But the board will no longer be entertaining member/moderator discussion threads. The moderation threads are clear evidence that it rarely resolves anything, and it turns moderators into targets.
percy, you and i both know that it does resolve things, as long as discussion is kept civil. in this particular instance, it may have been a disaster, but i do not feel that this poisons the whole well. transparency in moderation and communications with the moderation are good steps towards ensuring the site is run fairly.
i regret that you feel it made the moderators targets. unfortunately, moderators will always be targets. it's the nature of the job -- and addressing those concerns openly and publicly is the best course of action. at worst, it turns into too much debate (which can be answered with suspensions). at best, it allows the public to see things from the moderators' perspectives.
Things are simpler now. I've removed those who I felt were the most divisive elements and also those who requested it.
this is a debate site, not an "everybody feel good about themselves" site. debate is divisive, by definition. you cannot have debate without divisions. i'll back you 100% banning the people who simply refuse to follow the rules, or appear incapable of understanding the rules. but i cannot fathom how we can ban people simple for being "divisive" on a debate forum. i cannot support these actions.
For those of you for whom the changes and suspensions are truly unendurable then there are other alternative than just excoriating me, which won't do anything except make me feel bad.
the ironic thing is that all you have done is make yourself a target, and a rather easy one. banning people for no good reason just breeds contempt for the moderation -- you. i'm not trying to make you feel bad, i'm trying to convince you that this is not a good idea. whatever problems you saw with the board before, this is far far worse. it's pretty clear that everyone who has spoken about this so far rather strongly disagrees with what has taken place.
will your only course of action be to ban all of us?
I am resolved to stay the course I have chosen.
this is probably a poor choice of words. look how well "stay the course" has worked for the people that popularized the phrase.
I've done nothing to you, and the Internet is a big place with many other sites.
percy, you're killing a community that i enjoy being part of. it may not call me names or break my bones or pick my pocket, but it is a loss that i feel strongly about. you've banned people i enjoyed debating with (and against), and people who contributed a wealth of knowledge to this site. we are all lesser people for it.
Actually, I indefinitely suspended him twice. In the order I read his posts in two different threads, I came across a post requesting suspension, so I did, then as I read on I saw he'd posted an equivocation, so I remove the suspension, then as I read on he requested it again, so I did, and then someone, GDR I think, talked him out of it and he changed his mind, so I again removed it.
So Nem was suspended twice as much as anyone else! :D
i don't want to see anyone banned, even those who request it out of frustration or desires for martyrdom. i can understand banning people for certain things, but this is not what i would consider reasonable.
I've read all your recent posts, and I understand and appreciate your position. If you want to discuss the changes then I'm here, but I'm staying the course I've chosen, so the course you've chosen of focusing on the decision itself will not elicit any responses.
what do you expect me to do? i see a good many members are banned, and i can see no good or justifiable reason for it. i have never known you to behave this way. at least with faith, there was some argument back and forth, some possible justification in sight. but this is completely uncharacteristic of you, and what this site represents. at least what i thought it did anyways.
my choices, it seems, are:
sit down and shuttup and compromise my principles
speak up and try to get things fixed at the risk of being banned myself
martyr myself like ringo
what do suppose is the best course of action here? this is not a position i particularly enjoy, and i am supremely saddened by the losses this site has endured for reasons you have not adequately explained.
I'll do the adminning comeback (and other comments)
If Moose (Minnemooseus) is willing and interested I'd like him to return as moderator.
My previous message on the adminning situation is here. I'll quote the whole thing:
Adminnemooseus, from another topic, writes:
Subtitle: The situation is complex, but a few brief random comments
In the beginning evcforum was a place to discuss science. There were relatively small numbers of messages per day.
Things diversified to include such as the "Coffee House" and the various theological forums. Active topics per day and messages per day went way up.
During all this we had a number of admins doing an uneven job of covering things. That was all we could practically do. Being moderators wasn't that we were getting paid to work hard and cover every thing. And we pretty much operated in isolation of each other. You had to call them as you saw them, without the luxury of much consultation with the other admins.
Ideally, the membership should strive to be self moderating. But instead, we had too many members wanting to push the fringes of the guidelines and in general be uncooperative jerks.
I think many members think that being in the forum and posting messages is some sort of right and privilege. It's not. We are all merely guests at Percy's place.
I think one major problem is that the "General Discussion of Moderation Procedures" topics got way out of hand. Ideally, a member could post an issue there (as in, one message), and the various admins could consider the matter. But it got to be to much of a debate topic itself.
I think the various admins were too slow to issue suspensions. It should be, you knowingly do violations, or in general be a jerk, you get a suspension. No endless warnings which don't seem to work very well anyway. The forum moderation system should not attempt to be some sort of finely tuned legal system with all kinds of due process. Make it "behave or suffer the consequences".
In short, Percy/Admin has simplified the moderation system. For him, a kind of a "My way or the highway" system.
Please note the Admin quote at the end of my "signature".
Or something like that.
Instead of trying to tweak the old system, I think it's best to (more or less) throw it out and start over. Maybe not unlike what should be done with the U.S. tax code.
Per the "General Discussion of Moderation Procedutes" topics. I think I was the one who created that topic title. I think such discussion is interesting and good, but it got way out of hand.
Admin is to be credited in that he has begun to overhaul a site that was getting out of hand. He's doing what he considers to be what is needed.
We all have our opinions about what should or shouldn't be done and no doubt he's listening. He will likely go with some of them and not others.
Let's do our best to help him make it work. I see some changes that look promising and productive to the site. Perhaps it will all work out for the good of all.
I see Faith is logged in. (Hi Faith. You're not forgotten!) Perhaps sometime in the future some of our absentees will be back. Perhaps not. We Biblicalists can pray confidently that God's will be done, whether we or the others remain or go. I pray regularly for what's best for EvC, whether or not the answer ultimately includes my own participation. :cool:
BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
I just want to throw my two cents worth in which is probably valued at zero.
In my house I make the rules.
This is your house you should make the rules. Post them for us to go by. Put the guys in the striped suits to enforce your rules. They call the fowl play and administer the penalty. You can review the play call and make your judgment. If you think the mod was over stepping your rules you could make corrections. If the mod was too lenient you could increase the penalty. The mods should have a way of reporting to you that is not visible on the site. If I have a complaint I should have a way to communicate that complaint without anyone knowing what it is.
That seems to work pretty well for the NFL.
Percy I do not envy you your job of trying to bring order to your house. From everything I read it is going to be a monumental job.
I will also praise you for not doing what I would have done in the case of some of those that are questioning your decision.
Stay the course.
"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
Problem post reports / Moderation actions questions
Don't get me wrong. I'm pretty much in alignment with Admins ideas.
Upon further thought, maybe two topics are the way to go:
The "Message Report" topic. To include guidelines in message 1. Each issue would be two parts - 1) The members report - 2) The admin(s) response(s). - END OF DISCUSSION.
The "Moderation Action" topic. As above - 1) A member question or comment - 2) The admin(s) response(s). - END OF DISCUSSION.
Perhaps both topics should be restricted to having only one admin response per. If needed, the admins could consult in the "Private Administration Forum" before that one message is issued.
It might actually end up being a better discussion - One quality message, one quality response, no clutter.
Certainly members can also e-mail admins to discuss things further. But I don't offhand see an alternative to something along the lines of the above, that won't end up turning into the messes of the various "General Discussion..." topics.
Let me state up front: I have absolutely NO issues with, nor do I take exception to, the changes in board administration and moderation. There were clearly problems with the extant system that needed to be addressed, as epitomized by that horrible homosexuality thread and subsequent moderator-bashing. With the re-instatement of Moose and Nosy to the administration team, coupled with your explanations of what it is you are trying to accomplish with the changes, I think I can see (dimly) what you intend. I can also see the potential good, assuming things work out.
However, what upset me greatly, and continues to upset me, were the pogrom-level mass banishments and subsequent self-immolation (by some) in reaction. I find it incredibly difficult to believe that many of those requesting suspension would have suicided if you had merely announced your intention (for the moderation changes) in advance. An explanation, similar to what you later posted, would likely have done the trick. Brenna and jar are the two that come to mind as examples of apparently random suspensions. Brenna, especially, merely had the temerity to offer help and sympathy. I have no idea what jar did - I assume there was something "behind the scenes" to which the rest of us were not privy. In short, I find myself uncomfortably close to where arach sits (see his post #36). Call me a wimp if you wish, but I literally felt significant trepidation about posting anything, to any thread following this extinction sweep. I still do.
For what it's worth, then, I echo arach's (and Granny's) request that you reconsider the decision on any indefinite suspensions that followed in the immediate wake of the changes you instituted. Including, obviously, an amnesty for those whose knee-jerk reaction to the initial suspensions was to request their own. Many of these were by long-term, exceptional members of this forum. Future suspensions, of course, are fully justified in any case where the individual attempts to obstruct or undermine the board direction.