Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8897 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-20-2019 9:10 PM
33 online now:
AZPaul3, LamarkNewAge, Tanypteryx (3 members, 30 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,505 Year: 3,542/19,786 Month: 537/1,087 Week: 127/212 Day: 43/14 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
910
11
1213
...
69NextFF
Author Topic:   General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures (aka 'The Whine List')
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 151 of 1028 (628056)
08-06-2011 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by nwr
08-06-2011 1:13 PM


Re: How about mentioning it to me?
And da moose is da moose. You learn to tolerate him.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by nwr, posted 08-06-2011 1:13 PM nwr has acknowledged this reply

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 2497 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 152 of 1028 (628063)
08-06-2011 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by nwr
08-06-2011 1:13 PM


Re: How about mentioning it to me?
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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by nwr, posted 08-06-2011 1:13 PM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by nwr, posted 08-06-2011 2:22 PM Butterflytyrant has responded
 Message 154 by purpledawn, posted 08-06-2011 3:42 PM Butterflytyrant has responded

    
nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 153 of 1028 (628064)
08-06-2011 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Butterflytyrant
08-06-2011 2:12 PM


Re: How about mentioning it to me?
Butterflytyrant writes:
You dont think a warning would have been nice?

Adminnemooseus probably assumed that you were a decent and reasonable human with a little common sense.

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

Adminnemooseus probably assumed that this would be obvious to you, and that you only needed a little prodding to arouse that awareness.

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

It was probably assumed that you were an actual human, rather than a mindless mechanical robot only able to rigidly follow a prescribed set of rules.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Butterflytyrant, posted 08-06-2011 2:12 PM Butterflytyrant has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Butterflytyrant, posted 08-06-2011 11:34 PM nwr has responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1532 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


(3)
Message 154 of 1028 (628081)
08-06-2011 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Butterflytyrant
08-06-2011 2:12 PM


Use Common Sense
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Butterflytyrant, posted 08-06-2011 2:12 PM Butterflytyrant has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by Butterflytyrant, posted 08-07-2011 12:06 AM purpledawn has responded
 Message 165 by Adminnemooseus, posted 08-07-2011 2:19 PM purpledawn has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 155 of 1028 (628099)
08-06-2011 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by nwr
08-06-2011 1:13 PM


Re: Begging The Question, Why The Exception?
nwr writes:

quote:
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.

Which begs the question as to why my banning from all science forums including Biblical accuracy and intelligent design forums was not publically aired in the proper forum, designated for these announcements??

Imo, it was because I was kicking some butt and raising some troublesome questions in the science fora. I see some of these restrictions as a convenient way to silence the effective members who debate for ID and creationism.

Creationism and intelligent design, by definition, implicates the metaphysical. For the EvC admins to relegate creationists to naturalistic only conventional science methodology and interpretation of phenomenal data is to restrict creationists and ID to all naturalistic arguments, debating with 3/4 of our minds tied behind our backs in the debates.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edited by Buzsaw, : Update message title


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by nwr, posted 08-06-2011 1:13 PM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by nwr, posted 08-06-2011 6:37 PM Buzsaw has responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


(1)
Message 156 of 1028 (628107)
08-06-2011 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by Buzsaw
08-06-2011 5:22 PM


Re: Begging The Question, Why The Exception?
Buzsaw writes:
Which begs the question as to why my banning from all science forums including Biblical accuracy and intelligent design forums was not publically aired in the proper forum, designated for these announcements??

I'm not sure why you bring that up in a reply to me. It is not as if I had anything to do with that posting restriction.

Buzsaw writes:
Imo, it was because I was kicking some butt and raising some troublesome questions in the science fora.

It seems more likely that you were repeatedly posting off-topic.

In any case, wouldn't it be simpler for you to send a PM to Admin, asking for reinstatement of those privileges. That would probably either get you reinstated, or provide you with an explanation as to why not.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Buzsaw, posted 08-06-2011 5:22 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Buzsaw, posted 08-07-2011 12:17 AM nwr has responded

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 2497 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


(1)
Message 157 of 1028 (628134)
08-06-2011 11:34 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by nwr
08-06-2011 2:22 PM


Re: How about mentioning it to me?
nwr,

You dont think a warning would have been nice?

Adminnemooseus probably assumed that you were a decent and reasonable human with a little common sense.

Which of these things are you questioning? What you dont seem to realise is that this is an internet forum. It is a single internet forum with its own particular set of rules and regulations. These rules and regulations are for the most part, not listed and a new member has to find their feet through trial and error. That is why I have posted on mostly my own threads. As I did not want to get actively involved in others conversations without knowing the lay of the land. You with many years of involvement have an intricate understanding of the unspoken rules of this particular forum. I post on many forums on a number of different topics as well as a few news sites. All of them have a different set of unspoken rules, some have very strict rules listed. What you see as decent, reasonable and common sense may not apply on all forums. Head on over to a creationist forum and start a thread on evolution and see how long your membership lasts. You may be writing something 100% scientificaly accurate, reasonable, decent and using your coomon sense, but you will be banned because you have not followed the rules of the forum. This forum is moderated by people following their own sense of what is reasonable and decent. That is fair enough. but it takes more than a month to establish what each particular moderator believes is up to scratch. I am a member of one forum that I know would have passed all of the new posts without question. Some forums have no moderator controlled new topic proposal system at all. What you need to realise is that without a set of actual rules to follow, there are going to be people who post things that are going to be considered unreasonable. This is inevitable. You comment did not actually state if you thought a warning would be appropriate or not.

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

Adminnemooseus probably assumed that this would be obvious to you, and that you only needed a little prodding to arouse that awareness.

Again, my previous statements apply. I will add that when one of my threads was knocked back, i stated my case and accepted the result. A little prodding would have been a cooment that it was likely or even possible for me to get banned from proposing new threads if I was proposing new threads that did not follow a set of unspoken rules particular to this forum. If it is obvious that it can and is likely to happen, it should not be too much of a problem to list a set of new topic proposal rules to follow. I will repeat, every forum is different with regards to what you can get banned for. What is obviously a violation here is not a violation on other forums. So how would it be obvious?

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

It was probably assumed that you were an actual human, rather than a mindless mechanical robot only able to rigidly follow a prescribed set of rules.

I am an actual human. I am not only able to follow a prescribed set of rules. But i would think it is obvious that if a set of rules is in place, then they should be followed. Why have moderators at all if you believe that everyone is going to behave in the exact same way? Most forums have rules that they expect to be followed. If you randomly pick a thread it is likely you will find a moderator somewhere advising a poster to follow the rules. If you were advised to follow the rules would you do it?

My point, that you seem to be missing, is that I was banned for not following an unspoken set of rules. I was banned without a warning that it could occur. I was banned without a notice that I was actually breaking one of the unspoken rules. A set of rules that is associated with this one particular forum amongst thousands of forums with different sets of rules. The unspoken rules on this forum are not universal.

My ban has been lifted. I am going to take this as the warning and an educational experience as to the restrictions on starting new topics.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by nwr, posted 08-06-2011 2:22 PM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by nwr, posted 08-07-2011 12:44 AM Butterflytyrant has acknowledged this reply
 Message 162 by Panda, posted 08-07-2011 7:02 AM Butterflytyrant has not yet responded

    
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 2497 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 158 of 1028 (628140)
08-07-2011 12:06 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by purpledawn
08-06-2011 3:42 PM


Re: Use Common Sense
PurpleDawn,

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?

Yes, and yes. You will notice that I have not attempted to start any new threads after the ones you gave those comments on. You said no, I put my position accross and accepted you decision. You did not include anywhere in there that I had broken any forum rules or that I was at risk of being banned. Your replies were educational on what is considered desireable on this particular forum. You seem to have the same thinking as NWR. This is one forum, with its own set of rules and regulations. What is reasonable and acceptable on one forum can be very different to what is reasonable and acceptable on another. As there are no actual rules listed on proposing new topics and it is up to the new members to work it out, you must expect that new members are going to make mistakes. As I said to NWR, there are other firums out there that my posts would have gone through without any difficulty. There are other forums that dont even moderate new topic posts. Another thing you seem to be missing is that giving me a hint that something is undesirable is very different to giving me an actual warning that I am breaking some unspoken rule. I regularly notice warnings being given out to other members who break the rules. I dont see others getting banned or suspended without any warning and being told that you gave them a hint.

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

Fair enough, consider me educated. If Moose thought that I did not was not understanding something, give me a warning.

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.

or even something as direct as this -

Look Butterfly Tyrant, you are wasting my fucking time. You need to put a hell of a lot more thought into your topic proposals to get them on here. We obviously have much higher standards than the forums you are used to. If you dont get your shit together, you are likely to be banned from starting new topics.

Either one of those would have given me some warning. I would say that Moose probably felt like sending me the second one. Both would have given me some warning that a banning could or was likely to occur.

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.

I agree that the moderators have been around this particular forum for a long time and know what works and waht does not. I have been here for just over a month. I was directed to watch the othe thread and I did. It takes a while to get to know the particular way a new forum works.

Use some common sense.

Again, you have the same perspective as NWR. This is one forum among thousands of forums. The rules of this forum are not universal. The customs of one forum are often very different to the customs of another forum. It is not possible to be aware of all of the unspoken rules for every different forum. Surely you must be able to understand this. This forum has a particular environment, with its own rules and unspoken agreements. What is common sense on one forum is different to what is common sense on another forum. You may exist only on one forum and have become very used to the customs and agreements of that forum. New members are going to be like foreigners who will do things that are not in line with the customs of this forum.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by purpledawn, posted 08-06-2011 3:42 PM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by purpledawn, posted 08-07-2011 7:12 AM Butterflytyrant has acknowledged this reply

    
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 159 of 1028 (628142)
08-07-2011 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by nwr
08-06-2011 6:37 PM


Re: Begging The Question, Why The Exception?
nwr writes:

In any case, wouldn't it be simpler for you to send a PM to Admin, asking for reinstatement of those privileges. That would probably either get you reinstated, or provide you with an explanation as to why not.

Been there; done that, requesting at least permission to post in Bible and Accuracy. No soap. Can't do any of it.

As to off topic, there's plenty of that going on here. Some get called on it; some don't. I've called some of my counterparts on it myself because they were leading me off topic. Some of my own off topic admin admonishments were due to bogus off topic lead off stuff which I felt compelled to respond to, but not significant enough to do a thread on.

Why did I reply to you? Because it was your statement to which my reply applied.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by nwr, posted 08-06-2011 6:37 PM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by nwr, posted 08-07-2011 12:54 AM Buzsaw has responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


(1)
Message 160 of 1028 (628148)
08-07-2011 12:44 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by Butterflytyrant
08-06-2011 11:34 PM


Re: How about mentioning it to me?
Butterflytyrant writes:
My point, that you seem to be missing, is that I was banned for not following an unspoken set of rules.

Most of life is spent dealing with unwritten rules.

When one joins a new social group, whether in person or on the Internet, the natural thing to do is to take a little time observing how others engage themselves in the group. And if one accidently commits a social faux pas, the natural thing is to be a tad apologetic and to attempt to learn from that mistake.

Butterflytyrant writes:
My ban has been lifted.

Yes it has, though it was a restriction rather than a ban.

The Admins here usually try to help new members. I suspect that Adminnemooseus thought it best to protect the board by slowing you down a little.

So best wishes for your future participation here. But do try to slow down a bit.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Butterflytyrant, posted 08-06-2011 11:34 PM Butterflytyrant has acknowledged this reply

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


(1)
Message 161 of 1028 (628149)
08-07-2011 12:54 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by Buzsaw
08-07-2011 12:17 AM


Re: Begging The Question, Why The Exception?
Buzsaw writes:
Why did I reply to you? Because it was your statement to which my reply applied.

But it didn't actually apply. My discussion was with Butterflytyrant who, in my opinion, was overreacting to a restriction and just needed to calm down a little. Your post was on a quite different kind of restriction. You could have made it an independent post (the "Gen Reply" button), rather than an inappropriate reply.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Buzsaw, posted 08-07-2011 12:17 AM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Buzsaw, posted 08-07-2011 8:36 AM nwr has acknowledged this reply

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1788 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(1)
Message 162 of 1028 (628166)
08-07-2011 7:02 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by Butterflytyrant
08-06-2011 11:34 PM


Re: How about mentioning it to me?
Butterflytyrant writes:

...I was banned for not following an unspoken set of rules


Jaderis has this in his signature:
"Hazards exist that are not marked"
Unfortunately, this is very true.

Anyway - ban is lifted; welcome back.

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Butterflytyrant, posted 08-06-2011 11:34 PM Butterflytyrant has not yet responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1532 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


(1)
Message 163 of 1028 (628168)
08-07-2011 7:12 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by Butterflytyrant
08-07-2011 12:06 AM


Re: Use 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.

Butterflytyrant writes:

This would have been an effective way to deal with his Gish Gallops.

I will have to bring this up when I get suspended for wandering off topic to further discuss his claims that are off topic when he makes them in future. Message 71

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Butterflytyrant, posted 08-07-2011 12:06 AM Butterflytyrant has acknowledged this reply

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 164 of 1028 (628179)
08-07-2011 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by nwr
08-07-2011 12:54 AM


Re: Begging The Question, Why The Exception?
nwr writes:

But it didn't actually apply. My discussion was with Butterflytyrant who, in my opinion, was overreacting to a restriction and just needed to calm down a little. Your post was on a quite different kind of restriction. You could have made it an independent post (the "Gen Reply" button), rather than an inappropriate reply.

Fair enough. I stand corrected.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by nwr, posted 08-07-2011 12:54 AM nwr has acknowledged this reply

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3879
Joined: 09-26-2002


(3)
Message 165 of 1028 (628201)
08-07-2011 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by purpledawn
08-06-2011 3:42 PM


Re: Use Common Sense
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.

What AdminPD had done was probably adequate, but my impression was "What a jerk", so I decided to put an exclamation point on AdminPD's response. I subscribe to the theory that a little overkill can be a good thing. It was to send a strong "Don't be a jerk" message to Butterflytyrant AND to other members. Or something like that.

To be of the creationist side at this forum is to carry a heavy burden. I don't like dog piling, be it responses to a message or via proposed new topics.

So, everyone, think of the unwritten 11th commandment: "Don't be a jerk".

Adminnemooseus


Please be familiar with the various topics and other links in the "Essential Links", found in the top of the page menu. Amongst other things, this is where to find where to report various forum problems.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by purpledawn, posted 08-06-2011 3:42 PM purpledawn has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
910
11
1213
...
69NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019