General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures (aka 'The Whine List')

quote:

---

i believe the pertinent question is whether a message board is an application of "formal written english", or more akin to "message sending, chat, tweeting etc".

​

i would argue the latter.

---

Maybe message boards in general, but I don't feel Percy wants the debate forums to function at that level. I feel he's looking for well thought out debates, not just bar or living room arguments.It's been said many times that this isn't a chat site and that texting shorthand is not welcome. That's why the short useless commentaries are also frowned upon.I realize that it's difficult to use caps on some of the electronic devices today; but when one is using a standard computer keyboard, there isn't really a good reason not to use caps.If it's in the public eye, I want my best foot forward. It's the same when I physically go out in public.

If you genuinely want to examine cases where you have misconstrued an opponents position and didn't adjust when corrected, then we do it in a Great Debate. Just you and me.We won't be rehashing the subject of the posts, but examining your understanding of what was written.You have to be willing to answer direct questions and explain why you came to the conclusion you did and/or why you feel the person is attempting to deceive you instead of clarifying.Any references you make to other posts or information online, needs to have a link. No telling me to go do my homework or find it for myself.We can also examine posts where you feel you are being misrepresented.Are you up for it? If yes, do you have a moderator preference?

quote:

---

You dont think a warning would have been nice?

​

Or maybe a comment on one of the failed proposed threads that I was doing something wrong?

​

Or maybe a list of the proposed new topic rules that I can get get banned for breaking?

---

So when I told you it was unconscionable to throw 7 threads at one member, you didn't get the idea you were doing something less than desirable?When I told you, that you didn't really have subject matter in the thread for others to debate, you didn't get a hint your actions were undesirable?The fact that you didn't seem to understand you weren't really presenting a viable topic is probably what sparked Adminnemooseus' actions.When the rules say start a new thread, it means make a reasonable presentation that all can participate in unless you want a Great Debate.Putting out the equivalent of "Oh yea? Prove it" doesn't make a good start for a topic. You also have to realize that the moderators have been around a bit and watched which types of threads move and which ones don't. We may decide to let one through to see what happens.One concerning IAJ already went out and it didn't bear any fruit. You should have watched to see what happened with that thread before dumping similar threads in the PNT.Use some common sense.

quote:

---

Just say something like -
there is an unspoken set of rules with regards to new topic proposals here, I know that the rules state to start a new topic when you want to discuss a new topic, but I doubt this will bear fruit. Keep in mind that if a new member starts many new topics that we do not consider to be alligned with the flow of our forum, they can be banned from starting new topics.

---

Each new member that comes in is a new personality for the moderators to understand. Just as you are learning about the site we are learning about you.We've learned that the kindest of words can still annoy some people and that warnings go unheeded.Timeouts, restrictions, or bannings are a universal way of getting someone's attention.Now you know, you may get a warning and you may not. It all depends on the situation. We try to use our common sense, just as we ask you to. Sometimes we don't have time to see if you get the hint. No it would not have been an effective way to deal with the issue. Here's a hint: those who make copious off topic claims don't usually defend them in another thread. It is your responsibility not to go off topic. You just have to let those issues go.Just remember this is a debate forum. The topic is the issue, not erroneous claims that are off topic; and not every erroneous claim can be turned into a good topic starter.So now you know and I shouldn't see you go off topic in threads chasing erroneous claims; and I can expect your next PNT request to be well thought out, full of substance, and eloquently written.

quote:

---

This, IMO, shows me how much leeway the religious get, regardless how much they want to throw the persecution complex card.

---

Cry me a river. Good grief!Both sides get away with a lot of crap.If IAJ or anyone else is off topic, DON'T RESPOND!
If IAJ or anyone else doesn't make sense, DON'T RESPOND!How hard is that?In one case IAJ started on topic, but someone had to pick the one off topic comment out of the post and try to correct it. Then it went amuck.How many times have we asked people to stop the useless one liners? Both sides.This is a debate forum, not a correct-every-wrong-thought-or-fact forum.A debate is a discussion involving opposing viewpoints of a specific topic. Notice the bold part. Specific TopicHow many times do we have to hear from some of those who are religion free that they feel religion is stupid? If it isn't the point of the topic, get over it.How many times do we hear from some of the religious that unless one believes a specific way they will go to hell? If it isn't the point of the topic, get over it.We are guests on this board and the owner has rules.I like the rubber dart post. In the Republican thread. IAJ's first post was basically on topic. After your response, his answer was baffling to say the least. Two others responded to that nonsense and kept the ball rolling off topic. Why? No one wants to hang up first?Why respond to a post that is off topic?
Why respond to a post that seems incoherent?This goes for both sides. Neither side is immune from the "holier than thou" attitude.If people want to help?
Stop the useless wisecracking oneliners that don't move a discussion forward.
Stop responding to off topic posts or even off topic portions of an on topic post.
Stop responding to incoherent posts.We are guests. Put our best foot forward, not our worst. IOW, try to keep our own bumper free of rubber darts.

quote:

---

Perhaps you should spend less time getting butthurt when people talk bad about religion and the religious and more time moderating.

---

You really are clueless aren't you?

quote:

---

posting more offtopic nonsense than ANY OTHER POSTER on this board.

---

Have you really done the math? I doubt it.I know what your post was about. My point was that by not responding, opponents could cut down on the amount of off topic nonsense. Don't add to the problem.It's the same thing I told IAJ to do when people pull out a piece of his post that is off topic and demand response.So I give the same advice to both sides. Neither side listens. Imagine that.I doesn't matter what people say about the religious or religion as long as it is ON TOPIC and follows the RULES. What part of that don't you understand?Rule #10: Always treat other members with respect. Argue the position, not the person. Avoid abusive, harassing and invasive behavior. Avoid needling, hectoring and goading tactics.Most importantly
Rule #1: Follow all moderator requests.When the position is off topic, DON'T RESPOND!
When the post makes no sense, DON'T RESPOND!Keep the darts off your bumper!Coyote and Jar survived the meltdown. I'm sure they can survive this.

Participants aren't necessarily trying to come to a mutual understanding. The side that is offended or annoyed wants the other side banned or moderated. Those who enjoy the battle will continue to feed the "trolls". If you choose to feed the trolls or trollishness, don't whine when they don't appreciate the tidbits.

quote:

---

The reason remains that I'm not allowed in science, that I kick too much evo butt in them. Admin always sees to it that any effective threat to his own must be run off, no matter what it takes.

---

What Admin is trying to get you to do is understand what constitutes scientific evidence, not Biblicist evidence.One also needs to understand the difference between evidence and inference. Evidence is an outward sign, something that furnishes proof. Inferences we should derive from facts, not from guesses.In my simplistic understanding, evidence is something we can prove and inference is a conclusion we can draw from that which has already been proven (evidence). Theories are inferences.IMO, a prophecy is a theory (inference) as to how the future will play out. So if one's contention is that Prophecy A has played out as described by the writer, then one has the task of showing the facts (not inferences) that support that contention.Now the owner of this board has made it clear that on the science side of the board, the rules of science are to be followed. So when you contend that a prophecy is no longer a theory on the science side of this board you must play by the rules of science.That means that if a Biblicist wants to show scientists or science minded individuals that a prophecy is no longer theory, then the Biblicist needs to use scientific evidence to make their case. This is the difference that Admin is trying to get you to understand. Biblicist evidence isn't going to make the cut on the science side.Inferences are not evidence and Biblicists evidence is not necessarily scientific evidence.If you want to play the game, you need to play by the rules. Besides, if you could actually make your case based on the rules of science, the impact would be much more impressive.Bottom line: This is a privately owned board and as guests we should respect the owner's preferences.As Paul supposedly said: Respectfully, you need to continue working out your evidence issues with Admin, not whining to the membership.