Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8945 total)
35 online now:
AZPaul3, Hyroglyphx, jar, Percy (Admin), Tanypteryx, Theodoric, xongsmith (7 members, 28 visitors)
Newest Member: ski zawaski
Post Volume: Total: 865,307 Year: 20,343/19,786 Month: 740/2,023 Week: 248/392 Day: 108/53 Hour: 2/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures (aka 'The Whine List')
jar
Member
Posts: 31608
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 121 of 1043 (612717)
04-17-2011 10:26 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Tram law
04-17-2011 10:22 PM


Re: Moose Didn't Know + Brevity = Suspension
A discussion is not formal, not necessarily on a set subject, has greater freedom in format and presentation.

Debates are general more organized, with a very tightly set subject and procedures.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Tram law, posted 04-17-2011 10:22 PM Tram law has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Tram law, posted 04-18-2011 1:54 AM jar has not yet responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3908
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 122 of 1043 (612719)
04-17-2011 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by jar
03-22-2011 10:52 AM


Barer than bare links
Posts that do not contain links cannot be a violation of Rule 5 that prohibits bare links.

You gave a two word phrase, key words that were usable in Google to come up with a link.

Had you included a link with those key words, it still would be essentially a bare link. But Your link was so bare, there wasn't even a link.

Need we have a forum rule prohibiting barer than bare links? I don't think so.

Adminnemooseus


This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by jar, posted 03-22-2011 10:52 AM jar has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by ringo, posted 04-18-2011 12:53 PM Adminnemooseus has responded

  
Tram law
Member (Idle past 3016 days)
Posts: 283
From: Weed, California, USA
Joined: 08-15-2010


Message 123 of 1043 (612728)
04-18-2011 1:54 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by jar
04-17-2011 10:26 PM


Re: Moose Didn't Know + Brevity = Suspension
jar writes:

A discussion is not formal, not necessarily on a set subject, has greater freedom in format and presentation.

Debates are general more organized, with a very tightly set subject and procedures.

Thank you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by jar, posted 04-17-2011 10:26 PM jar has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17516
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 124 of 1043 (612749)
04-18-2011 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Adminnemooseus
04-17-2011 10:42 PM


Re: Barer than bare links
Adminnemooseus writes:

Need we have a forum rule prohibiting barer than bare links?


Prompting somebody to do his own search is often preferable to posting links. "Seek and ye shall find," is more likely to to provide enlightenment than, "Swallow what I feed you."


If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Adminnemooseus, posted 04-17-2011 10:42 PM Adminnemooseus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Adminnemooseus, posted 04-19-2011 8:37 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3908
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 125 of 1043 (612885)
04-19-2011 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by ringo
04-18-2011 12:53 PM


Re: Barer than bare links
ringo writes:

Adminnemooseus writes:

Need we have a forum rule prohibiting barer than bare links?


Prompting somebody to do his own search is often preferable to posting links. "Seek and ye shall find," is more likely to to provide enlightenment than, "Swallow what I feed you."

While that may very well be true, and while such a procedure may be more acceptable in one of evcforum.net's "lite" topics, it is very contrary to evcforum.net's general operation standards - It is clearly a violation of forum rule 5:

quote:
Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.

Jar's methodology makes me think of Jeopardy:

Moose: Alex Jar, I'll take "Something to do with earthquakes" for $400.

Jar: Cumbre Vieja

Moose (does Google search): What is a volcano in the Canary Islands whose eruption has the potential of triggering a mega-tsunami which would wipe out a significant portion of the east coast of the United States?

Evcforum.net is not the place to be playing Jeopardy.

Adminnemooseus


This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by ringo, posted 04-18-2011 12:53 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by jar, posted 04-19-2011 8:41 PM Adminnemooseus has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31608
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 126 of 1043 (612886)
04-19-2011 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by Adminnemooseus
04-19-2011 8:37 PM


Re: Barer than bare links
Where is the bare link?


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Adminnemooseus, posted 04-19-2011 8:37 PM Adminnemooseus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Adminnemooseus, posted 04-19-2011 9:05 PM jar has responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3908
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 127 of 1043 (612894)
04-19-2011 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by jar
04-19-2011 8:41 PM


Re: Barer than bare links
jar writes:

Where is the bare link?

Here:

Jar writes:

Check out Cumbre Vieja

I'll call it an "implied bare link" - A link is implied but not presented. Had you actually had a link there, then it still would essentially have been a bare link.

Look, if you had included a couple of sentences detailing the implications of the Cumbre Vieja volcano, and supplied a link to your source, I would have been happy and no suspension would have happened.

Forum rule 5 calls for you to bring the information into your message and supply a source link. Giving key word(s) and saying "go Google" does not cut it.

Adminnemooseus

Added by edit:

Note: The relevant two Jar suspension announcements - 1 - 2

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Note.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by jar, posted 04-19-2011 8:41 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by jar, posted 04-19-2011 9:10 PM Adminnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31608
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 128 of 1043 (612895)
04-19-2011 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Adminnemooseus
04-19-2011 9:05 PM


Re: Barer than bare links
Sorry, but I looked in the rules and found no references to implied bare links.

But you did go look, even though you did not learn the whole lesson, I would give you at least partial credit, say a "c".

Now is the risk posed by Cumbre Vieja only related to an eruption of the volcano?


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Adminnemooseus, posted 04-19-2011 9:05 PM Adminnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12642
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 129 of 1043 (612897)
04-19-2011 9:31 PM


Following the Guidelines
No set of rules of reasonable length can cover all contingencies, and so I've often asked people to follow the spirit of the guidelines. The goal of EvC Forum is productive discussion that promotes knowledge and understanding. Approaches that place too great an emphasis on a Socratic or overly terse and cryptic style tend to be provocative and are not consistent with EvC's philosophy. And in any event, whether anyone agrees or not, there's always rule 1:

  1. Follow all moderator requests.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3908
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 130 of 1043 (613000)
04-20-2011 11:42 PM


SavageD's dog-pile problem at "Why only one designer"
SavageD commented/complained at message 214:

SavageD writes:

you think I'm super human, give me a break, can't respond to all of you, I'm constantly bombarded with responses.

Of course (IMO), his complaint does have merit. Generally, every SavageD reply gets several replies.

In summary (as of message 214), SavageD posted 21 messages, to which he got 45 replies, to which he returned 19 replies. This says nothing about the quality or lack of quality of any of the involved messages.

Anyway, one little Jar/SavageD/Jar exchange caught my attention (messages 161,163, and 168):

161:

Jar writes:

SavageD writes:

Natural selection - The process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring. This adaptability is driven by several organic mechanisms.

Hardly anything as simple as being "the universe we live in".

Again, get your definitions correct. Natural Selection is just the filter, it is the world and environment we live in. It really is that simple.

163:

SavageD writes:

"get your definitions correct"....what is wrong with my definition?

168:

Jar writes:

Natural Selection is only the filter. It is the environment critters live in. If the critter lives long enough to reproduce it gets through the filter and passes on its genes.

Other than the quotes of previous message, the above quoted are the entire messages.

I sure seems to me, that SavageD's "Natural Selection" definition was pretty good, and Jar was griping about it while agreeing with it.

WTF?

Adminnemooseus


Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by PaulK, posted 04-21-2011 1:45 AM Adminnemooseus has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15549
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 131 of 1043 (613004)
04-21-2011 1:45 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Adminnemooseus
04-20-2011 11:42 PM


Re: SavageD's dog-pile problem at "Why only one designer"
SavageD's definition is pretty lousy. Backwards in fact. Natural selection doesn't CAUSE better adapted individuals to survive and have more offspring as he would have it. That's the basis of the process, not the outcome.

If he had said that it was the process whereby adaptive traits spread through a population and identified the better reproductive success of better-adapted individuals as the cause of this it would have been much better.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Adminnemooseus, posted 04-20-2011 11:42 PM Adminnemooseus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Adminnemooseus, posted 04-21-2011 2:44 AM PaulK has responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3908
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 132 of 1043 (613007)
04-21-2011 2:44 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by PaulK
04-21-2011 1:45 AM


Re: SavageD's dog-pile problem at "Why only one designer"
SavageD, as quoted in message 161 of the topic in question, writes:

Natural selection - The process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring.

Jar, in message 168 of the topic in quesion, writes:

Natural Selection is only the filter. {snip} If the critter lives long enough to reproduce it gets through the filter and passes on its genes.

PaulK writes:

Natural selection doesn't CAUSE better adapted individuals to survive and have more offspring as he would have it.

SavageD may or may not have said something to that effect upthread, but I fail to see that (natural selection as a cause) in the above quoted. I don't see significant conflict between the SavageD and Jar statements quoted above.

As I see it, SavageD's statement might have been worded better as:

Natural selection - The process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to better survive and to produce more offspring.

I fail to see how Jar's statement clarified the situation.

Adminnemooseus


This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by PaulK, posted 04-21-2011 1:45 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by PaulK, posted 04-21-2011 4:05 AM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15549
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 133 of 1043 (613010)
04-21-2011 4:05 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by Adminnemooseus
04-21-2011 2:44 AM


Re: SavageD's dog-pile problem at "Why only one designer"
dictionary.com

where·by
- conjunction 1. by what or which; under the terms of which

Seems pretty clear that he says that survival and better reproductive success are the result of the process. In reality differential reproductive success is the basic mechanism of the process, and survival is only important insofar as it contributes to reproductive success.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Adminnemooseus, posted 04-21-2011 2:44 AM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12642
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 134 of 1043 (613015)
04-21-2011 6:26 AM


Definition of Natural Selection
I agree with Adminnemooseus. I've seen evolutionists define natural selection in many different ways over the years, and this one seems okay, certainly more than adequate for a thread about the number of designers. If the thread were more directly about evolution then exerting effort getting the definition of natural selection precisely right would make more sense.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4726
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 135 of 1043 (620816)
06-21-2011 6:05 AM


Fidelity
Percy,

I bring up an issue that I feel needs the attention of the Head Master at this institution.

We have seen moderators go in and hide messages, delete messages and banner messages as “Off Topic.” This is entirely appropriate and your crew here does a good job of keeping this herd of cats from getting too far out into la-la land.

We have seen moderators go in and try to cleanup, linefeed and make paragraphs out of some of those awful solid pages of text that some submit in hope of, and fail in, communicating with other human beings. This is also a good thing and much appreciated.

Now, this is trivial in action but leads to a greater issue.

A moderator came into one of my posts and made a simple, trivial, capitalization change. Without my permission. Without my knowledge!

Why?

If this trivial change is within the moderators' purview then what other changes are the moderators free to make? Do the moderators have the freedom to make whatever changes they so choose to any post on the forum? Are there any limits? Is there some line drawn somewhere we do not know about?

This issue should never have come about.

First, EVC standards are intellectually well above the normal forum offerings on the Internet. As such this community has an expectation that members will, for the most part, make use of proper syntax and technical rules to facilitate communication. We also have the expectation of violating some rules for written and technical flexibility. Especially for those of us who understand the nuance involved and can recognize and make use of such devices.

Second, we have an expectation of propriety, that our posts (errors, warts and all) will be faithfully conveyed to the community as we intend.

Outside a required moderator action or the occasion of complete communication failure, our expectation is that no quarter should be given for any moderator to make any change to any of our messages at any time, ever!

Questions:

Are these expectations out of bounds? Do these moderator actions fit with your view of the community you have built here?

Edited by AZPaul3, : emphasis


Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Dr Jack, posted 06-21-2011 6:25 AM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply
 Message 137 by Adminnemooseus, posted 06-21-2011 10:29 AM AZPaul3 has responded
 Message 140 by AZPaul3, posted 06-22-2011 9:03 AM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019