|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures (aka 'The Whine List') | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Dogmafood writes: ...but there are others here who routinely show an equivalent lack of respect for the rules, perhaps more eloquently but just the same. A lot of it goes by because most of us agree with them. I agree. I wish we did a better job of moderating those we agree with. That's why we keep trying to recruit creationist moderators, mostly unsuccessfully. I chose a permanent suspension for AE because I wasn't aware of any indications of recent interest in discussion of creation/evolution. He seemed to have dropped completely into troll mode. If I'm wrong about that I can shorten the suspension. This is as good a place as any to mention that I plan to remove the ability of suspended and/or inactive members to vote for messages, and I'll be removing all votes by AE and FEY at the same time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
When Artemis Entreri sees a position he doesn't like he makes it his business to make discussion as difficult as he can, for example:
He escaped moderator attention because the behavior was primarily in Coffee House threads, but I did notice some of it and posted moderator requests and warnings, and it appeared to me that they were ignored. Unaware of AE's constructive participation in religious threads, when he exhibited the same behavior in a science thread my course was clear and I permanently suspended him. Members must understand that ignoring moderation is not without consequence. EvC Forum is not here so that those who feel like it can launch into extended fits of pique. But if Artemis Etreri wants to reach out to me through PM and can succeed in assuring me that he will no longer be a nuisance but will instead, within the limits of reason and human nature, be a constructive force for informed discussion then I will reverse his suspension immediately. May as well mention ForEverYoung, too. Independent of whether or not the 1 month suspension was deserved, I think he needed the break, so I'm not going to shorten it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
I haven't done a thorough search, but it seems that Artemis Entreri has been jeering every post of mine he can find (a total of 133 as of a couple days ago and 269 as of today) but he hasn't jeered my Message 570 where I said this:
Percy in Message 570 writes: But if Artemis Etreri wants to reach out to me through PM and can succeed in assuring me that he will no longer be a nuisance but will instead, within the limits of reason and human nature, be a constructive force for informed discussion then I will reverse his suspension immediately. So either he liked that message or he hasn't seen it yet. In case it's the latter, and since I've received no PM from AE, I'm posting that paragraph again. AbE: Cheers/Jeers for messages older than 90 days don't count toward a member's rating. So AE, if you're out there, that should save you some time. Edited by Admin, : AbE
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
I didn't notice the move to Free For All. Could you and a couple other participants chime in as to whether they'd prefer moderation or not?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
Buzsaw writes: Admin has posted that in order for me to get re-instated in the Science forum I must do a thread on the nature of evidence. This I have done. What on Earth gave you that idea? Your thread is still in Proposed New Topics: The Nature Of Evidence You proposed your thread at 8 PM one evening, and Adminnemooseus promoted it 11 minutes later. Since the requirement came from me it would have been preferable if I had had a chance to review it first. The thread quickly descended into babel and I returned it to Proposed New Topics the next day. The goal is for you to reach sufficient consensus with other members about the nature of scientific evidence that your participation in threads no longer causes them to descend into a back-and-forth of claims from you that you've submitted evidence and counter-claims from everyone else claiming you haven't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
Hi PD,
Thanks for the clarifications, let me try and put a little finer point on it. I'm not really trying to get Buz to understand the nature of scientific evidence. All I want is for him to reach sufficient consensus with others so that debate won't descend into the same repetitive back and forth about whether he's provided evidence or not. In particular I want to avoid this type of exchange:
And so on. Science threads in which Buz participates now see endless repetitions like this. As I've said nearly since the beginning of this forum, those who turn threads into discussion of the same topic will be restricted to a single thread for discussing that topic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
Hi Hooah, welcome back!
I have no PM's from you, and if it was email then I don't recall any (I'm on vacation, the email archive is at home), or maybe they got caught up in the spam filter. I lobbied on your belief in the moderator forum, but you have apparently seriously pissed off both Adminnemooseus and AdminPD. They wouldn't back off one iota, in fact argued you deserved worse. There's a thread enumerating your crimes. I was unable to make any headway. I understand you're a determined "I just gotta be me" kinda guy, but that has consequences, so surely what happened to you wasn't a "one off" thing for you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
"Crimes" was supposed to be humor through exaggeration.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
Chaoticskunk writes: look I understand this is a private site and the Admin can do what they want to... This isn't any more a private site than Facebook. Anyone can join. EvC Forum is a moderated debate site, but moderators cannot do what they want. The Forum Guidelines are their guide. If you haven't read them already they're worth a read - there's only 10 short rules. There's also a set of Moderator Guidelines that moderators use to help them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Hi ThinAirDesigns,
I can't explain the suspension, Adminnemooseus will have to do that, but I can answer your technical questions and respond to your comments.
ThinAirDesigns writes: First, it's y'all site and you can ban me for chewing gum as I type and you are within your rights. I accept that. If we became perceived as trigger happy on the enforcement side then I think we would have failed in our mission. The goal is to encourage discussion, not stifle it.
1: What's a "little red dot suspension"? Click on this link for an example: Am5n. If you click on the little red suspension dot you'll see the suspension message I added when I suspended Am5n:
quote: Next question:
2: Inside that admin message Message 219 is what appears to be a quoted section (when you peek, is accompanied by the quote codes.). Inside that quoted section appears (among other things) the words "You're supposed to be the smart one." Where are those words quoted from? Obviously it wasn't obvious, but they're words Adminnemooseus intended for you in his suspension message.
So, I like your site and I find the general level of moderation here to be productive,.. Gee, thanks! We try, but we're just people. In my nearly 15 years here I've had more than my share of "Doh!" moments, as both participant and moderator.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Marc9000 pops in every now and then to toss a couple grenades. In response I posted my Message 161 as just a general reminder to remain focused on the topic (in other words, to ignore him), but only after a couple replies to Marc had been posted, including yours. Again, I can't know what issue Adminnemooseus took with your message. He tends to work the night shift, he'll probably be on-line later.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
ThinAirDesigns writes: Wow. Just wow. My reaction also. I've sent AdminModulous an inquiry.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
NoNukes writes: But your current rule... This isn't some new rule of convenience. Longtimers will likely recall that I have many times over the years said things like, "EvC Forum exists to examine creation science's claim that it is every bit as much science as all the other scientific fields." I've also said things like, "The Bible can be a source of ideas and inspiration but is not, in and of itself, evidence." Being scientific in the science forums is just a part of staying on-topic. To this end it would be perfectly fine for a creationist to say, "I know there was a Flood because the Bible says so, but now I will present the scientific evidence that the Flood really happened." But it would catch the attention of moderators for a creationist to say, "I know there was a Flood because the Bible says so, and any evidence you have that says otherwise is wrong." When Faith begins letting references to Bible topics creep into her posts then she's usually headed in the direction of that latter creationist position. We've seen a number of recent examples, so I'm trying to address the possibility early. In the science forums members are requested to support positions with facts rather than Bible-based claims. Those who wish to take a Bible-based approach to evidence are encouraged to use the Theological Creationism and ID forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Adminnemooseus writes: I thinking specifically of Evidence that the Great Unconformity did not Form Before the Strata above it, but there is at least one other. At the cited topic, there are currently 1739 messages, of which 174 are from Admin. He is third on the post number list. While Admin's effort is impressive, my impression is that he is more doing debate under the Admin ID, than just moderating. Looking at the bulk of the Admin messages content, would they have seemed improper had they come from the Percy ID, or another non-admin member? It surprised me, too, that in the end I posted so many messages. My goal was to bring side issues that were threatening to push the main topic aside to a quick conclusion. Horizontality is one example, dropstones are another. I believed that a couple or few exchanges between me and Faith would bring these side issues to a close so that discussion of the main topic could continue. The physical impossibility of Faith's misconception of how the real world works seemed fairly obvious and easy to resolve. But that turned out not to be the case. Faith would try ignoring me, so I would post the information again. And again. When she did deign to respond and argue for her positions I worked hard to find new and more effective arguments. When that didn't work I asked Faith to postpone arguing for positions for which she didn't yet have evidence, but this would work for only a short while, and then the process would start again. At what point should I have given up? I don't know, but it would seem a bad precedent to allow members to nullify moderation simply by drawing out an exchange and making moderators post too much. Right now, as far as moderation goes, I'm looking at the Great Unconformity thread not as a failure but not as a success either. I did learn some things. I do think that moderator intervention to try to bring a side issue to a quick conclusion is a good idea, but that if that doesn't work after a short while that the moderator should rule on the side issue, holding that for that thread the side issue should be considered resolved in the direction he chooses, and that those who would like to continue discussing the side issue should propose a new thread or find an appropriate existing thread.
On the flip side, in the more distant past, I've also sometimes noticed admins moderating via their non-admin ID's. The Moderator Guidelines discourage moderators from moderating in the same thread where they're participating:
Looking at this now it feels like it should be phrased more strongly. Sometimes when I'm in a heated discussion as Percy a member will say something like, "I guess you'll ban me now," and I always respond that as a participant in the thread I cannot moderate. Participating in threads as a normal member when people know you're also a moderator is a mixed bag. It feels like some members treat you normally, others treat you with deference, others seem to have a bit of paranoia, and yet others like to test the boundaries.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
NoNukes writes: However telling people not to bring up Bible topics is hardly the same thing as your long standing rule against using the Bible to support a scientific argument.... I don't expect you to acknowledge that you crossed the line with your warning. It's pretty clear that we can continue to discuss things like how many allele's can be present in a species if the Bible is correct in an appropriate thread in the scientific forum, regardless of what you recently posted. Yes, of course discussion like that is fine. I wasn't adding a new rule to the Forum Guidelines. The request to avoid Bible topics was for that thread only because for that topic I know where Faith is going when she begins mentioning the Flood and so forth. I was laying the groundwork for requesting that Faith avoid saying things like, (paraphrasing of course) "We know the Flood created a genetic bottleneck..." so that she could instead concentrate on her *evidence* for a genetic bottleneck.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024