General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consequtive Consecution Sequel

This is fascinating. The current moderator sensitivity to name calling is due to the past battles of participants concerning breeches of Rule #10: Before it seemed that moderator intervention came after tempers flared and discussion spiraled. It is very difficult dealing with posters who are venting all over the place (we aren't counselors) and oozing into other threads. When it reaches this level suspension is our virtual bucket of water.So we decided to try and catch things before they escalate. In this case a 24 hour Timeout is appropriate. (Not sure what timeframe was issued for nwr)Now when I read Message 86 by ThingsChange I saw the sparks starting. I thought about saying something, but I didn't think nwr would go the next step, unfortunately he did. As you notice the discussion now starts to become personal and not really about the subject anymore.

quote:

---

I suggest participants and moderators all grow thicker skins and some mature tolerance.

---

It isn't so much about growing thicker skin or tolerance, but how to deal with the frustration with those who mutilate what their opponents are saying. People get upset about being misquoted, taken out of context, etc., and frustration can lead to name calling. Then the battle begins.So do we give a Timeout to the spark and the flame?Not sure if misquoting is in breech of Rule #8 or not. Bottomline: We won't be able to please everyone.

The "Morality and Subjectivity" topic was placed in the science fora because it isn't looking at religious basis for morals. It is supposedly looking at logical grounds concerning morals.

Robin's the originator. Discuss it with him. He hasn't complained about where it was placed. If he wishes to have it moved, I will move it.

quote:

---

Critical to answering that question, though, is an analysis of the relationship of Christianity and the state in times past. Isn't it?

---

There is a difference between analyzing the relationship of Christianity and the state in history and trying to correct Faith's view of history.I understand using history to support your view of a Christian State today, but I don't want the thread to melt into a debate with Faith on whose history is right.See the difference?

Hey Schraf,The posts are not removed and weren't being censored. They were simply made invisible for a short duration to deter that line of off topic discussion.A warning was given in Message 19 of that thread.I explained what I did in Message 37 and I explained that visibility would be restored after the discussion had moved forward.I will be restoring visibility today and each post will be marked as off topic.

With a warning, I think it is a good way to break tunnel vision.

quote:

---

Perhaps if you are going to do this sort of thing in the future, including a note that if one wants to view the post, all they have to do is "peek"?

---

If I had planned on leaving them permanently invisible, I would; but I will keep that in mind if I need to follow through with the threat again.Maybe in the explanation post I could mention the peek option with a warning not to respond.

Unfortunately as a Hoosier, the terms Ranger and Celt and the colors used by iano don't mean anything to me in a postive or negative sense.In the original analogy I read it as an attempt to make the parable more real for you with something you are familiar with. Given two sides, I read it as he made you a Celt for the purpose of the story, not calling you one personally. He seemed to be trying to connect the relationship between the Jews and the Samaritans with something you apparently are familiar with today. His analogy doesn't mean anything to me because I obviously don't understand the relationship between Rangers and Celts.I'm sorry you were offended by his words and that I don't have the knowledge to deal with it appropriately. But if the terms were used as a negative tactic, they should not be used as such in the future.An admin with more knowledge of the Rangers and Celts would be more suited to decide if action is required concerning the posts in question. (Message 81 and Message 86)

I've already apologized to Trixie for my lack of knowledge which prevents me from understanding how this belittles Trixie.Another admin will have to decide if action is required.Sorry.

I've commited no wrong against you, so I suggest you not take out your frustration with iano on me.

You're welcome.Now you know what types of characters to avoid in your analogies.I'm sure you noticed that offense was also taken with your characterization of the Orthodox Jews.
You should also avoid those types of characterizations in the future.Thanks for your cooperation.This situation is now concluded and not open to any more discussion.

This situation is now concluded and not open to any more discussion.

quote:

---

What sort of answer is that?

---

It is an answer designed to tell you that this situation which concerned actual participants of the thread is now concluded and not open to any more discussion.But since you can't seem to let sleeping dogs lie, here it is.I consider this thread to be for those within a thread to address moderator actions within that thread or to bring attention to problems within that thread.I don't feel it is a thread for the general membership to give their opinions on complaints or moderation procedures in threads they are not participating in unless outside input is requested.Since you aren't a participant in the thread in question and no moderation action was taken against you by me (no wrong committed against you), your insults to me were unjustified. Whatever your reasons for jumping into the dispute, I did not deserve your rude response.I addressed your racist concern in Message 178 to iano in which I also stated that
This situation is now concluded and not open to any more discussion.In conclusion:This situation is now concluded and not open to any more discussion.

​

Do Not Respond To This Message

It looks like it would be an interesting discussion.Hopefully the originator does continue to participate.

Brennakimi,Are you still interested in this topic being promoted whether the originator returns to participate in the thread or not?

There is no relevance Trixie,As you can see we've had trouble keeping what should be an academic discussion, on track.Unfortunately the Admin actions take up posts also.Common courtesy would include not posting if one truly doesn't wish to discuss in the spirit the originator intended and to backoff when requested to stay on topic by the thread originator or an Admin.All we can do is request that people discuss or debate in the spirit intended and not go on crusades.Hopefully that thread can continue in an academic style discussion without further waste.