You have created what is essentially a "you and any admin" "Suggestions and Questions" topic.
I agree with what AdminNWR said in message 2.
I'll here quote Admin, from
message 10 of the
Change in Moderation? topic (the original "General discussion of moderation procedures" topic):
Admin writes:
Michael Schrage writes the
In the Weeds column at MIT's
Technology Review magazine. This month's column is titled
Flaming Ideas, and it begins like this:
You are a fool. You are a moron. Nothing you write is worth reading. Please go away and contemplate just how stupid you really are.
Thats neither my opinion of Technology Reviews readers nor the feedback I get from writing these columns. But those comments fairly represent the disgraceful level of discourse at such online publications as salon.com, slate.msn.com, and nytimes.com. Talk about lucrative opportunities missed. Talk about failed innovation. Talk about misunderstanding a medium.
He also goes on to say something that I used to often repeat at our old site over at Yahoo. I somehow left the true path, but Mr. Schrage recalls me to it and says it much better:
Anyone schooled in economics is familiar with Greshams Law: bad money drives out good. Well, indifferent moderating invites a Greshams Law of Online Interaction: idiotic postings drive away contributors who have something interesting to say.
To an important extent it comes down to what people would like out of this site. The contributions of Ten-sai aka Zephan aka Back in Black aka Apple Toast, and those of Jet, and those of some other like-minded contributors, made for some very interesting and fun times, but productive? Informative? I don't think so. I think we might be better off to confine such styles to the Free For All forum.
There's another category of poster who is polite, or at least mostly polite, and sincere, but nearly impossible to have a productive discussion with, and for a wide variety of reasons. Sometimes it's because they know nothing but concede nothing. Sometimes it's because they have trouble with logic or simple concepts. Sometimes it's because they avoid key issues. Sometimes it's because they seem purposefully vague or obcurantist. There are no simple rules for successfully dealing with these types of contributors, but I'm sure I speak for all EvC Forum moderators when I say that we are committed to being fair to all members while keeping in mind that pleasing everyone is never possible and that you can't throw out standards in the interest of fairness. The
Forum Guidelines I hope represent a good basis upon which to work, and we'll continue to refine them.
So this message represents a sort of call to arms to all EvC Forum members, both present and future, to rededicate themselves to the interests of fair, open and honest debate such as will lead to enlightenment instead of obfuscation and partnership rather than antagonism.
Somewhere else, there was some discussion between Admin and myself, concerning the toleration of 'loony' creationist positions. The question was, "Are we actually being biased AGAINST the creationist side by not taking moderation actions against the creationist 'loony fringe'"?
Adminnemooseus
Im giving you another week to rephrase this topic in a manner that does not catagorize or insult the very "loons" that we are trying to gather!
™ Version 4.2