|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consequtive Consecution Sequel | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
AdminChristian didn't mention such, but there was a fair amount of discussion on the matter, in the Private Administration Forum (PAF).
Members of the creationism side can be under a lot of pressure here at . There are a lot more of the evolution side, and they do pile on. It's understandable, if not totally excusable, that the "piled on" might sometimes react badly to it all. Especially if one or more members of the evo side is contributing their own variety of abrasiveness. I would suggest to those of the creationist side, that they choose there battles carefully, and not try to respond to every evo challage in every topic. The Randman perspective is part of one side of the debate. It may or may not be a quality part, but it still is part. Moderation efforts can be tough and messy. My personal impression is that Randman deserved the suspension, but it is OK for him to come back. Probably there will be more suspensions and comeback in the future. By the way, even now the PAF discussion on the matter continues. Adminnemooseus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
Re: http://EvC Forum: How do we know about natural selection? (Igor and Lithodid-Man only) -->EvC Forum: How do we know about natural selection? (Igor and Lithodid-Man only)
Topic title: How do we know about natural selection? (Igor and Lithodid-Man only)
Crashfrog's message at that topic Isn't the "(Igor and Lithodid-Man only)" part a pretty good clue that you shouldn't be posting there, even if you somehow don't notice the "The Great Debate" at the All Topic page? Sheesh, open your eyes. Adminnemooseus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
It is not a "Coffee House" type topic.
It is a "Dates and Dating" type topic. I say it stays where it is. Adminnemooseus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
First of all, I'll point out (as being discussed in the "Private Administration Forum") that "relative" is apparently another incarnation of "simple", who is currently of "full suspension" status. Thus his very presence here is highly problimatic. Do you want to do a "Great Debate" with "simple"?
Is the topic in questions some sort of "creation with apparent age" sort of thing? If so, perhaps the topic belongs in one of the "Social and Religious Issues" forums. Adminnemooseus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
I've just rebumped the YEC Age of Earth question (false appearance of age?) topic. That topic would seem to fit the needs.
I'll also quote something from my message 195 of this topic:
First of all, I'll point out (as being discussed in the "Private Administration Forum") that "relative" is apparently another incarnation of "simple", who is currently of "full suspension" status. Thus his very presence here is highly problimatic. You are trying to debate something with one of 's problem members. Adminnemooseus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
My impression is that the topic is a disaster area. Certainly, the quality or lack there of, of my message 1 may be a primary cause of such.
The topic could have gone into the "In The News" forum, but I deliberately avoided such because I really don't like the existance of that forum. I was about to change my topic destination suggestion from "Intelligent Design" to "Education and Creation/Evolution", but the topic was already promoted. As I envisioned the topic, it was one of a class happening at a (Ivy league no less) college. I guess I also envisioned it as being a topic of very limited discussion potential, but I did think the situation did meret a mention. What I didn't want, was for it to turn into a general purpose ID debate topic, which is what (IMO) happened. Via the lack of participation in the topic by either the non-admin or admin modes, the topic got way out of hand. Thus I ended up killing it at a later than desirable stage. Possible solutions: 1) One of the other admins can reopen the topic, if they think it is justified. 2) An importent theme can be pulled from the topic, to be used as a message 1 of a new Proposed New Topic. 3) We can just let the whole thing stop where it currently is. Adminnemooseus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
I, at least for now, would prefer to not discuss the details of this situation, other than in the "Private Administration Forum". I suspect the other admins feel the same.
Right now, the membership should be aware that to debate with Simple/Relative is to debate with someone who has a substantial history of being a forum problem. If you now find Simple/Relative to be a problem, then just don't get involved with debating him. Or something like that. Adminnemooseus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
There has been some discussion (here and up thread) that member brianforbes is another incarnation of member simple. After investigations by our crack "tracking simple" staff, it has been concluded that there is stong evidence to support that such is not the case.
Despite whatever posting style simularities that may exist, the conclusion is that brianforbes IS NOT simple. This message should conclude any discussion of that matter. Adminnemooseus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
My judgement: What a whiner.
Please take any replies to the message to the "General..." topic, which most conveniently happens to be this very topic. So reply to this message. Adminnemooseus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
AdminNWR writes: The problem was with using "a classic example of a blind, unfaltering, dogmatic mindset" in that nomination message. If, instead, it had said "a clear expression of a creationist viewpoint" there would have been no criticism. While that would have made the situation stand out less, I don't think it is really a significant change. I don't think (and of course this means IMO) the nominated material is of POTM quality. I would have never thought "Post of the Month" (POTM) when seeing it. The nomination pretty much seems to be a pot shot at Iano; Like I said before, close to if not a forum rule violation. Perhaps the nominating message would have been better as just a reply at the topic itself, rather than ending up in the POTM topic. The most important reason for my commenting on it is that I thought it, at best, a dubious example of what a POTM nomination should be. If it went uncommented on by an admin, it probably would have led to even more dubious POTM nominations (that "more dubious" is intended as referring to quantity, although it could also be interpreted as referring to quality). People - If you feel the urge to make a POTM nonination of that nature, think about it carefully. It may well not really be a good idea. Also, remember that the a POTM topic is not only not a place to debate the nominated message/topic itself, it is also not a place to debate the merets of the POTM nominations. Even if you think such, let it pass. Adminnemooseus Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Added the "(This all is about a POTM nomination)", which actually gives some meaning and vulue to the subtitle. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Replaced "It pretty..." with "The nomination pretty..." to make clear I was referring to the nomination message and not the nominated message.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
I'm not Percy/Admin, but I am the next longest term admin at .
I agree with AdminJar's reasons for closing the topic in question. I also agree with Crashfrog's comments of message 301. My impression is that you are now being nothing much more than a royal pain in the ass. Drop it and get over it. Everyone else also drop it. This part 6 of the "General discussion of moderation procedures" has passed 300 messages and will now be closed. The new next version is General discussion of moderation procedures - Part 7. The various admins need to update their "signatures" yet again. Adminnemooseus
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024