe away, but do it in this topic (a link back to source of the grievance would be nice).
Adminnemooseus

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


Message 135 of 303 (87844)
02-20-2004 11:31 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by Dan Carroll
02-19-2004 12:21 PM


DT threw the first punch...
and will serve the sentence for all you.
Tentitively 7 days from the time of offense.
Might certain parties like to edit in some apologies somewhere?
Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Dan Carroll, posted 02-19-2004 12:21 PM Dan Carroll has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Phat, posted 02-21-2004 11:36 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied
 Message 138 by Adminnemooseus, posted 02-23-2004 2:21 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

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


Message 138 of 303 (88162)
02-23-2004 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by Adminnemooseus
02-20-2004 11:31 PM


Re: DT threw the first punch...
quote:
DT threw the first punch... and will serve the sentence for all you.
Tentitively 7 days from the time of offense.
Might certain parties like to edit in some apologies somewhere?
Darwin's Terrier's suspension has been lifted, after being in effect for 4 days.
I don't think such situations call for warnings before suspensions. Darwin's Terrier should have known better. Had the offending message been posted by a new member, he probably would have been branded a troll, and also been suspended.
Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Adminnemooseus, posted 02-20-2004 11:31 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by wj, posted 02-23-2004 7:12 PM Adminnemooseus has replied

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


Message 140 of 303 (88220)
02-23-2004 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by wj
02-23-2004 7:12 PM


Re: DT threw the first punch...
WJ said:
quote:
If in this particular case the offending message warrants suspension of the author, I would have thought that the message itself warrants deletion. To my knowledge the offending message(s) remain in the thread. I fail to see the logic in this situation.
I have previously said twice (original and quote):
quote:
Might certain parties like to edit in some apologies somewhere?
Management VERY rarely edits messages for content. The original poster(s) is/are certainly welcome to do such.
Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by wj, posted 02-23-2004 7:12 PM wj has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by wj, posted 02-23-2004 7:47 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

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


Message 144 of 303 (88385)
02-24-2004 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by wj
02-24-2004 6:32 AM


Re: DT threw the first punch...
quote:
And, if leaving the offending message in position is supposed to be of educational value, having it buried in the body of an obscure thread is hardly an efficient way of making it an example.
Links to both the offending message and to the discussion in this topic is included in Message 24, of the "Suspensions and Bannings" topic.
Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by wj, posted 02-24-2004 6:32 AM wj has not replied

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


Message 145 of 303 (88738)
02-26-2004 3:15 AM


Darwin's Terrier suspension wrap up?
I find that it has become far too common, for members to launch-off on a "humorous" off-topic, and then for others to follow up. If you must do such, please do it in the "Humor" topic.
Had Darwin's Terrier brought a quote to the "Humor" topic, and then launched his joke, I probably would not have had any great problem with it.
Again, Darwin's Terrier should have the sense to have known better (not to mention the others who followed up). Moderator warnings tend to get lost in the shuffle. The only sure way to get the needed attention is either by a suspension or by a topic closure. In this case, a topic closure would have been more a punishment to the non-guilty topic starter.
Sometimes a hard whack is needed to bring attention to a problem. This time, it was Darwin's Terrier that took the whack. A 2 day suspension would probably have been appropriate, but that would have largely been over the weekend, when things are slower anyway.
I announced a possible 7 day suspension to try to really stir things up, knowing that it probably was going to be less. I was really surprised that no one protested the harshness of the 7 day sentence. Actually, I surprised there wasn't more protest over the suspension even happening.
Cheers,
Adminnemooseus

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Mammuthus, posted 02-26-2004 5:22 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied
 Message 147 by wj, posted 02-26-2004 6:51 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

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


Message 152 of 303 (91777)
03-11-2004 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Dan Carroll
03-11-2004 1:27 PM


Satire you say
OK, I mistook the topic in question, as being an attempt at serious discussion. I wasn't keen on it being an attack on Christianity in the first place. Then (even to my imperceptive abilities) it turned into a "humor" string.
The topic can be reopened. But, is there really a calling for such a topic, in the scope of ? (not a rhetorical question)
As I see it, one dubious idiological topic does not justify another dubious idiological topic.
Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Dan Carroll, posted 03-11-2004 1:27 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Percy, posted 03-11-2004 3:36 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied
 Message 155 by Dan Carroll, posted 03-11-2004 3:51 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied
 Message 157 by Mammuthus, posted 03-12-2004 4:29 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied
 Message 158 by MrHambre, posted 03-12-2004 6:21 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied
 Message 159 by Dr Jack, posted 03-12-2004 6:44 AM Adminnemooseus 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