Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,585 Year: 4,842/9,624 Month: 190/427 Week: 103/85 Day: 8/2 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 11.0
AdminNem
Inactive Member


Message 271 of 304 (415514)
08-10-2007 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by riVeRraT
08-10-2007 10:08 AM


Re: To Admin nem
If you can't recognize the insults being thrown at me from taz, then I will defend myself every time, using whatever language I see fit, unless there is a freedom of speech problem here.
riVeRaT, I believe I see what Taz is trying to, and interestingly enough, he accuses me of doing the very thing that he does-- baiting. Taz is often hypocritical. He makes things up about me all the time. But hypocrisy is not a forum rule, nor has he recently said anything that would warrant a warning, suspension, or banning in my estimation.
Unfortunately, you have crossed that path. I wish you hadn't because I don't like this aspect of moderating.
Just remember, I am not the one starting it.
Riv, I don't think we need to go over schoolyard ethics here, where two wrongs don't make a right.
I hear your plight, Riv. I will take careful notice to see if he is truly goading you in to a fight.
What taz has claimed on me, is highly insulting.
Riv, as a Christian you are going to have to come to expect it. Its the nature of it. You only have two options: Either deal with it and channel it through positive means, or become a pagan yourself in the process and emasculate your own beliefs.
As far as what is going on in my personal life, has nothing to do with it
I'm not trying to delve in to your personal life. I just remember you saying, about a month back, that you had some personal issues that were upsetting you, and perhaps, you weren't yourself because of it. I was trying to be sensitive to that by giving you the benefit of doubt.
I am just sick and tired of people getting away with breaking the rules, at my expense in this forum, and your unwarranted moderation of me, just proves it.
Riv, I try very hard to be equitable as a Moderator. Surely you've seen the million and one arguments I have had with Taz and can recognize that he and I don't get along too well.
But I can't allow trivial things like that to get in the way of my moderating. The Forum rules state that you can't use ad hominem. You can't go around using it without expecting some repercussions.
Why not warn the person who started it?
If he is truly goading, I will. I will also ask other moderators to pay close attention to it.
Just so you know, on your behalf, I have inquired other members of this forum if they are seeing what you see. Many agreed that he was, and this from people who do not ascribe to your philosophies, but model themselves more closely to Taz's.
I promise you Riv, with the utmost sincerity, that I am trying to be equitable. If I see anyone, including Taz or yourself, engaging in poor debating tactics, it will either result in a warning, suspension, or in sever cases, bannings.
I hope that this post can give you some peace of mind.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by riVeRraT, posted 08-10-2007 10:08 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by riVeRraT, posted 08-10-2007 2:47 PM AdminNem has not replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 495 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 272 of 304 (415516)
08-10-2007 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by AdminNem
08-10-2007 2:44 PM


Re: To Admin nem
Understood. You did your job.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by AdminNem, posted 08-10-2007 2:44 PM AdminNem has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 13081
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 273 of 304 (415518)
08-10-2007 3:01 PM


Reminder
Please allow me to remind members that exchanges in this thread, the moderator procedures thread, should be civil at all times.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Michael
Member (Idle past 4717 days)
Posts: 199
From: USA
Joined: 05-14-2005


Message 274 of 304 (415848)
08-12-2007 2:47 PM


Adminnemooseus
In post 7 of thread Thread Reopen Requests 2 I ask Percy:
Is this exchange between you and AdminMoose an example of the chit-chat posting style you would rather not see here at EvC?
In message 8 Adminnemooseus responds:
Yes.
Adminnemooseus is about to get a 24 hour suspension.
Percy gets a warning.
First, I regret not appending a to the end of my question; I had my tongue firmly in cheek with that post. I'll learn.
Adminnemooseus evidently feels quite strongly about the "no chat rule" (which does not appear in the forum guidelines-should you guys consider working it in?) for posting on the forum. Kudos to Moose for treating himself as he has treated non-admin members to the board.
Overall, I think the level of moderation on this board is right for this kind of debate. I recognize that Adminnemooseus has a lot to do with that. I'm happy to see that he has continued with administration at the site (though expressing doubts about doing so in the past). Very good job sir!
Okay, enough of that shit. How come Percy wasn't suspended as well?
Cheers.

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by crashfrog, posted 08-12-2007 3:37 PM Michael has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1546 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 275 of 304 (415854)
08-12-2007 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by Michael
08-12-2007 2:47 PM


Re: Adminnemooseus
Kudos to Moose for treating himself as he has treated non-admin members to the board.
Oh, for god's sake.
What he did was Moderation Theatre. The kind of meaningless action that attempts to give the false impression of impartiality. But anybody can be hard on themselves.
It would be better if moderators put their emphasis on acting less schitzo (treating their moderator and regular usernames as two different people, suspending their own regular accounts, etc) and acting more fair and avoiding conflicts of interest.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by Michael, posted 08-12-2007 2:47 PM Michael has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by Michael, posted 08-12-2007 4:39 PM crashfrog has not replied

Michael
Member (Idle past 4717 days)
Posts: 199
From: USA
Joined: 05-14-2005


Message 276 of 304 (415859)
08-12-2007 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by crashfrog
08-12-2007 3:37 PM


Re: Adminnemooseus
Discussion in this thread is restricted to original complainants and moderators. This thread is not for discussing member behavior, but to discuss moderator procedures. Anyone disrupting this process will lose access to this forum until the situation is resolved.
Posts not addressing moderation procedures will be rendered invisible.
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning - Use the peek button to read hidden contents, but do not respond.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by crashfrog, posted 08-12-2007 3:37 PM crashfrog has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 277 of 304 (415876)
08-12-2007 6:36 PM


AdminBuz in Exodus, merneptah Stele etc. thread
Why intervene in a thread that has been quite for nearly two weeks ?
Why single out IaJ's opponents for warnings with no criticism for IaJ ?
Why claim that IaJ had done a lot of work when many of his posts were unsupported assertions ?
The post gives a distinct impression that creationists are above the rules, and that the rules will be deployed to censor anyone who dares to criticise a creationist.

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by jar, posted 08-12-2007 7:09 PM PaulK has not replied
 Message 282 by AdminBuzsaw, posted 08-12-2007 9:22 PM PaulK has replied

jar
Member
Posts: 34051
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 278 of 304 (415882)
08-12-2007 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by PaulK
08-12-2007 6:36 PM


Re: AdminBuz in Exodus, merneptah Stele etc. thread
Discussion in this thread is restricted to original complainants and moderators. This thread is not for discussing member behavior, but to discuss moderator procedures. Anyone disrupting this process will lose access to this forum until the situation is resolved.
Posts not addressing moderation procedures will be rendered invisible.
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning - Use the peek button to read hidden contents, but do not respond.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by PaulK, posted 08-12-2007 6:36 PM PaulK has not replied

AdminBuzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 279 of 304 (415900)
08-12-2007 9:07 PM


Supporting Assertions
Jar and PaulK, we all think our position is the one supported and factual. You two members need to understand that there are times when creationists do not think you are supporting your asertions as well. My admonitions did not support any position. That's not why I saw the need to moderate. You people generally are not in the position as IAJ was and the other few of us Biblicalist IDers where you are debating a number of counterparts. There were times when IAJ felt you were not supporting your claims as well, but he was a gentleman enough to say so in a manner conducive to keeping the peace. Likely in some cases he was justified in making the claim, just as you think you were. I thought he kept his cool remarkably well, considering the way he was being treated.
Some of the supportive documentation such as the Davidic kingdom, for example would have been leading off topic. There were others as well. All I ask/require is that instead of (particularly Jar) calling everthing stupid and other demeaning remarks to in a respectful manner state your specific problem with the point which you feel needed clarified or corrected, et al rather than to get personal. This is what the Forum Guidelines calls for.

For ideological balance on the EvC admin team as a Biblical creationist.

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by jar, posted 08-12-2007 9:20 PM AdminBuzsaw has replied
 Message 285 by PaulK, posted 08-13-2007 2:26 AM AdminBuzsaw has not replied

jar
Member
Posts: 34051
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 280 of 304 (415902)
08-12-2007 9:16 PM


AdminPD renders a post ON TOPIC invisible
AdminPD, please point our where I was not addressing Administrator procedures?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by AdminPD, posted 08-13-2007 9:35 AM jar has not replied

jar
Member
Posts: 34051
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 281 of 304 (415904)
08-12-2007 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by AdminBuzsaw
08-12-2007 9:07 PM


Re: Supporting Assertions
Jar and PaulK, we all think our position is the one supported and factual.
Yes AdminBuzsaw, I agree that Biblical Creationists and Biblical Literalists really do think they can support their positions. That is why I believe that the Administrators here need to allow them greater leeway and not enforce the rules that would be the norm for the other side.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by AdminBuzsaw, posted 08-12-2007 9:07 PM AdminBuzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by AdminBuzsaw, posted 08-12-2007 9:25 PM jar has not replied

AdminBuzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 282 of 304 (415905)
08-12-2007 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by PaulK
08-12-2007 6:36 PM


Re: AdminBuz in Exodus, merneptah Stele etc. thread
PaulK writes:
Why single out IaJ's opponents for warnings with no criticism for IaJ ?
Perhaps you need to reread my moderation where I already addressed this. I said that there may have been times when IAJ was the one leading off. I added that other moderators had already taken care of that, implying that there was no need for me to do so.
Creationists get no leeway here. Are you forgetting that three moderators moderated IAJ before my actions? I'm not being critical of them for doing so. I'm supporting my claim that we get no leeway just because we're creationists. My understanding is that one of my purposes for being moderator is to be representative of the minority constituency when I see the need. Had I opened that thread earlier in the debate, likely I would have said something in one of the earlier pages of the thread.

For ideological balance on the EvC admin team as a Biblical creationist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by PaulK, posted 08-12-2007 6:36 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by PaulK, posted 08-13-2007 2:35 AM AdminBuzsaw has replied

AdminBuzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 283 of 304 (415906)
08-12-2007 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 281 by jar
08-12-2007 9:20 PM


Re: Supporting Assertions
Get over it, Jar. Nobody's getting special treatment here.

For ideological balance on the EvC admin team as a Biblical creationist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by jar, posted 08-12-2007 9:20 PM jar has not replied

Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 4001
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 284 of 304 (415908)
08-12-2007 9:38 PM


"GENERAL DISCUSSION..."
AdminPD writes:
Discussion in this thread is restricted to original complainants and moderators.
Huh? Since when?
Edited by Omnivorous, : SUBTITLE

Real things always push back.
-William James
Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by AdminPD, posted 08-13-2007 8:49 AM Omnivorous has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 285 of 304 (415954)
08-13-2007 2:26 AM
Reply to: Message 279 by AdminBuzsaw
08-12-2007 9:07 PM


Re: Supporting Assertions
quote:
Jar and PaulK, we all think our position is the one supported and factual. You two members need to understand that there are times when creationists do not think you are supporting your asertions as well.
I understand that there are times when creationists falsely claim that I have not supported my position. But if I am asked for support I provide it or retract. IaJ repeatedly refused such requests.
quote:
My admonitions did not support any position
They specifically support IaJ against his opponents. I notice that the current version even blames IaJ's oppopnents for leading HIM off topic when the reverse is more typically the case.
So we are left with the question of why you need to jump into a dormant thread specifically to support one person in it. With your moderator hat on, too. You aren't given admin powers so that you can use them to prop up "your side". You're meant to be helping IaJ behave better, not excusing and condoning his bad behaviour.
quote:
You people generally are not in the position as IAJ was and the other few of us Biblicalist IDers where you are debating a number of counterparts.
How does this excuse IaJ's behaviour ? How does this excuse yours ?
quote:
There were times when IAJ felt you were not supporting your claims as well, but he was a gentleman enough to say so in a manner conducive to keeping the peace.
None in that thread. Perhaps you would like to supply examples so I can check your - and IaJ's - veracity.
quote:
Likely in some cases he was justified in making the claim, just as you think you were. I thought he kept his cool remarkably well, considering the way he was being treated.
And likely in many cases he was not justified and refused to support his claim because he had neither evidence nor argument.
quote:
Some of the supportive documentation such as the Davidic kingdom, for example would have been leading off topic. There were others as well
Indeed, IaJ should never have raised the issue. But he did.
quote:
All I ask/require is that instead of (particularly Jar) calling everthing stupid and other demeaning remarks to in a respectful manner state your specific problem with the point which you feel needed clarified or corrected, et al rather than to get personal. T
By which you mean that only creationists should never be criticised - but are allowed to freely criticise others.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by AdminBuzsaw, posted 08-12-2007 9:07 PM AdminBuzsaw has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024