Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-21-2019 4:46 AM
15 online now:
Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK (2 members, 13 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 849,955 Year: 4,992/19,786 Month: 1,114/873 Week: 10/460 Day: 10/91 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
21NextFF
Author Topic:   General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consequtive Consecution Sequel
AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 302 (284745)
02-07-2006 7:36 PM


This is the place to comment on moderation procedures.

Added by edit by Adminnemooseus - The following are the previous "General discussion of moderation procedures" topics, in order or origin:

Change in Moderation?
General discussion of moderation procedures
General discussion of moderation procedures: The Sequel
General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consecution
General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consequtive Consecution


Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by Rob, posted 06-04-2006 5:51 PM AdminJar has not yet responded

SuperNintendo Chalmers
Member (Idle past 3940 days)
Posts: 772
From: Bartlett, IL, USA
Joined: 12-27-2005


Message 2 of 302 (286994)
02-15-2006 3:04 PM


no more funny links
I assume that we aren't supposed to post funny links, just for kicks in the coffee house. (I probably should read the board rules more closely :D)

I'll refrain from doing so in the future.

Lata

{This message is in reference to Vicious god quiz and other hilarities!. There I said that the topic should have gone to the "Links and Information" forum, or perhaps the "Proposed New Topics" forum. Upon further thought, the message probably should have gone to some already existing topic, be it "L&I" or perhaps one of the existing "Coffee House" humor topics. As it is a pretty minor item, being a new topic is just adding clutter. - Adminnemooseus}

This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 02-15-2006 03:14 PM


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Adminnemooseus, posted 02-15-2006 3:17 PM SuperNintendo Chalmers has not yet responded
 Message 4 by AdminNWR, posted 02-15-2006 3:19 PM SuperNintendo Chalmers has responded

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


Message 3 of 302 (287000)
02-15-2006 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by SuperNintendo Chalmers
02-15-2006 3:04 PM


Re: no more funny links
I added the relevant link to the previous message. I then ended up adding further comments on the matter. Perhaps these further comments should have been in this message, but instead I'll flag them via this message.

Adminnemooseus

{Edited to yet once again change ID.}

This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 02-15-2006 03:18 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 02-15-2006 3:04 PM SuperNintendo Chalmers has not yet responded

  
AdminNWR
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 302 (287001)
02-15-2006 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by SuperNintendo Chalmers
02-15-2006 3:04 PM


Re: no more funny links
I assume that we aren't supposed to post funny links, just for kicks in the coffee house.

In some cases, posting to Humor Strikes back might be appropriate. Creating a new thread for a "funny link" is usually inappropriate.


To comment on moderation procedures or respond to admin messages:
  • Discussion of moderation procedures
  • Comments on promotions of Proposed New Topics
  • Thread Reopen Requests
  • Great Debate proposals

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 2 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 02-15-2006 3:04 PM SuperNintendo Chalmers has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 5 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 02-15-2006 3:41 PM AdminNWR has not yet responded

    SuperNintendo Chalmers
    Member (Idle past 3940 days)
    Posts: 772
    From: Bartlett, IL, USA
    Joined: 12-27-2005


    Message 5 of 302 (287017)
    02-15-2006 3:41 PM
    Reply to: Message 4 by AdminNWR
    02-15-2006 3:19 PM


    Re: no more funny links
    Thanks moose and NWR. I'll stick to the humor threads in the future.

    I figured you guys weren't totally against some comedy!

    :D:D:D:D:D


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 4 by AdminNWR, posted 02-15-2006 3:19 PM AdminNWR has not yet responded

    Jazzns
    Member (Idle past 2018 days)
    Posts: 2657
    From: A Better America
    Joined: 07-23-2004


    Message 6 of 302 (287094)
    02-15-2006 6:14 PM


    will Evopeach ever cross the line?
    I am all for the whole affirmative action for creos on this board but seriously...

    Evopeach writes:

    Dear egomaniac and immature bloviator,

    Message 186


    Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
    SuperNintendo Chalmers
    Member (Idle past 3940 days)
    Posts: 772
    From: Bartlett, IL, USA
    Joined: 12-27-2005


    Message 7 of 302 (288655)
    02-20-2006 11:41 AM


    Suggestion for Buzsaw
    Buzsaw, I have to say I've been impressed by your moderation so far.

    I have a small suggestion: I find it very useful when the admins include the admin thread links in their signatures. It makes it very easy to jump to the appropriate thread if one wishes to respond to the admin action. I think it really helps keep responses to admins in the appropriate place.

    One more thing, I'll try to be a little more gentle in my chiding of Randman. I may be in the minority, but I do find his posts interesting on philosophical subjects even if I disagree with him. I am trying to dissuade him gently from spending so much time attacking the biases/belief/etc. of scientists (at least it's a huge waste of time, IMO). I think if we could just get Randman to ease up on the conspiracy theory stuff it would greatly improve the board.

    Keep up the great work as an admin. I hope this doesn't sound condescending (because it isn't meant to be, and I certainly don't claim to be a quality poster).... but I think your admin status has also improved the quality of your non-admin posts.

    Cheers


    Replies to this message:
     Message 11 by Buzsaw, posted 02-21-2006 11:47 PM SuperNintendo Chalmers has not yet responded

    jar
    Member
    Posts: 30935
    From: Texas!!
    Joined: 04-20-2004


    Message 8 of 302 (289356)
    02-21-2006 7:53 PM


    Question for AdminBuz
    This is related to Message 49

    Well AdminBuz, if you will note that post was from 4 months ago. In adition, to say his post was CRAP was the kindest shading I could put on his contributions at EvC. I did not attack him, only the content of his messages. Further, AdminNosy went on in the next message to say

    I don't think he's worth responding to and don't believe he has enough understanding of any form of reasoning to get it anyway. So I don't bother to post anything.

    so I stopped responding to him.

    Please point out where I did not follow both the forum guidelines and also Admin directions?


    Aslan is not a Tame Lion
    Replies to this message:
     Message 9 by arachnophilia, posted 02-21-2006 8:02 PM jar has not yet responded
     Message 10 by AdminBuzsaw, posted 02-21-2006 11:37 PM jar has not yet responded

    arachnophilia
    Member (Idle past 84 days)
    Posts: 9069
    From: god's waiting room
    Joined: 05-21-2004


    Message 9 of 302 (289360)
    02-21-2006 8:02 PM
    Reply to: Message 8 by jar
    02-21-2006 7:53 PM


    Re: Question for AdminBuz
    while the crackdown on worthlessly short and non-contributing posts has been kind of recent, this point is still wrong:

    In adition, to say his post was CRAP was the kindest shading I could put on his contributions at EvC.

    the kindest shading you could put on his contribution was a polite, and well-thought-out refutation of his points, "crap" though they may be. "crap!" is an opinion, and a personal one. unless you can actually SUPPORT that assertion, there is no point in posting it.

    and buz, that post was a bit old -- there is little sense derailing a thread that is currently going quite smoothly by catching an admin issue that should have been caught months ago.


    אָרַח

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 8 by jar, posted 02-21-2006 7:53 PM jar has not yet responded

    AdminBuzsaw
    Inactive Member


    Message 10 of 302 (289400)
    02-21-2006 11:37 PM
    Reply to: Message 8 by jar
    02-21-2006 7:53 PM


    Re: Question for AdminBuz
    Jar writes:

    Well AdminBuz, if you will note that post was from 4 months ago.

    Yes Jar, I see that now. I had forgotten the thread was old and neglected to note the date, thinking it was a fresh thread. My bad and I apologize for that. After this I'll make a point to make sure what my moderating is on fresh stuff.

    Jar writes:

    In adition, to say his post was CRAP was the kindest shading I could put on his contributions at EvC. I did not attack him, only the content of his messages. Further, AdminNosy went on in the next message to say

    I don't think he's worth responding to and don't believe he has enough understanding of any form of reasoning to get it anyway. So I don't bother to post anything.

    so I stopped responding to him.

    Please point out where I did not follow both the forum guidelines and also Admin directions?

    1. Jar, tell that to Randman, who would have never gotten by with such a post. It was clearly not the kindest shading you could have put on it, no matter what AdminNosy said about the new member. (That matter has been addressed in the Private Admin forum, so I'll not address it here.) According to the guidelines, it was your duty to either state why you thought the information to which you were referring was crap (imo, a kinder and better word would be false}. This was a new member, and we all should be especially hospitable to new legit members. Your post was a violation of these points of Forum Guidelines, #4 and #10:

    #4: Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. ...............

    #10: Always treat other members with respect. .............


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 8 by jar, posted 02-21-2006 7:53 PM jar has not yet responded

    Buzsaw
    Inactive Member


    Message 11 of 302 (289404)
    02-21-2006 11:47 PM
    Reply to: Message 7 by SuperNintendo Chalmers
    02-20-2006 11:41 AM


    Re: Suggestion for Buzsaw
    Thanks for the kind and encouraging remarks, SuperN. Thanks also for the suggestion. It's a good one. As for your last comment, should we all then become moderators so as to spiff up our performance? ;)


    BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 7 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 02-20-2006 11:41 AM SuperNintendo Chalmers has not yet responded

    FliesOnly
    Member (Idle past 2251 days)
    Posts: 797
    From: Michigan
    Joined: 12-01-2003


    Message 12 of 302 (291832)
    03-03-2006 1:34 PM


    Unfair to Crashfrog?
    AdminJar:

    Why is it that Tal can spout his garbage, such as:

    Tal writes:

    You and Crash simply are not intellectually honest.

    Nattering nabobs of nonconsequentiality.

    but if Crash calls him a liar and a probably a disgrace to the uniform he gets suspended? I'm not saying Crashfrog was right in saying what he said (but hey, the truth can hurt sometimes)...but Tal does this all the time and gets nothing. Seems a bit one sided to me, espsecially if you follow the sequence of events that led to Crashfrogs more than justified response (IMHO) and the fact that it took place took place in "Coffee House".
    Replies to this message:
     Message 13 by Admin, posted 03-03-2006 2:03 PM FliesOnly has not yet responded

    Admin
    Director
    Posts: 12589
    From: EvC Forum
    Joined: 06-14-2002
    Member Rating: 3.4


    Message 13 of 302 (291839)
    03-03-2006 2:03 PM
    Reply to: Message 12 by FliesOnly
    03-03-2006 1:34 PM


    Re: Unfair to Crashfrog?
    I haven't even looked in on the thread (you provided no link), so this is uninformed feedback.

    Crash's posts range from the trivial, the off-topic and the inappriately acerbic to the brilliant. My guess is that he's paying for past sins. There's a style of posting that when occasional often goes unnoticed, but when a habit can't be ignored.

    I don't know how often Tal questions people's honesty and integrity - I've never engaged in discussion with him, nor have I read any of his posts since his Greetings from the Sandbox. thread on New Year's day of 2005. I'm guessing he doesn't often participate in science discussions. Moderators are not all of one mind on honesty and integrity issues. While I consider questioning someone's honesty and integrity as a serious violation of the "respect for others" guideline, not all moderators agree.

    There's also the other issue that, for whatever reason, the creationist and conservative Christianity participants (speaking of them generally as a group and not saying this applies to every individual) take a much more liberal and, shall we say, free-spirited interpretation of the Forum Guidelines, and behavioral improvements do not seem to follow from any moderator requests or from moderator actions such as restrictions, suspensions and bannings. Enforcing the Forum Guidelines fairly and equally for both evolutionists and creationists quickly diminishes the ranks of creationists, which puts a crimp on discussion. And so there's a strong tendency on the part of moderators to give the creationists freer rein.


    --Percy
    EvC Forum Director

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 12 by FliesOnly, posted 03-03-2006 1:34 PM FliesOnly has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 14 by Dan Carroll, posted 03-03-2006 2:50 PM Admin has responded
     Message 16 by crashfrog, posted 03-05-2006 10:06 AM Admin has not yet responded

      
    Dan Carroll
    Inactive Member


    Message 14 of 302 (291851)
    03-03-2006 2:50 PM
    Reply to: Message 13 by Admin
    03-03-2006 2:03 PM


    Re: Unfair to Crashfrog?
    I don't know how often Tal questions people's honesty and integrity

    It might be worth checking out the two times he's done it today.

    One.

    Two.

    In neither case did Tal explain why he accused his opponent of dishonesty; he just tossed it out as an insult. In Tal's most recent post in each thread, the accusation of dishonesty was the only thing said.

    If Crash is being suspended for a pattern of posts which "range from the trivial, the off-topic and the inappropriately acerbic to the brilliant," shouldn't Tal receive the same treatment for posts that range only from the trivial to the off-topic and inappropriately acerbic?

    And so there's a strong tendency on the part of moderators to give the creationists freer rein.

    Neither argument has anything to do with evolution or Creationism. They are political arguments.


    "We had survived to turn on the History Channel
    And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied:
    You're what happens when two substances collide
    And by all accounts you really should have died."
    -Andrew Bird
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 13 by Admin, posted 03-03-2006 2:03 PM Admin has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 15 by Admin, posted 03-04-2006 10:44 AM Dan Carroll has not yet responded

    Admin
    Director
    Posts: 12589
    From: EvC Forum
    Joined: 06-14-2002
    Member Rating: 3.4


    Message 15 of 302 (292068)
    03-04-2006 10:44 AM
    Reply to: Message 14 by Dan Carroll
    03-03-2006 2:50 PM


    Re: Unfair to Crashfrog?
    Hi Dan,

    I've looked at the two Tal posts you provided links for, and I looked at Crash's post.

    To me, Tal seems to be exhibiting a common human failing, an inability to comprehend how someone could examine the same data yet reach a different conclusion. We often see the same thing on the evolution side when someone says, for example, "While rank and file creationists can't be faulted for believing that evolution violates the laws of thermodynamics, leading creationists like Duane Gish and others, know better and are lying." We can't understand how anyone with a university education and a PhD and technical papers to his credit could misunderstand something so simple (for science-minded people), so they must be lying or dishonest.

    Everyone draws the line between the obvious and the non-obvious at different points, so there will often be disagreement about which matters are ambiguous. But we each experience it very personally when someone crosses our own line, and it feels like someone is treating us with a serious amount of disrespect. I think Tal truly can't comprehend how someone informed and knowledgable could disagree with something that seems so obvious to him, and so he believes that they're not honestly evaluating the evidence. His posts do violate the guidelines, but I can't equate his careless jaywalking to Crash's purposeful three car pileup.

    Speaking of Crash, I interpreted his post as one of his normal "Okay, so I get suspended for a day, so what" posts.


    --Percy
    EvC Forum Director

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 14 by Dan Carroll, posted 03-03-2006 2:50 PM Dan Carroll has not yet responded

      
    1
    23456
    ...
    21NextFF
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019