Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8897 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-19-2019 3:49 AM
133 online now:
CosmicChimp, Tangle (2 members, 131 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,449 Year: 3,486/19,786 Month: 481/1,087 Week: 71/212 Day: 1/31 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
161718
19
2021Next
Author Topic:   General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consequtive Consecution
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 51 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 271 of 302 (282211)
01-28-2006 4:57 PM


ray's ad hominem remarks
hey admins, not to respond to an offtopic post, but this is the place to report such a thing and request moderator action -- even if it is two posts above in the very same thread.

why is ray allowed to call me "an uneducated juvenile" and a "hillbilly" and a "drop-out?" i mean, granted, i think it's pretty funny: of all the people complain about grammar and punctuation, it's the vice-president on the international beaurocracy of strange phrases himself.

i don't think we should have "Admins coddling this drop-out" that can't even take a joke. :D

This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 01-28-2006 04:58 PM


אָרַח

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by Admin, posted 01-28-2006 5:12 PM arachnophilia has responded

Admin
Director
Posts: 12578
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 272 of 302 (282212)
01-28-2006 5:00 PM


Reminder
This thread is for discussing moderator actions and procedures. It is not a place for members to discuss their differences with each other.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by arachnophilia, posted 01-28-2006 5:05 PM Admin has responded

  
wj
Inactive Member


Message 273 of 302 (282213)
01-28-2006 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by Cold Foreign Object
01-28-2006 2:19 PM


Re: Plargiarism Charge
I agree that it is a mild accusation of plagiarism, although it could also contemplate the use of the board member's own words from another area or work and therefore not be a charge of plagiarism at all. However the main point by crashfrog is that the response did not answer the original question.

I suggest Herepton grow up rather than run off to moderation for such minor slights.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-28-2006 2:19 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 51 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 274 of 302 (282215)
01-28-2006 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by Admin
01-28-2006 5:00 PM


Re: Reminder
This thread is for discussing moderator actions and procedures. It is not a place for members to discuss their differences with each other.

question. where and how do we request moderation action then?


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by Admin, posted 01-28-2006 5:00 PM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by Admin, posted 01-28-2006 5:15 PM arachnophilia has not yet responded

Admin
Director
Posts: 12578
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 275 of 302 (282216)
01-28-2006 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by arachnophilia
01-28-2006 4:57 PM


Re: ray's ad hominem remarks
Rays remarks and conduct are so outlandish that there seems little fear that anyone would take them seriously. My own opinion is that those who engage with known loons shouldn't request help from moderators if the loon turns on them. Moderators have no special talent for talking sense into the irrational.

Moderators are not all of one mind when it comes to people like Ray. I would prefer that those like him be permanently suspended, and that was actually our approach for a while, but the reality is that once you start enforcing reasonable standards of decorum then suddenly there's no Ray, no Randman, no Faith, and no discussion. I couldn't even guess why the opponents of evolution are such a volatile group (not all or even most, of course, but far too many of the most active), but that's the reality.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by arachnophilia, posted 01-28-2006 4:57 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by arachnophilia, posted 01-28-2006 5:19 PM Admin has not yet responded
 Message 279 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-28-2006 5:44 PM Admin has not yet responded
 Message 288 by randman, posted 01-29-2006 6:22 PM Admin has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12578
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 276 of 302 (282217)
01-28-2006 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by arachnophilia
01-28-2006 5:05 PM


Re: Reminder
hillbilly writes:

This thread is for discussing moderator actions and procedures. It is not a place for members to discuss their differences with each other.

question. where and how do we request moderation action then?

Here is fine. Just don't get into a discussion here with the person your complaint is about. Interaction here is with moderators, not with other members.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by arachnophilia, posted 01-28-2006 5:05 PM arachnophilia has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 51 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 277 of 302 (282219)
01-28-2006 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by Admin
01-28-2006 5:12 PM


Re: ray's ad hominem remarks
Rays remarks and conduct are so outlandish that there seems little fear that anyone would take them seriously. My own opinion is that those who engage with known loons shouldn't request help from moderators if the loon turns on them. Moderators have no special talent for talking sense into the irrational.

oh, i know. i was more making a response for ray that was sure to go way over his head -- he's requesting moderator action for such a trivial misunderstanding and percieved attack. whereas he really did attack me, but i found it funny. so the whole thing is really meant to be ironic. sorry for wasting space, but this whole thing is really just that: a waste of space.

suspend me if you like. :P

Moderators are not all of one mind when it comes to people like Ray. I would prefer that those like him be permanently suspended, and that was actually our approach for a while, but the reality is that once you start enforcing reasonable standards of decorum then suddenly there's no Ray, no Randman, no Faith, and no discussion.

well, as you know, i personally have argued on the behalf of randman, faith, and buzsaw before when they were either banned, or being considered for a banning (thanklessly, i might add). i argued, specifically, for a double standard as a form of affirmitive action. so don't take my complaint too seriously.

I couldn't even guess why the opponents of evolution are such a volatile group (not all or even most, of course, but far too many of the most active), but that's the reality.

i could forward a few reasons, but they'd all come of as ad hominems and i'd be suspended by my own double standard.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Admin, posted 01-28-2006 5:12 PM Admin has not yet responded

AdminBuzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 278 of 302 (282221)
01-28-2006 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by crashfrog
01-28-2006 4:44 PM


Re: Plargiarism Charge
crashfrog writes:

You have not been accused of plagarism, and this attempt and distraction and diversion is both reprehensible and futile.

I've reveiwed the links here and here's what I've observed:

1. Herepton did answer your question, whether you liked the answer or not. Perhaps you could have presented your response to his answer in a less inflamitory manner so as not to have kindled this fire.

2. One coming upon the your charge that this was a cut and paste non answer might easily see it as implying a charge of plagarism since this can be a legitimate complaint when in fact someone else's work is being copied.

3. It has been implied by some comments of others that whether the quote is Herepton's is questionable, i.e. from one of Herepton's mystery papers. I assume Herepton is claiming it as his own. If that is the case, he should be given the benefit of the doubt until proven wrong.

4. Both Herepton and some of his counterparts here should use less inflamitory words in discussing this matter. To quote Solomon, "A soft answer turns away wrath."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by crashfrog, posted 01-28-2006 4:44 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by crashfrog, posted 01-28-2006 6:42 PM AdminBuzsaw has responded

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1121 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 279 of 302 (282226)
01-28-2006 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by Admin
01-28-2006 5:12 PM


Re: ray's ad hominem remarks in response to Arach's
Rays remarks and conduct are so outlandish that there seems little fear that anyone would take them seriously.

You have made an honest mistake.

Unless of course you are going to rely on the Emperor's New Clothes metaphor.

My own opinion is that those who engage with known loons shouldn't request help from moderators if the loon turns on them. Moderators have no special talent for talking sense into the irrational.

Both Creationists and Darwinists know the other is a loon. I thought we were supposed to not admit for getting along purposes ?

Moderators are not all of one mind when it comes to people like Ray. I would prefer that those like him be permanently suspended

All you, as Site Owner, have to do, is tell me or ask me to not post and I will suspend myself forever. I do not want to be where I am not wanted.

I will acknowledge the fact that I was not singled out in the context above.

Ray

This message has been edited by Herepton, 01-28-2006 03:38 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Admin, posted 01-28-2006 5:12 PM Admin has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 280 of 302 (282237)
01-28-2006 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by AdminBuzsaw
01-28-2006 5:23 PM


Re: Plargiarism Charge
Herepton did answer your question

Not in any meaninful way. Maybe you and I have two different ideas of what it means to answer a question, but when I ask "Why is the sky blue?" and the response is "Two o'trout, hand me a piano", I don't consider that an answer.

Ray's response was equally nonsense, equally a non-sequiter. He did not answer the question.

Both Herepton and some of his counterparts here should use less inflamitory words in discussing this matter. To quote Solomon, "A soft answer turns away wrath."

I'm content to address other members in the manner that they address me. This is my well-known mode of operation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by AdminBuzsaw, posted 01-28-2006 5:23 PM AdminBuzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by AdminBuzsaw, posted 01-28-2006 7:10 PM crashfrog has responded

AdminBuzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 281 of 302 (282244)
01-28-2006 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by randman
01-28-2006 3:18 AM


Re: nosey's attack
Randman writes:

I say, and justly so.

Rev, respond to the facts presented or shut the heck up.

What's wrong with that?

Hi Randman. Imo, we of the ideological minority viewpoint and as ones who tend toward Biblical fundamentals need especially to work towards gentleness and kindness in our posting conduct. Meekness is not weakness, but goes a long ways towards keeping the peace and defusing hostility. If anyone should spearhead this attitude, it should be us. I'm working at it and respectfully advise you to diligently work towards a less inflamitory approach as well.

Whether or not you see NosyNed as showing bias, imo, you have no beef here. You need to save the beef for something more substantial. You're a valuable asset to the minority viewpoint at EvC! Pay close heed to suggestions, admonitions and advice of admins so as to afford yourself a lasting and pleasant experience here and to continue to bless the board with your knowledge relative to the minority views which we share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by randman, posted 01-28-2006 3:18 AM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by randman, posted 01-29-2006 6:26 PM AdminBuzsaw has not yet responded

AdminBuzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 282 of 302 (282248)
01-28-2006 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by crashfrog
01-28-2006 6:42 PM


Re: Plargiarism Charge
crashfrog writes:

Not in any meaninful way. Maybe you and I have two different ideas of what it means to answer a question, .....

We all have our own evaluation of how substantial an answer is. My point is that you did get an answer which was substantially more than, "Two o'trout, hand me a piano." You need to be reasonable, Crash, and work a little harder towards reconcilliation yourself.

crashfrog writes:

I'm content to address other members in the manner that they address me. This is my well-known mode of operation.

No. That's not how the Forum Guidelines work. Someone else's conduct is no justification for mine or yours. Someone needs to defuse hostility before it flares. If we all work at that, we'll all be blessed for it. :cool:


This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by crashfrog, posted 01-28-2006 6:42 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by crashfrog, posted 01-28-2006 7:28 PM AdminBuzsaw has responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 283 of 302 (282249)
01-28-2006 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 282 by AdminBuzsaw
01-28-2006 7:10 PM


Re: Plargiarism Charge
My point is that you did get an answer which was substantially more than, "Two o'trout, hand me a piano."

I'm sorry, but I simply couldn't make heads or tails of Ray's response to me. If you believe that his response was substantial, then perhaps you'd like to drop into that thread and explain it to little ol' me.

No. That's not how the Forum Guidelines work.

Let me rephrase; short of violations of the guidelines, I'm content to respond in kind. It's generally the only way people understand; by tailoring your responses to their unique perspective.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by AdminBuzsaw, posted 01-28-2006 7:10 PM AdminBuzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by AdminBuzsaw, posted 01-28-2006 11:00 PM crashfrog has responded

AdminBuzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 284 of 302 (282262)
01-28-2006 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 283 by crashfrog
01-28-2006 7:28 PM


Re: Plargiarism Charge
crashfrog writes:

I'm sorry, but I simply couldn't make heads or tails of Ray's response to me. If you believe that his response was substantial, then perhaps you'd like to drop into that thread and explain it to little ol' me.

I didn't say it was substantial enough to suit you. I said it was an answer which was more substantial than "Two o'trout, hand me a piano."

Ray's answer:

Herepton writes:

Because genuine non-Darwinian macroevolution is a fact within kinds.
These large populations have never been breached. Darwinists come along and assert their macro must be true based upon whatever degree of micro occurring within the kind.

What is your evidence (other than an atheistic need) as to how the barrier is breached ? Answer: the entirely assumed and made up god called Random Mutation.

Here are some macro-kinds: mankind, birds, quadrupeds, and reptiles.

1. Perhaps your response could be to offer your evidence for breaching of the barrier in small populations so as to state your answer to Herepton's question and to attempt a refute to his implication that macroevolution is non-existent.

2. Herepton's third paragraph should have been stated in a less inflamitory manner.

crashfrog writes:

Let me rephrase; short of violations of the guidelines, I'm content to respond in kind. It's generally the only way people understand; by tailoring your responses to their unique perspective.

Fine. I have no problem with that. The more we all work at keeping the peace the happier we all are.

This message has been edited by buzsaw, 01-28-2006 11:01 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by crashfrog, posted 01-28-2006 7:28 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by crashfrog, posted 01-29-2006 1:07 PM AdminBuzsaw has responded

Silent H
Member (Idle past 3893 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 285 of 302 (282276)
01-29-2006 5:32 AM
Reply to: Message 261 by AdminNWR
01-28-2006 12:22 PM


for those who feel immoderate behavior
You are not on any such list that I know about.

Heheheh... it was metaphorical, not literal.

Pretense of their objectivity to the contrary, it is pretty clear I am on a personal list of such nature with more than one mod around here. And I know at least one has not been happy with me from years before you got here.

I'm not happy with the recent violations of forum guideline 10 by... well this isn't the point. Like I said to rand (which is why I said it), sometimes its liberating once it is all out in the open and one knows where one stands. You either get comfortable posting with no expectations of anything substantial from moderation, or leave.

It beats trying to explain something repeatedly, or complain repeatedly, which only brings everyone down. For those who feel put upon by mods, rightly or wrongly (and sometimes a mix of both), its easier and healthier to just ignore them. Otherwise one is (if correct) simply feeding an abuser.

Not wanting to discuss anything in this further. Just clarifying what I meant, especially as a suggestion for those that might feel the same.


holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by AdminNWR, posted 01-28-2006 12:22 PM AdminNWR has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
161718
19
2021Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019