General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 11.0

Admin writes:It really helps moderators figure out if a topic is disintegrating because of general misbehavior versus someone in particular if the originally non-misbehaving members kept it that way. When everyone is prickly and argumentative and off-topic and personal then it's just too difficult to tell. We have neither infinite time to untie the Gordian knot, nor the wisdom of Solomon.There used to be a comedian who presented his ideas for a better world, and one of them was to arm everyone on the highway with little rubber dart guns. Every time you see a driver doing something stupid, you fire a little dart at his car. When a state trooper sees someone driving down the highway with a bunch of darts all over his car he pulls him over for being an idiot.Please make it easy to tell you apart from the idiots. Source

Admin writes:I don't know why this thread is still closed. Closing the moderation discussion thread for short periods I can see, though it wouldn't be something I'd recommend, but I definitely feel uncomfortable having it closed for extended periods. Opening this up again.

Rrhain writes:But you're being disingenuous. Phat didn't suspend me. Minnemooseus did. And he did so not because I commenting about the gripe between n_j and berberry. He did it because I was questioning the suspension of berberry.And on top of that, he did it for a post that was made BEFORE HE MADE HIS DIRECTIVE.My post was #110. Adminimooseus' post was #111.And thus, it is clear that he suspended me not for violating any forum guidelines but specifically because he was mad.

Adminnemooseus, in message 115, writes:NOW, SHOULDN'T THIS WHOLE NJ/BERBERRY THING BE LAID TO REST, ONCE AND FOR ALL? That is why I gave the topic the "short closure". So everyone would see and heed my message 111.

Adminnemooseus, in message 111, writes:Message subtitle --> Once and for all, let's wrap up this homophobe substringIt's been beaten to death and has taken up far to much space in the "General Discussion..." topics.Is seems to me that Nemesis_juggernaut has proven himself to be a homophobic twit, or something like that. Others seem to want to just keep on blathering on about it.Drop it now! Maybe I'll start suspending (24 hours?) anyone and everyone who won't.Or at least rationally discuss it at the Immorality of Homosexuality topic.

Admin, in message 112, writes:I don't what it is about this issue that is causing so many to decide to to take determined and rather impulsive stances, but I'll repeat what I said earlier. If you're posting to this thread only to register your dissatisfaction with moderation on this matter, a single post will do.And if you'd like to engage in a dialog with moderators to gain insight into the rationale behind any actions, and to help moderators explore other possible avenues, then that's great.But if the only outcome acceptable to you is a concession by moderators that you re right and they're wrong while declaiming the actions you disapproved of and while working against any constructive exploration of issues, then you're running seriously afoul of the Forum Guidelines and you have to stop.Also realize that this isn't a proxy thread for rehasing the issues of some other discussion.I hope Adminnemooseus reopens this thread soon. Once it is open again, please lets place discussion here on a constructive footing.

But here's the thing: I didn't violate the warning. Post 116 was not, as you claim, about "THIS WHOLE NJ/BERBERRY THING."

And he is. For you to call him "she" and then say that somehow you are doing this "for her own good" (that somehow you know what berberry will regret) is an example of both sexism and homophobia. I made a suggestion to you previously, Percy. Let me try to convince you of it:

What on earth makes you think that berberry or Dan or I are behaving in an "impulsive" manner?

Everybody can clearly see that n_j directly and specifically insults gays. Dan Carroll pipes up with a perfectly reasonable response (have the admins tell n_j to stop being an ass).......and he gets banned for it.

However I disagree that the earth sciences should be held to a different standard than all others.

Adminnemooseus writes:In general, I find a lot of the evolution side presenting information and/or making assertions without including any references. Doesn't this fall under either plagiarism and/or unsupported assertions?I'm trying to hold the evolution side to the standards that the evolution side sure seems to like to hold the creation side to.

My main point is that the insinuation that The Matt is guilty of plagiarizing is flat out wrong.

Adminnemooseus, in message 183, writes:But I may be wrong - Perhaps he is pulling the information from his memory of general geological knowledge.

If you would like to discuss this point as an admin, I guess we have to do it here.If you would like to discuss it as a regular member that can be replied to, then we can do it in the thread you suggested.

considering popular opinion, probably. but jesus someone needs to block her posts from my screen.

you neither have to read nor post here. nor does anyone.

no. but it's so hard to resist replying to her even though i know how it always results.

agreed, your actions in response are not a good reason to prevent someone else from doing something.

i agree and in fact my statements above demonstrated this. but, someone needs to tell me how to block specific input on my monitor lol.it was a joke, get it.

yes, dear, but it's also a very serious point. banning people because we don't like what they have to say or are tired of dealing with them isn't a good thing -- and i think that was the reason she was banned.

yes.but i think the question was whether what she had to say amounted to abuse or not. but i guess it never really did because it was always in conversation and never an unsolicited attack. maybe. i dunno. i think i blocked it out.

So they were suspended for something that ceased to be a problem?