Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures (aka 'The Whine List')
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 729 of 1049 (729778)
06-19-2014 12:15 AM
Reply to: Message 728 by Coyote
06-18-2014 11:59 PM


Re: the flood thread
Re: the flood thread
Correction: The "Does oceans of water in mantle rock prove the flood?" thread.
NOT the:
Coyote at message 5 at the "Does oceans of water in mantle rock prove the flood?" topic writes:
What we have instead is evidence of continuity during that time period:
--Continuity of human cultures in all parts of the world
--Continuity of human DNA in all parts of the world, with no break followed by replacement with one narrow DNA strain from the Middle East
--Continuity of stratigraphy, with no evidence of massive flood or erosional deposits
--Continuity of fauna and flora, with no evidence of massive bottlenecks within the last 10,000 or so years.
thread.
Adminnemooseus

Or something like that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 728 by Coyote, posted 06-18-2014 11:59 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 730 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-19-2014 12:55 AM Adminnemooseus has replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 731 of 1049 (729781)
06-19-2014 1:06 AM
Reply to: Message 730 by Dr Adequate
06-19-2014 12:55 AM


Re: Message 22 at "the flood thread"
Re: Message 22
OOPs - You're absolutely correct. Off-topic banner removed.
Possibly of POTM quality. Certainly a "Post of the Topic" quality.
Adminnemooseus

Or something like that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 730 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-19-2014 12:55 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 732 by Faith, posted 06-19-2014 6:09 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 733 of 1049 (730014)
06-23-2014 3:25 AM
Reply to: Message 732 by Faith
06-19-2014 6:09 AM


Re: Faith's message 18 at "the flood thread"
Message 18
I've looked at that message a number of times, including just now, and I'm afraid I just boggled and don't know what to say.
Trying to eliminate the off-topic part, in a concise way what was your essential point in that message? That the water of the flood could have returned to the mantle?
If that is indeed your position (and my previous impression is that it is not), you need to at least propose a mechanism of how the water got down there (but do it at that topic, not here).
Adminnemooseus
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Switch ID's.

Or something like that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 732 by Faith, posted 06-19-2014 6:09 AM Faith has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 744 of 1049 (733906)
07-22-2014 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 743 by New Cat's Eye
07-22-2014 1:41 PM


Getting picked on by a gang
I may well have more to say on other aspects, but right now I felt I must comment on this:
Right, its no surprise that she get's the responses that she does when she behaves the way she does.
It doesn't surprise me that Faith sometimes gets cranky. Imagine yourself (as in any of the evo side) being in a debate in a creationist dominated forum, and you are the one against the many. Even if "the many" go about it nicely (and here, the evo side sometimes does come up short on that), there is a substantial pressure on you, and you'd be liable to get cranky.
One side of the argument being cranky doesn't justify the other side getting cranky. I don't care who started it, you should be nice to your opponent. If you can't be such, maybe you shouldn't be posting that reply.
On a side note, one thing I could try doing, is a hard core enforcement of the forum rules. So, look at your messages and see if you find forum rule violation(s). Ideally, there should be none.
I think the gold standard is how Percy responds. Maybe we should have a WWPD operational philosophy.
"Insert signature here"
Adminnemooseus

Or something like that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 743 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-22-2014 1:41 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 745 by hooah212002, posted 07-22-2014 8:51 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied
 Message 749 by Percy, posted 07-22-2014 9:53 PM Adminnemooseus has seen this message but not replied
 Message 763 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-23-2014 12:21 PM Adminnemooseus has seen this message but not replied
 Message 765 by ringo, posted 07-23-2014 1:01 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 772 of 1049 (750437)
02-15-2015 8:51 PM


A topic that's no place for a creationist???
I off-topic bannered a message at the "Earth science curriculum tailored to fit wavering fundamentalists" topic, and suggested an alternate topic for the material.
I've come to wonder if some of the other subsequent messages there a also off-topic.
It strikes me, that the nature of the topic precludes creationist input. Any creationist sided input would be inherently off-topic.
Comments?
Adminnemooseus

Or something like that.

Replies to this message:
 Message 773 by RAZD, posted 02-15-2015 9:09 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied
 Message 774 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 02-17-2015 10:44 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 797 of 1049 (757946)
05-16-2015 7:28 PM


Admin's heavy moderation of certain topics
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?
On the flip side, in the more distant past, I've also sometimes noticed admins moderating via their non-admin ID's.
Comments?
Adminnemooseus

Or something like that.

Replies to this message:
 Message 798 by Omnivorous, posted 05-16-2015 10:25 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied
 Message 802 by Admin, posted 05-17-2015 8:51 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied
 Message 804 by Faith, posted 05-19-2015 6:00 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


(3)
Message 811 of 1049 (761496)
07-01-2015 10:43 PM


The suspension message etc.
From Suspensions and Bannings Part III, Message 221:
The "little red dot" suspension message:
Her first topic was spammish but relevant to this forums interests. Now there is a second similar topic. And now she has a banner graphic signature, promoting and linking to the second topics video. Things are just getting too spammy. 24 hr suspension - Time for the various admins to evaluate these topics legitimacy (OSLT) - Adminnemooseus
Adminnemooseus
Added by edit: I've now zapped all those spammy signatures, and the shut signature off. Any discussion of this suspension and other actions should to to General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures (aka 'The Whine List').
The first sentence of her first message:
I could have permanently suspended her and exiled the topic to the hidden "Spam Topics" forum right at that point.
But I thought "Even though the topic is spammy, it is a subject related to the interests of this forum". Perhaps I should have put that comment into the approval message, or perhaps into a pre-approval reply. Regardless, I promoted the topic. And I was rather supportive to her efforts (see here).
But Then I saw that she now had a banner ad, complete with link, as her signature (alas I didn't save a copy). This really crossed the line into "signature spammer" (getting your link exposure to enhance the search engine ranking).
But I guess I pretty much said all the in the above quoted suspension message.
Adminnemooseus

Or something like that.

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 819 of 1049 (762103)
07-09-2015 3:02 AM
Reply to: Message 818 by Rrhain
07-09-2015 2:30 AM


Re: Moose, you know better
Epub 2011 Jan 20
Apparently as least some of your references were published online. Being that this is an online forum, is it asking too much that you give links to the online versions???
But she's the one making the claim. She's the one who needs to justify her claim.
You were also making your own claims, without supplying reference(s).
Look, even if one is not doubting the accuracy of your information, one might still be interested in looking at the source material that backs up your information.
Not every last detail calls for a reference. But if it is a major point on your part (as this was), it does call for a reference. If you tap an online source for your information, give us a link to that source.
Adminnemooseus

Or something like that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 818 by Rrhain, posted 07-09-2015 2:30 AM Rrhain has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 820 by RAZD, posted 07-09-2015 8:12 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied
 Message 822 by RAZD, posted 07-14-2015 2:13 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 823 of 1049 (768030)
09-04-2015 8:19 PM


From the "Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0" topic
From Message 385
quote:
{Non-topic material hidden - Adminnemooseus}
A cheer for the invisible unicorn. Which, to my mind, was both a witty and appropriate response to Faith. I don't see how making that point in that way (maybe too subtle? But that's the intellectual charm) could be considered violating forum rules. I'm sure she saw, and appreciated, both the humor and the point even in disagreement. She's a big girl and has the grit and the sense of humor. Both of which marc appears to lack.
While we (Minnemooseus et all) of the evolution side do find creationism (and especially YEC) to be silly, repeatedly replying with such things as the "almost fell off my unicorn" graphic is no way to carry on a debate. Coyote could also back off on using his collection of favorite Heinlein quotations as replies.
Replies welcome. This topic is the place, not at the "Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0" topic.
Adminnemooseus

Or something like that.

Replies to this message:
 Message 824 by Coyote, posted 09-04-2015 8:25 PM Adminnemooseus has replied
 Message 826 by Admin, posted 09-05-2015 8:58 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 825 of 1049 (768034)
09-04-2015 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 824 by Coyote
09-04-2015 8:25 PM


Re: From the "Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0" topic
At some point all you can do is laugh.
Then you need to keep your laughter to yourself, and not post it as messages. I know I do such (although it's probably more a sigh or a groan), as probably do many other members here.
Adminnemooseus

Or something like that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 824 by Coyote, posted 09-04-2015 8:25 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 827 by ringo, posted 09-05-2015 12:01 PM Adminnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 829 of 1049 (772698)
11-17-2015 6:49 PM


Faith 1 month suspension discussion elsewhere
There has been some discussion of Faith's current 1 month suspension, starting here.
The Public Record suspension announcement is here.
Adminnemooseus
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add 2nd sentence.

Or something like that.

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


(2)
Message 858 of 1049 (804556)
04-11-2017 2:20 AM


From "The Nonsense of Revelation 13 Economics" topic
From here:
Adminnemooseus writes:
Please clarify what you mean by the terms "*******", "********", and "*********".
Or are they just indicators that you are a wacko and your message(s) should be cast into the garbage heap?
Go ahead, in this case, reply to this message to clarify your topic position.
Adminnemooseus
Response from here:
Davidjay writes:
Calling me a wacko, is surely not an appropriate way of getting me to tell you who ******** and ****** represent. Besides its on my weebsite if you really want to research it and get into greater detail.
I obviously didn;t tell you because all you need to know was already present and explained.
If you have a real question concerning the topic, to consider asking it more politely.
Thanks
David
Considering that your participation at this forum much rests in my opinion of you, you might have responded to the polite (I said "Please") request of sentence one.
Instead, you gave me an implied "Yes" to the question of sentence two.
Adminnemooseus

Or something like that.

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


(1)
Message 867 of 1049 (807286)
05-02-2017 12:09 AM
Reply to: Message 866 by Coyote
05-01-2017 11:59 PM


Re: To Moose
My recent Davidjay permanent suspension was, for a here lack of a better term, rejected by Admin as not being appropriate because proper procedure was not followed.
I therefore have abdicated most all responsibility for Davidjay control to Admin.
There is, of course, that "don't feed the troll" concept. If the various members don't think a Davidjay message is worthy of a reply, maybe they shouldn't reply.
I think his messages do a pretty good job of displaying that Davidjay is a wackjob's wackjob.
See signature.
Adminnemooseus

Or something like that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 866 by Coyote, posted 05-01-2017 11:59 PM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


(4)
Message 891 of 1049 (811723)
06-11-2017 5:31 AM
Reply to: Message 885 by Tangle
06-10-2017 4:00 PM


Try to make the behavior nature distinct
First of all, the damn asterisks are purely Davidjay's creation.
Can I suggest that a little self-moderation is in order? Why respond to his garbage? Wouldn't we be better ignoring all the bollox and only responding when he says something that has actual content?
I could give you a POTM for that statement, but I'm not going to.
I absolutely agree with the above quoted. And I would ask that when another member does respond to a Davidjay message, s/he do it with high quality, snark free text.
As I see it, it becomes much harder for an admin to come down on a Davidjay's bad behavior, when the others are blurring the distinction line by posting dubious quality of their own.
It's hard to come down on a jerk, when the replier(s) are also being jerks. I guess I could do a suspension over a jerk posting, and also suspend any other members posting like reply messages.
See signature.
Adminnemooseus

Or something like that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 885 by Tangle, posted 06-10-2017 4:00 PM Tangle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 892 by Adminnemooseus, posted 06-11-2017 7:10 AM Adminnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 892 of 1049 (811725)
06-11-2017 7:10 AM
Reply to: Message 891 by Adminnemooseus
06-11-2017 5:31 AM


Re: Try to make the behavior nature distinct
It's hard to come down on a jerk, when the replier(s) are also being jerks.
I add, when you feed a troll, your may be becoming one with the troll. If such is the case, the admins might be justified in doing a troll mass suspension.
Adminnemooseus

Or something like that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 891 by Adminnemooseus, posted 06-11-2017 5:31 AM Adminnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024