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

Would you like to give a fuller, more accurate summary?

You don't want to say anything about evidence? Anyway, you apparently haven't forgotten evidence was the issue because you continue: The goal of an evidence thread is to reach a consensus about the nature of valid evidence of real events.Edited by Admin, : Grammar.

Just found a Dave Barry column that concludes with the dart idea: Sticking it to bad driversCouldn't find any appropriate images. Found a lot of images of Dodge Darts.

Hello everyone!Because he has not responded to posts here as he usually, does, I think Adminnemooseus must be off enjoying the holiday. I can't know for certain what Adminnemooseus would have done were he here, but unsuspending Jar seems like a likely possibility, so in his absence I have rescinded Jar's suspension.Jar and Coyote have no restrictions on their participation in the Potential Evidence for a Global Flood thread.For Jar I'd like to suggest clicking on the "-" dislike button in place of at least some one-liner replies.Concerning being on-topic in this thread, I don't think Adminnemooseus and I are in agreement, but I don't think unanimity amongst moderators can always be expected. Coyote's Message 138 did fail to address any of JBR's points, and he did repeat points he has made many times in the past, but on the other hand the thread's topic is about evidence for the flood, none of JBR's points were evidence for the flood, and I do think Coyote's message was on-topic.To this moderator JBR's points appeared to be criticisms of widely accepted views within geology containing no positive evidence for the flood. They also appeared to be unattributed rephrasings from creationist websites, not cut-n-pastes, but not exactly his own words, either. This moderator believes that responding to JBR's points would risk diverting the thread's topic to a defense of modern geological views instead of an examination of flood evidence, but I'm a participant in that thread, not a moderator (except when it comes to IamJoseph, who I'd been following around from one science thread to the next asking him to stop arguing the Bible and start arguing the science).I don't know that there's a best response to JBR's points. Some replied with circumspection, asking him if there is any point in particular he'd like to focus on. Others replied by trying to identify specifics of the flood viewpoint, like when it happened. Others replied by pointing out that JBR had not actually offered any positive evidence for the flood. These all seem to have potential as possibly fruitful directions for discussion.

As long as you've made it less politically incorrect to say something nice about Moose, let me add that in addition to his moderator responsibilities, the amount of work he does behind the scenes is prodigious and valuable, plus the feedback and suggestions he provides about board behavior is remarkably insightful.Glad to hear things seem to have taken a turn for the better for you.

I am, as we speak, automating summation mode. A thread in summation mode will only allow a participant one additional message, and it must be a General Reply, not a reply to a specific message.I'm also implementing access restrictions for threads. Right now member permissions can be controlled only at the forum level. The new capability will allow participation in individual threads to be controlled in one of two ways:

• Participant List: Only members on the participant list can post.
  ​
• Non-participant List: Members on the non-participant list cannot post.

Any thread will be able to have a participant list or a non-participant list, but not both. Moderators will always be able to post or reply to any thread or message, unless the thread is closed.Comments, suggestions welcome.

Adminnemooseus is usually responsive to requests for clemency or commutation, and as he hasn't responded I assume he's tied up or is busy with real life. I've restored Hooah's permissions.

We had a shorter discussion about this than I expected, but the end result is that I guess this thread would be fine.--Percy

Starting around 13 hears ago the site, then at Yahoo, had a member named Larry Handlin. His member ID is 3. Larry was a great help in moderating the site, and I valued his judgement. Then in early 2002 I responded to one of his posts as moderator, and for the most part we haven't heard from Larry since.Whatever the specifics in this case, I do know that discussion boards are notorious for dustups. Moderators for the most part do the best they can and hope it turns out well. There is often no obvious way to tell if a chosen approach will work or not. Hurt feelings and worse are not uncommon.I'll miss Moose, I hope he returns.

See Fossil Dating: Creation Vs Evolution: Buzsaw & PaulK and What Constitutes By Definition, Evidence Of Supernatural Phenomena .

I believe what people are saying about Artemis Entreri, and I can only guess that he's avoided suspension this long by concentrating on Coffee House threads where moderators spend little time. I think AE has adequate warning now, and if it happens again please call it to the attention of moderators by posting to Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0.Edited by Admin, : Specify correct thread.

Hi EH!I think you were ruled off-topic because the post you were replying to was ruled off-topic. You say the OP (Opening Post) mentions Josh McDowell, but it doesn't. The first mention of Josh McDowell is the post you replied to, Message 12.But some clarification from AdminPD for what it is about suggesting historicity as a criterion for judging superiority of a canon would probably be helpful.

Hi All,I'm replying to AdminPD's message because I see it picked up a couple of jeers and so I'm wondering if there's something we're missing. It looks to me that AdminPD had a pretty good handle on the topic, that the topic is about comparing different Christian canons. It is not about comparing the Christian canon or a part of the Christian canon like the NT to non-Christian ancient documents.If some would prefer to discuss the historicity of the Christian canon relative to non-Christian documents then just propose a new thread over at Proposed New Topics.But if there's something about the thread that moderators are missing then please bring it to our attention by posting a message - we can't tell anything from a jeer.

Sorry if your message was incorrectly caught up in the sweep. You're certainly free to discuss the use of historical analysis for comparing Biblical canons.Edited by Admin, : Change author.

Just for future reference, the gracious response after a concession of possible error would be, "Thanks. Maybe my message wasn't as unambiguous as it could have been."