Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8945 total)
36 online now:
Aussie, DrJones*, PaulK, RAZD, ringo, Theodoric, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (7 members, 29 visitors)
Newest Member: ski zawaski
Upcoming Birthdays: ONESOlivia, perfect
Post Volume: Total: 865,403 Year: 20,439/19,786 Month: 836/2,023 Week: 344/392 Day: 34/41 Hour: 4/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures (aka 'The Whine List')
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 419 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 136 of 1043 (620818)
06-21-2011 6:25 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by AZPaul3
06-21-2011 6:05 AM


Re: Fidelity
I think Moderators should not make changes to the text of any message, whether to add line brakes, fix spelling or alter capitalization.

Fixing markup, or hiding off-topic messages, is one thing. Altering what we actually write is another.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by AZPaul3, posted 06-21-2011 6:05 AM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

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


Message 137 of 1043 (620833)
06-21-2011 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by AZPaul3
06-21-2011 6:05 AM


Re: Fidelity
I wouldn't dare go that off-topic. We'd get moosed in a heartbeat.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, 06-15-2011 11:29 PM: Changed "moosed" to "Moosed".

Edited by AZPaul3, 06-21-2011 4:59 AM: Too far, Moose. This is MY message, not yours!

Link added.

It was a joke - a token "Moosing". And I am surprised that you or anyone else even noticed.

Adminnemooseus


This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by AZPaul3, posted 06-21-2011 6:05 AM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by AZPaul3, posted 06-21-2011 1:12 PM Adminnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4731
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 138 of 1043 (620867)
06-21-2011 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Adminnemooseus
06-21-2011 10:29 AM


Re: Fidelity
It was a joke - a token "Moosing"

Yes, I understand that. And it was trivial, not substantive, in nature.

But that isn't the point, is it?

You do know what the point is, don't you Moose?

And I am surprised that you or anyone else even noticed.

You're laughing at your silly prank? Shoot yourself in the foot much?

You do not understand the gravity of the situation at all, do you?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Adminnemooseus, posted 06-21-2011 10:29 AM Adminnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by crashfrog, posted 06-21-2011 2:30 PM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply
 Message 143 by Chuck77, posted 06-23-2011 2:55 AM AZPaul3 has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 139 of 1043 (620889)
06-21-2011 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by AZPaul3
06-21-2011 1:12 PM


Re: Fidelity
Don't you know how it works around here?

Moose did it; therefore, by definition, it was the right thing to do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by AZPaul3, posted 06-21-2011 1:12 PM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4731
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 140 of 1043 (620993)
06-22-2011 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by AZPaul3
06-21-2011 6:05 AM


Bump for Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by AZPaul3, posted 06-21-2011 6:05 AM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 136 days)
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 141 of 1043 (621031)
06-22-2011 7:57 PM


Censorship?
I have noticed a number of posts being "censored". Curse words being replaced with asterisks. I am curious as to why this is. You know me, I like my posts riddled with fucks and shits.

{abe}
But apparently only for some members, some times?

Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

Edited by hooah212002, : IE at work = no spellcheck


"Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3775
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 142 of 1043 (621046)
06-23-2011 1:18 AM


Bare link charge
Omnivorous writes:

Bare link.

Shame.

Source

Guilty.

I Should have posted at least a sentence or two of commentary. Must have been tired or maybe in need of doing the job that I actually get paid for (not unlike what I need to be doing right now). Of course, I presume you would accept a plea of general stupidity?

At least I had a good subtitle.

I have been keeping the topic open in a tab, meaning to get back to it.

Moose


  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 143 of 1043 (621052)
06-23-2011 2:55 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by AZPaul3
06-21-2011 1:12 PM


Re: Fidelity
AZPaul3 writes:

Yes, I understand that. And it was trivial, not substantive, in nature.But that isn't the point, is it?You do know what the point is, don't you Moose?

If I can stick my nose in the conversation here, I personally think if Moose where to change the subject matter in your post THAT would be an issue. Also, since you referenced Him in the post as getting "moosed" He clearly did it in jest.

If Moose wasn't referenced at all, (as he was basically the "subject" of your comment) I seriously doubt He would be worried about changing any capitals you may have missed. It was only a "play" on your comment, and a good one at that. All he did was acknowledge the flattery you were offering Him. IMO.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by AZPaul3, posted 06-21-2011 1:12 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by AZPaul3, posted 06-23-2011 7:57 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4731
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 144 of 1043 (621063)
06-23-2011 7:57 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by Chuck77
06-23-2011 2:55 AM


Re: Fidelity
It was only a "play" on your comment, and a good one at that.

I understand this, Chuck77, and agree with your opinion.

All is good.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Chuck77, posted 06-23-2011 2:55 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 136 days)
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 145 of 1043 (623037)
07-07-2011 9:44 PM


GDR
re: Message 307.

no, AdminPD closed it because I said FUCK too many times. She doesn't like people saying FUCK in the religious forums.

That, and we were desperately far from the topic.


"Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 2736 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 146 of 1043 (628039)
08-06-2011 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Adminnemooseus
12-02-2010 6:30 PM


How about mentioning it to me?
I noticed this is the admin only discussion box.

Butterflytyrant can no longer start topics

Far more than his share of dubious to profoundly bad new topics, including 7 new Proposed New Topics (PNT's) on July 29, 2011.

Many were rejected; More should have been; No more are going to happen.

Adminnemooseus

Added by edit:

Butterflytyrant's topic index. As of now, he has never posted to a topic he himself didn't start.

First of all, do I get notified of this?

Second, apart from the 7 to IamJoseph there are a total of 4 new thread requests. How many is my fair share exactly? I notice that you (Moose) think that the thread regarding light should not have started. There are 30 other posters, including yourself who have put forward their opinions. If that one was not worth it, then why did you decide it was worth posting a few replies? As to the others, two were rejected. Fine. No problem. You guys are moderators, if you feel that they dont hold up, then it is your right to knock them back. But if you are going to promote them, why then go back and say that many were rejected, more should have been. If you think they should have been rejected but were not, this is a problem you need to take up with the other moderators, not me. How many of the three that were allowed do you think should have been rejected?

As to the seven IamJoseph threads, we get told to start a new thread instead of going off topic.

Rule 2 in the Forum Guidelines

Please stay on topic for a thread. Open a new thread for new topics.

IamJoseph asked me to start a new thread regarding the topics I wanted to discuss. There was a lot of information. I broke this down into 7 categories.

Rule 3 of the Forum Guidelines.

When introducing a new topic, please keep the message narrowly focused. Do not include more than a few points.

There was even an active thread discussing one of these already. The topics were denied. No problem really. Cant discuss the problems with his posts in thread. Cant start a new open thread to discuss them. Knocking back the threads is no issue. The way I see it, I was following the rules as listed on the website.

Your comment about not posting on any threads i did not start. I was unaware there was some sort of rule in place that says I have to post on other topics. Is there such a rule? The day after this ban was put in place, I actually did post on another topic. What does it matter whose topics I have posted on. How many have I read? Do you have this information. I have spent hours reading others threads and not actually posted. So if i had put a few random replies on other threads you would be a bit happier?

When this ban was put in place, I had been here for a month. My first three topic proposals were inside 14 days of becoming a member. It takes a bit of time to find your feet and get used to the way a new forum works. So, a total ban from starting new posts, with no actual conversation with me and no warnings particularly when no rules have been broken (as far as i am aware) seems to be a bit harsh.

This is a ban on attempting to promote new topics. How about still letting me promote new topics, but not promoting them if you dont like them?

Is there a limit to this ban? Can i find out what rules i have broken to receive a ban? Did I miss a warning about this?

It looks like i have been indefinitely banned from attempting to start new threads without any warning that this could happen, without any notification that it could or has happened, without actually breaking any rules (I was actually following the rules).

Is this what has happened?

What else can I be banned for with no notification or warning and without breaking any rules?

This is also in the Forum Guidelines

For the most part, members are expected to figure out for themselves how to stay within the guidelines.

Have a not followed the guidelines? How much time do I get to figure out how to stay inside guidelines that are not listed?

Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.

Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.

Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Adminnemooseus, posted 12-02-2010 6:30 PM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by nwr, posted 08-06-2011 11:32 AM Butterflytyrant has responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5586
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


(1)
Message 147 of 1043 (628043)
08-06-2011 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by Butterflytyrant
08-06-2011 11:01 AM


Re: How about mentioning it to me?
Butterflytyrant writes:
First of all, do I get notified of this?

Given that you just quoted the notice, the answer would seem to be "Yes."

Butterflytyrant writes:
Second, apart from the 7 to IamJoseph there are a total of 4 new thread requests. How many is my fair share exactly?

"More than one's fair share" is very common idiomatic speech in English (including the Oz version of English). So why play dumb and pretend that it is a reference to a defined quota, when you know that it is just using a common idiom?

The admins attempt to keep the discussions orderly and rational. It did seem to me that your multiple new topics were excessive, so I was not all surprised when an admin thought you had shown poor judgment.

May I suggest a little self examination as to how you can participate in keeping this a place for thoughtful and rational discussion.


Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Butterflytyrant, posted 08-06-2011 11:01 AM Butterflytyrant has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Butterflytyrant, posted 08-06-2011 12:08 PM nwr has responded

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 2736 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 148 of 1043 (628045)
08-06-2011 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by nwr
08-06-2011 11:32 AM


Re: How about mentioning it to me?
Given that you just quoted the notice, the answer would seem to be "Yes."

The notice was in the public record thread. Admin posts only. No PM to me. No warning or notice on any thread that i have posted on. no warning or notice on any of the proposed new topics. This is not a notice to me. It is a discussion between administrators that i happened to spot. See the difference?

"More than one's fair share" is very common idiomatic speech in English (including the Oz version of English). So why play dumb and pretend that it is a reference to a defined quota, when you know that it is just using a common idiom?

I know what the phrase means. I was not playing dumb (fuck you by the way). The point I was making is that it does not describe an amount.

The admins attempt to keep the discussions orderly and rational. It did seem to me that your multiple new topics were excessive, so I was not all surprised when an admin thought you had shown poor judgment.

You will notice that I included the two rules in the forum guidelines that I was following didnt you? And you did notice where I asked about rules I had broken didnt you? Judgement did not come into it. I was following the rules. And the request of the person I was debating with. The fact they were denied and the discussion that was included by the admin shows why they denied the threads. it was educational. As there are no guidelines with regards to starting a new topic, it will take a bit of time to get used to the way a new forum works. Without any guidelines or rules, it is a matter of trial and error.

I checked your first half a dozen posts. They mostly went nowhere, had no relation to creation or evolution or were new topics started by you because they were off thread topics (which is what I was doing). Isnt that interesting. It is a pity you did not have some condescending smart arse to get on your back a month after you joined up about them.

Thanks for your input though.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by nwr, posted 08-06-2011 11:32 AM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by fearandloathing, posted 08-06-2011 12:26 PM Butterflytyrant has acknowledged this reply
 Message 150 by nwr, posted 08-06-2011 1:13 PM Butterflytyrant has responded

  
fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 2459 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 149 of 1043 (628047)
08-06-2011 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by Butterflytyrant
08-06-2011 12:08 PM


Re: How about mentioning it to me?
Hi,

BFT writes:

I was not playing dumb (fuck you by the way)

Always treat other members with respect. Argue the position, not the person. Avoid abusive, harassing and invasive behavior. Avoid needling, hectoring and goading tactics.

Just saying...

I think you should've got a warning of some type, or had posting privileges suspended until you and moderation had a talk about what they want, a PM to you would've been nice. I think LJ wasn't going to participate with you any more than he did with me when I bumped a topic for him. Moderation may have felt you were harassing him by trying to start so many new topics aimed directly at him. It did seem a bit personal to me also.


"No sympathy for the devil; keep that in mind. Buy the ticket, take the ride...and if it occasionally gets a little heavier than what you had in mind, well...maybe chalk it off to forced conscious expansion: Tune in, freak out, get beaten."
— Hunter S. Thompson

Ad astra per aspera

Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Butterflytyrant, posted 08-06-2011 12:08 PM Butterflytyrant has acknowledged this reply

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5586
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 150 of 1043 (628050)
08-06-2011 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by Butterflytyrant
08-06-2011 12:08 PM


Re: How about mentioning it to me?
Butterflytyrant writes:
The notice was in the public record thread. Admin posts only. No PM to me.

Correct.

As far as I know, it has always been the practice to give notifications in public. The PM feature is a relatively new addition to the forum.


Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Butterflytyrant, posted 08-06-2011 12:08 PM Butterflytyrant has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by jar, posted 08-06-2011 1:34 PM nwr has acknowledged this reply
 Message 152 by Butterflytyrant, posted 08-06-2011 2:12 PM nwr has responded
 Message 155 by Buzsaw, posted 08-06-2011 5:22 PM nwr has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019