Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8945 total)
36 online now:
Aussie, DrJones*, GDR, PaulK, Percy (Admin), RAZD, ringo, Tanypteryx, Theodoric (9 members, 27 visitors)
Newest Member: ski zawaski
Upcoming Birthdays: ONESOlivia, perfect
Post Volume: Total: 865,396 Year: 20,432/19,786 Month: 829/2,023 Week: 337/392 Day: 27/41 Hour: 1/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures (aka 'The Whine List')
nwr
Member
Posts: 5586
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 256 of 1043 (633185)
09-12-2011 11:23 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by Adminnemooseus
09-12-2011 11:15 PM


Re: Considerations of "The Peanut Gallery"
What do you think?

That bag of peanuts has long since run empty. It's time for a fresh start.

I agree with your suggestion (1). However, (2) is a bad idea. A GD participant should be able to clear up misconceptions that show up in the PG thread, with having to make that part of the GD.

I'm neutral on (3). I don't have a problem with it, but I don't think you need to specify that. Just let the GD take its course.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Adminnemooseus, posted 09-12-2011 11:15 PM Adminnemooseus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by Adminnemooseus, posted 09-12-2011 11:37 PM nwr has acknowledged this reply

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 257 of 1043 (633186)
09-12-2011 11:33 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by Omnivorous
09-06-2011 3:03 PM


Re: THANK GOD FOR ADMINNEMOOSEOUS!!
Omnivorous writes:

As to Bolder-Dash...well, in the past as a mod I defended his continuing participation (under another nick), as I did Faith's, and was thanked with a boot in the face. He can sink or swim on his own.

Bolder-Dash fits his gusto. Imo, he would be hard pressed to come up with a better one.

Take care. Thanks for weighing in.

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


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 253 by Omnivorous, posted 09-06-2011 3:03 PM Omnivorous has acknowledged this reply

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


Message 258 of 1043 (633187)
09-12-2011 11:37 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by nwr
09-12-2011 11:23 PM


Re: Considerations of "The Peanut Gallery"
However, (2) is a bad idea. A GD participant should be able to clear up misconceptions that show up in the PG thread, with having to make that part of the GD.

But that is effectively making the PG poster a GD participant. The whole idea of the GD is to restrict participation.

If the opponent thinks the so called "misconception" is a valid point, then he can bring it into the GD. Otherwise it can live and/or die in the PG.

Adminnemooseus

Added by edit: I now see that your "with having to make that part of the GD" apparently was intended to be "without having to make that part of the GD". I still stand with my opinions concerning points 2 and 3.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by nwr, posted 09-12-2011 11:23 PM nwr has acknowledged this reply

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 791 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 259 of 1043 (633203)
09-13-2011 2:31 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by Adminnemooseus
09-12-2011 11:15 PM


Re: Considerations of "The Peanut Gallery"
Adminnemooseus writes:

It's my impression that the Peanut Gallery has turned into a giant mess.

1. All future "Peanut Gallery" topics be specifically tied to an individual "Great Debate" topic.

2.GD participants do not post to the PG.

3.GD participants can pull material from the PG, but only if such supports that participant's perspective (as always, source links are a good thing). A "Great Debate" participant is not to bring in and debate opposing perspectives from the PG.

I agree entirely with proposition (1), but not the rest. It works fine as it is now, apart from that one point. I don't think it's a good idea to overload the board with unnecessary rules.

Currently, a spin off thread on Epistomology might help things, if someone's interested enough to start one, as there's a sort of subthread developing on that in the PG.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Adminnemooseus, posted 09-12-2011 11:15 PM Adminnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3990
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 260 of 1043 (633232)
09-13-2011 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by Adminnemooseus
09-12-2011 11:15 PM


Re: Considerations of "The Peanut Gallery"
I think the peanut gallery is a good idea in theory but it seems to wind off into it's own little world far too often.

Seem very 'chat roomy', to me.


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Adminnemooseus, posted 09-12-2011 11:15 PM Adminnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

  
Boof
Member (Idle past 781 days)
Posts: 97
From: Australia
Joined: 08-02-2010


Message 261 of 1043 (633380)
09-13-2011 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by Adminnemooseus
09-12-2011 11:15 PM


Re: Considerations of "The Peanut Gallery"
I think this is a great suggestion. In fact I would like to see a PG thread created immediately for the "What variety of creationist is Buzsaw? (Minnemooseus and Buzsaw only)" Great Debate. I have a few suggestions/comments to make on this, but the original Peanut Gallery is such a mish-mash I decided not to bother for fear of getting swamped.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Adminnemooseus, posted 09-12-2011 11:15 PM Adminnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20243
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 262 of 1043 (633424)
09-14-2011 12:55 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by Adminnemooseus
09-12-2011 11:15 PM


Re: Considerations of "The Peanut Gallery"
Hi Adminnemooseus

Personally, I suspect the PG has turned into an independent piece of chaos.

IMHO this particular one has been a bedraggled mess from the start. It is long past the time that it should be closed and a new one started.

Thus, all the PG conversation apparently relates to the RAZD/Bluejeans topic.

There are some buried comments relating to other GD/s

Certainly many of the latest comments have little to do with the topic of that GD and would be better off in spin-off topics.

:: could there be a SPIN-OFF forum? open like coffee house topics but specifically linked to any particular post as the start, where someone wants to go in a different direction or subtopic in greater detail?

My suggestions:

  1. All future "Peanut Gallery" topics be specifically tied to an individual "Great Debate" topic.

I'd go further and say that posts on the PG should be linked to specific posts in the GD and only address points in those posts.

Certainly they should NOT make comments on the character of any of the GD participants or anything else that does not relate strictly to the GD topic, in a respectful manner (forum guidelines etc etc).

  1. GD participants do not post to the PG.

Absolutely fully concur, otherwise the GD would just as well be in an open forum with full participation by any interested party.

It does not surprise me that bluegenes disagrees, as he frequently posts there, even after being asked not to, which amuses me as he originally requested the GD.

Certainly neither of the participants should be put in the position of defending their posts in both places.

  1. GD participants can pull material from the PG, but only if such supports that participant's perspective (as always, source links are a good thing). A "Great Debate" participant is not to bring in and debate opposing perspectives from the PG.

OR to correct misinformation\misunderstanding or to clarify a position. It should be linked, but the comment should be general rather than directed at anyone.

Certainly they should NOT make comments on the character of any of the PG participants or anything else that does not relate strictly to the GD topic, in a respectful manner (forum guidelines etc etc).

What do you think? I think this could help both the PG and the GD.

Start by retiring the current PG thread, establish a Peanut Gallery forum (or place them in the GD forum? locked to follow the GD?) start a new thread with clear instructions in the OP (see Peanut Gallery -- for petrophysics vs RAZD debate -- ONLY and Peanut Gallery for the "Evidence" Great Debate thread for examples)

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Adminnemooseus, posted 09-12-2011 11:15 PM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6800
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 263 of 1043 (633426)
09-14-2011 1:04 AM


Appropriate admin post?
Is this an appropriate post from an Admin?

Message 134

Only three days for calling a mod/member and more importantly a woman the C-Word? Three days?

Im thinking the dude should be banned from the site permanently. After being here so long and knowing the rules to actually take the time to think it out, type it an submit it and proceed to call a woman that on here looks bad for the site wheather he is an evolutionist or creationist.

Maybe Percy or Moose can adjust this accordingly.

Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by AdminChuck, posted 09-14-2011 1:29 AM Theodoric has not yet responded
 Message 265 by Adminnemooseus, posted 09-14-2011 1:29 AM Theodoric has not yet responded

  
AdminChuck
Inactive Member


Message 264 of 1043 (633429)
09-14-2011 1:29 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by Theodoric
09-14-2011 1:04 AM


Re: Appropriate admin post?
My Bad. Let me correct it. Only three days for calling a mod/member and more importantly a woman the C-Word? Three days?
Im thinking the dude should be banned from the site permanently. After being here so long and knowing the rules to actually take the time to think it out, type it an submit it and proceed to call a woman that on here looks bad for the site wheather he is an evolutionist or creationist.

Maybe Percy or Moose can adjust this accordingly.

Edited by AdminChuck, : No reason given.

Edited by AdminChuck, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Theodoric, posted 09-14-2011 1:04 AM Theodoric has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by Omnivorous, posted 09-14-2011 11:30 AM AdminChuck has not yet responded

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


(1)
Message 265 of 1043 (633430)
09-14-2011 1:29 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by Theodoric
09-14-2011 1:04 AM


Re: Appropriate admin post?
Yes, but the wrong place to post it. Note that I've hidden the message and added my comment.

And as it is a moderation issue, and as he has admin status, the admin ID is the ID to use.

And I agree with the content. The suspension should be permanent, with a possible commutation in not less than a month. And if there is a commutation, I think Hooah better be of wonderful behavior then on, or suffer the consequences.

Adminnemooseus


This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Theodoric, posted 09-14-2011 1:04 AM Theodoric has not yet responded

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


(2)
Message 266 of 1043 (633447)
09-14-2011 4:18 AM


Some thoughts on my recent controversial admin actions
I've been intending to do a message by message commentary on the here messages relating to the Jar and Coyote forum restriction and the subsequent Jar suspension... but that's a lot of time, effort, and writing, at least as I operate.

The short version has just occurred to me, and I need to post it before I forget it.

As I see it, there are three "forum" areas concerning the evo-creo debate, although the divisions between these areas are not sharp.

The first area is that of legitimate science. That debate was completed a long time ago, and the science side won. Of course, the less than legitimate science side will disagree with that. That is where areas two and three come in.

The second area is that of the general public, the "real world". There outbreaks of creationism happen, and it is the desire of the science side to come down on it HARD. The goal is to get the creationists to shut up and go away. This attitude naturally crosses over into the third area.

The third area is that of the internet forum. In the case of evcforum.net, the goal is to have an ongoing discussion, day after day and year after year. The goal of the science side is NOT to get the creationists to shut up and go away (or is it?). If that is to be the goal (creationists shut up and go away), to succeed is to end the function of this forum (and have a lot of evo side people whining about not having any creationists to beat on).

Thus, to sustain the viability of evcforum.net, the admins need to strive to maintain a (hopefully healthy) creationist population - We don't want them to shut up and go away. Thus, the admins need to promote a kinder and gentler discourse. The creationist side is relatively few in number and also have the disadvantage of have reality on their opponents side. The creationist's difficult mission is to show that that reality, at least to some degree, is actually on the creationist side.

The admins find the need for "taking it easy" on the creationists. We need to protect the creationist side, least they go extinct at evcforum.net.

Now, the debate includes the details and the big picture. The big picture is important, but maintaining topic structure and quality requires more of a focus on the details aspect. Even though "everything" may be to some degree relevant, permitting "everything" in any given topic just doesn't work.

The debate works, at least best, when driven by the creationist side input. The creationists make their point(s) and the evolution side does their efforts to show why the creationist side is wrong. And the evolutionist side needs to do such in that "kinder and gentler" fashion, least they drive the creationists away. This is why I really don't like topics that start of with something like "Hey creationists, how do you explain this?" Then it is the evolutionist side driving the debate, and that just doesn't work well.

That's how I see it. The evolutionist side needs to play softball rather than hardball, to maintain an ongoing discourse.

Be kind to your creationist.

Or something like that.

Maybe I don't need to do the big "message by message" version.

Adminnemooseus


Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by Larni, posted 09-14-2011 5:42 AM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded
 Message 268 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-14-2011 8:39 AM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded
 Message 269 by AZPaul3, posted 09-14-2011 8:54 AM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded
 Message 270 by jar, posted 09-14-2011 8:54 AM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded
 Message 273 by RAZD, posted 09-14-2011 1:43 PM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3990
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 267 of 1043 (633451)
09-14-2011 5:42 AM
Reply to: Message 266 by Adminnemooseus
09-14-2011 4:18 AM


Re: Some thoughts on my recent controversial admin actions
I completely agree with your position but your sentencing was a little harsh.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Adminnemooseus, posted 09-14-2011 4:18 AM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 7.3


(3)
Message 268 of 1043 (633468)
09-14-2011 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 266 by Adminnemooseus
09-14-2011 4:18 AM


Re: Some thoughts on my recent controversial admin actions
Well, what is the point of the forum?

Let us suppose that its function is to showcase evolutionist-versus-creationist debate. The problem is that the evolutionists who post here do not (by and large) do so because they feel some sort of obligation to the public to do that. They do so because they find the exercise agreeable and amusing. If they didn't, they wouldn't. To some extent you have to indulge the members, or you won't have any members.

A further problem arises when you try to decide what is good debate. You decided to suspend Coyote from commenting on geology because you didn't like what he said. I, on the other hand, thought that his points were apt. Shouldn't a moderator stick to deciding whether actual rules are broken?

Now I come to think of it, if an evolutionist comes up with a bad argument, does that not in fact gratify the dearest wish of creationists and so conform to your apparent desire to coddle them? If you "need to protect the creationist side", then you should start suspending people for posting arguments that are good.

And in fact you seem to be almost fulfilling this reductio ad absurdum when you write:

The debate works, at least best, when driven by the creationist side input. The creationists make their point(s) and the evolution side does their efforts to show why the creationist side is wrong. [...] This is why I really don't like topics that start of with something like "Hey creationists, how do you explain this?" Then it is the evolutionist side driving the debate, and that just doesn't work well.

Well, again, I'd ask what the forum is for? Are we to display the debate, or just the bits of the debate that creationists feel comfortable talking about? Why would we want to do the latter?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Adminnemooseus, posted 09-14-2011 4:18 AM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

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


Message 269 of 1043 (633471)
09-14-2011 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 266 by Adminnemooseus
09-14-2011 4:18 AM


Re: Some thoughts on my recent controversial admin actions
The evolutionist side needs to play softball rather than hardball, to maintain an ongoing discourse.

Be kind to your creationist.

I can accept this as your motivation, Moose, though I disagree with its reasoning. You are the Admin and so it is.

Two problems with this.

First, if this motivation is the key, with this heavy a penalty, then it should be part of the forum rules. It is not.

Second, that this motivation can just as well be served by posting a banner, like the OFF-TOPIC banner, on the offending post with a 24-hour suspension for repeat offenders.

Not kind to your Creationist!
Continuation will yield a suspension.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Adminnemooseus, posted 09-14-2011 4:18 AM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31612
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 270 of 1043 (633472)
09-14-2011 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 266 by Adminnemooseus
09-14-2011 4:18 AM


Re: Some thoughts on my recent controversial admin actions
Yes, creationists definitely need to be protected and allowed far greater latitude when it comes to attacking the individual instead of the argument and even personal attacks.

I had no problem with your actions.

I do think it was funny that in a thread where the topic was about possible evidence that would support the Biblical account my presentation of just such a possible evidence was one you selected to sanction.

Or maybe you just don't think that the genetic bottleneck signature that would result from an event as described in the two different flood stories would help support the Biblical account.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Adminnemooseus, posted 09-14-2011 4:18 AM Adminnemooseus has not yet 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