Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9173 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,575 Year: 4,832/9,624 Month: 180/427 Week: 93/85 Day: 0/10 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 11.0
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 286 of 304 (415956)
08-13-2007 2:35 AM
Reply to: Message 282 by AdminBuzsaw
08-12-2007 9:22 PM


Re: AdminBuz in Exodus, merneptah Stele etc. thread
quote:
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.
You allowed that it MIGHT have happened - which is rather weak when it definitely DID happen. And it was NOT always stopped by other moderators.
quote:
Creationists get no leeway here.
They certainly do. You've benefitted from it. And you damn well ought to know it.
quote:
Are you forgetting that three moderators moderated IAJ before my actions?
No, I'm not. I'm also not forgetting that IaJ needed MORE moderation than he actually got.
quote:
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.
Pointing out that IaJ got some moderator attention doesn't prove that he wasn't given leeway. ln fact I'd say that he got a lot.
quote:
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.
You're not supposed to use moderator powers to try to prop them up. Your position is intended more to help people like IaJ TO follow the rules. Not to encourage him by ignoring his activities and attacking his opponents. Especially not when it requires reopening a dormant thread to do it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by AdminBuzsaw, posted 08-12-2007 9:22 PM AdminBuzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by AdminBuzsaw, posted 08-13-2007 8:53 AM PaulK has replied

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 287 of 304 (415980)
08-13-2007 8:49 AM
Reply to: Message 284 by Omnivorous
08-12-2007 9:38 PM


Re: "GENERAL DISCUSSION..."
Since the Berberry-Nem fiasco.
Reasonably, when a complaint is lodged concerning an admin action, the moderator in question is the only one who can answer why the action was taken. The moderator and the complainant deserve a chance to resolve the issue.
If you want to take the title literally, it says general discussion of moderation procedures, not complaints about moderator actions.
Since it functions as a complaint thread, there needed to be some adjustments made to allow complaints to be resolved and not trampled by other agendas.
If you have a suggestion for a better method, please present it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by Omnivorous, posted 08-12-2007 9:38 PM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by Omnivorous, posted 08-14-2007 10:23 AM AdminPD has replied

AdminBuzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 288 of 304 (415982)
08-13-2007 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 286 by PaulK
08-13-2007 2:35 AM


Re: AdminBuz in Exodus, merneptah Stele etc. thread
PaulK, Your bulligerency is typical of why I said what I said. I'm not the perfect moderator, but I've treated you and Jar no worse or better than the treatment IAJ got from those who moderated him.
Don't expect creationists who take a different position than you to cowtow to everything you claim to be factual. Whether IAJ always supported his position fully I don't know, but I do know that he was more of a gentleman in his conduct than some of his counterparts and that he put a lot more time and work into the one on many debate than any other single participant did, simply because he had to single handedly debate them all. He deserved better treatment than he got from some members and that's mainly what motivated me to act.
I stand by my action and so long as I'm a moderator, just like the others I will call it as I see it. I will hold you, Jar and others to the same standard of conduct that is expected of IAJ and the rest of us. You can't tell me that if IAJ treated Jar as Jar consistently treated him that he would have gotten by with doing so -- no way would that have been allowed, nor would he have been allowed to assume the bulligerent meanspirited attitude others expressed towards him on occasion.
Other mods may want to weigh in here, but that's how I see it.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by PaulK, posted 08-13-2007 2:35 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by PaulK, posted 08-13-2007 2:49 PM AdminBuzsaw has not replied

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 289 of 304 (415997)
08-13-2007 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 280 by jar
08-12-2007 9:16 PM


Re: AdminPD renders a post ON TOPIC invisible
Your post was borderline and had more potential to inflame than solve.
Since you were not the original complainant or the moderator in question, I chose to take the safer road.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by jar, posted 08-12-2007 9:16 PM jar has not replied

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


Message 290 of 304 (416050)
08-13-2007 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by AdminBuzsaw
08-13-2007 8:53 AM


Re: AdminBuz in Exodus, merneptah Stele etc. thread
This pretty much confirms that your purpose is to ban criticism of creationists, while permitting all criticism of their opponents.
quote:
PaulK, Your bulligerency is typical of why I said what I said. I'm not the perfect moderator, but I've treated you and Jar no worse or better than the treatment IAJ got from those who moderated him.
The substance of your complaint is that I criticised you, a creationist. And the treatment of myself specifically - or even Jar- is not the issue here.
quote:
Don't expect creationists who take a different position than you to cowtow to everything you claim to be factual.
And here we have a completely irrelevant and unfounded dig at me. And a criticism that would be more fairly directed at IaJ in particular.
quote:
Whether IAJ always supported his position fully I don't know, but I do know that he was more of a gentleman in his conduct than some of his counterparts and that he put a lot more time and work into the one on many debate than any other single participant did, simply because he had to single handedly debate them all. He deserved better treatment than he got from some members and that's mainly what motivated me to act.
I'd dispute that. Consider his exchange with Brian in these messages on Page 9 of the thread.
In message 128 IaJ asks three questions (or four since one is really two questions) and only one of which is possibly relevant to the topic (and that is peripheral).
Brian answers quite reasonably in message 130
In message 131 IaJ quotes Brian's entire message (failing to distinguish between Brian's reply and the quoted section of his earlier post) only to add
I thought the air needed cleaning. I suppose my next Q should be - was the OT written last friday?
Brian stays reasonable and writes a quite long reply - message 132 -explaining some of the facts and reasoning relevant to understanding the relevance of Merneptah stele to the history of Israel.
The whole of IaJ's reply to that is
I asked those questions only to expose your not talking science or logic. I wasted time debating grammar with you - your grammar appears based on the answers you gave, thus has nothing to do with grammar!
But you didn't act then. When it might have made a difference. Even when you do look at the thread you don't acknowledge that that exchange even exists.
quote:
I stand by my action and so long as I'm a moderator, just like the others I will call it as I see it. I will hold you, Jar and others to the same standard of conduct that is expected of IAJ and the rest of us. You can't tell me that if IAJ treated Jar as Jar consistently treated him that he would have gotten by with doing so -- no way would that have been allowed, nor would he have been allowed to assume the bulligerent meanspirited attitude others expressed towards him on occasion.
He got away with the exchange I've quoted above. And probably could have got away with worse.
quote:
I stand by my action and so long as I'm a moderator, just like the others I will call it as I see it. I will hold you, Jar and others to the same standard of conduct that is expected of IAJ and the rest of us. You can't tell me that if IAJ treated Jar as Jar consistently treated him that he would have gotten by with doing so -- no way would that have been allowed, nor would he have been allowed to assume the bulligerent meanspirited attitude others expressed towards him on occasion.
Of course IaJ could have got away with it. He got away with the exchange above. And a number of off-topic posts. Which you somehow failed to notice.
And I'm sure I can find more examples of creationists getting away with worse. Randman certainly did.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by AdminBuzsaw, posted 08-13-2007 8:53 AM AdminBuzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by Admin, posted 08-13-2007 3:21 PM PaulK has not replied

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


Message 291 of 304 (416060)
08-13-2007 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by PaulK
08-13-2007 2:49 PM


Re: AdminBuz in Exodus, merneptah Stele etc. thread
I don't think Buz will be able to see your point of view because the kind of errors apparent to you and Jar may not be apparent to him.
For those debating IAJ, the problem is how to maintain any kind of reasonable posture in the face of rampant illogic and irrationality. I don't know that it's possible. People like IAJ can throw out non sequiturs at a far greater rate than they can be addressed.
There's a saying that goes something like, "Don't argue with an idiot; people watching may not be able to tell the difference." In these kinds of discussions even those who share your viewpoint will have trouble figuring out just what the heck is going on, because unless they were there at the very start and followed every illogical step, and because people like IAJ have an ability to draw people into discussions about the ridiculous or impossible, it's hard to tell where the nonsense is originating from. For those who don't agree with you it's even harder to tell savant from idiot.
Buzsaw oscillates back and forth in his approach to moderating, and I see he's currently in a "balance things out" phase. I prefer a "just apply the Forum Guidelines" approach myself, but moderators are permitted a great deal of latitude. One of my hopes for moderators like Buz and NJ has been that they would help coax members like IAJ toward comprehensibility, and sometimes they do actually do that, and I'm sure it's greatly appreciated by all of us. And when they don't at times when others think they should, they may be perceiving a valid point hidden in the nonsense that the rest of just can't see because the nonsense overwhelms any sense.
IAJ hasn't been around in a couple weeks, so I don't know that it was necessary for Buzsaw to moderate an idle thread, but until IAJ returns the problems he causes are likely moot. The larger issue of how to moderate members who produce mostly nonsense remains largely unresolved.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by PaulK, posted 08-13-2007 2:49 PM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by Taz, posted 08-13-2007 5:53 PM Admin has not replied
 Message 293 by AdminBuzsaw, posted 08-14-2007 12:15 AM Admin has not replied

Taz
Member (Idle past 3369 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 292 of 304 (416080)
08-13-2007 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 291 by Admin
08-13-2007 3:21 PM


Re: AdminBuz in Exodus, merneptah Stele etc. thread
My point exactly.

Disclaimer:
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by Admin, posted 08-13-2007 3:21 PM Admin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by AdminBuzsaw, posted 08-14-2007 12:36 AM Taz has not replied

AdminBuzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 293 of 304 (416119)
08-14-2007 12:15 AM
Reply to: Message 291 by Admin
08-13-2007 3:21 PM


Re: AdminBuz in Exodus, merneptah Stele etc. thread
The Forum Guidelines do apply to a reasonable amount of respect for one's counterpart. I saw all the work one member extended into painstakenly responding to a host of counterparts, who obviously chose to engage with him in the topic. At one point I recall Brian saying he saw where IAJ "was coming from" on a particular point et al.
As for IAJ being absent, I thought I saw an August 10 date of one of his posts, perhaps in that thread. I'll have to check that out.
Some of the members who engaged in the thread were able to do so without being meanspirited. Imo, Paulk and Jar in particular have a fairly consistent caustic attitude toward creationist counterparts. I believe you at one time that I registered a complaint about Jar's caustic behavior advised me to the effect that I should deal with it as moderator instead of whining or something like that.
It seems that my role as Biblical creationist moderator for balance gets a lot less support from the team and a lot more flack than I had hoped for. I don't think I was being more picky on these people than other mods are on occasion. We all make our mistakes and we all have our times when we see the need to deal with what we may see and others don't.
I will continue to do the best I know how so long as you want me in this role. I will tolerate a resonable amount of vigorous exchange in the debates, but there comes a point when I will act as I did here when I see the need to do so.
I don't see IAJ as an idiot as you appear to have implied in the saying. If you really think he's that bad, maybe it's time to let him go. He cited some links supportive of his position meaning that there were at least some other significant creationist sites who's position was as his was and I'm quite sure they're not all that idiotic. He did this without quoting long links but often citing the links and typing his own summary of the supportive point as is the way it should be generally I believe. One of his counterparts (don't remember who) at one time criticized him for using creo links, but hey, what ta heck is a creo to do in debate? Use links supportive of the opposition's position?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by Admin, posted 08-13-2007 3:21 PM Admin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by PaulK, posted 08-14-2007 2:13 AM AdminBuzsaw has replied

AdminBuzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 294 of 304 (416121)
08-14-2007 12:36 AM
Reply to: Message 292 by Taz
08-13-2007 5:53 PM


Re: AdminBuz in Exodus, merneptah Stele etc. thread
Taz writes:
My point exactly.
But your point also included Biblical creationist's doing our thing of advocating Biblical creationism. We're sometimes damned if we do and conformists if we don't.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by Taz, posted 08-13-2007 5:53 PM Taz has not replied

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


Message 295 of 304 (416126)
08-14-2007 2:13 AM
Reply to: Message 293 by AdminBuzsaw
08-14-2007 12:15 AM


Re: AdminBuz in Exodus, merneptah Stele etc. thread
[quote] The Forum Guidelines do apply to a reasonable amount of respect for one's counterpart. I saw all the work one member extended into painstakenly responding to a host of counterparts, who obviously chose to engage with him in the topic. At one point I recall Brian saying he saw where IAJ "was coming from" on a particular point et al.
[/quiote]
That may be what you "saw". It isn't what's in the thread.
quote:
As for IAJ being absent, I thought I saw an August 10 date of one of his posts, perhaps in that thread. I'll have to check that out.
That's pretty easy to do. He did post on Aug 10 to the "Adam was Created on the 3rd Day" thread. But the thread we are discussing has been inactive since 31st June.
quote:
Some of the members who engaged in the thread were able to do so without being meanspirited. Imo, Paulk and Jar in particular have a fairly consistent caustic attitude toward creationist counterparts. I believe you at one time that I registered a complaint about Jar's caustic behavior advised me to the effect that I should deal with it as moderator instead of whining or something like that.
Jar can defend himself. But you have no valid ground for objecting to my pointing out the blatant falsehoods and misrepresentations that many creationists post. Again, if you were really interested in helping the creationist side you should be policing this sort of thing.
quote:
It seems that my role as Biblical creationist moderator for balance gets a lot less support from the team and a lot more flack than I had hoped for. I don't think I was being more picky on these people than other mods are on occasion. We all make our mistakes and we all have our times when we see the need to deal with what we may see and others don't.
The fact that you were acting AGAINST balance probably has a lot to do with the lack of support. Moderation already favours the creationist side. It needs no correction.
And none of the other mods resurrect threads 12 days after the last post to make completely one-sided assessments. If the sides were reversed you would be complaining loudly about the unfair moderation. And for once you'd be right to do so.
quote:
I don't see IAJ as an idiot as you appear to have implied in the saying. If you really think he's that bad, maybe it's time to let him go. He cited some links supportive of his position meaning that there were at least some other significant creationist sites who's position was as his was and I'm quite sure they're not all that idiotic.
Anybody can set up a website. And citing a website doesn't mean that it supports IaJ's claims. You should know that. In the big fuss over your last departure you cited an idiotic website AND one which in fact contradicted you.
quote:
One of his counterparts (don't remember who) at one time criticized him for using creo links, but hey, what ta heck is a creo to do in debate? Use links supportive of the opposition's position?
Well, I would suggest using accurate and reliable websites instead. If the creationist can't find any then it's time for the intellectually honest creationist to reassess his position.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by AdminBuzsaw, posted 08-14-2007 12:15 AM AdminBuzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by AdminBuzsaw, posted 08-14-2007 10:37 PM PaulK has not replied

Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 4001
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 296 of 304 (416174)
08-14-2007 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 287 by AdminPD
08-13-2007 8:49 AM


AdminPD writes:
Since the Berberry-Nem fiasco.
That's quite an overreaction. There are ways to cope with inappropriate posts short of shutting down general discussions of moderation procedures and actions.
Reasonably, when a complaint is lodged concerning an admin action, the moderator in question is the only one who can answer why the action was taken. The moderator and the complainant deserve a chance to resolve the issue.
Okay.
If you want to take the title literally, it says general discussion of moderation procedures, not complaints about moderator actions.
Since it functions as a complaint thread, there needed to be some adjustments made to allow complaints to be resolved and not trampled by other agendas.
The ingenious post-and-reply mechanism at EvC allows any two people to conduct a conversation regardless of the texts around their exchanges. How can complaints be trampled by other agendas?
If you have a suggestion for a better method, please present it.
No change was necessary. This thread is the only place where members are allowed to discuss moderator procedures and actions, and every member has an interest in maintaining access to that discussion.
Moderators have the power to suspend posters, to limit their access to threads, and to close threads. Given those options, I don't see why misbehavior in this thread need be handled any differently than the same misbehavior in any other thread.
So my suggestion for a better method is for moderators to do their jobs with the powerful tools they have. Censorship and silencing are neither productive nor justified.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by AdminPD, posted 08-13-2007 8:49 AM AdminPD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by Admin, posted 08-14-2007 10:40 AM Omnivorous has replied
 Message 298 by AdminPD, posted 08-14-2007 11:48 AM Omnivorous has replied

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


Message 297 of 304 (416177)
08-14-2007 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 296 by Omnivorous
08-14-2007 10:23 AM


Omnivorous writes:
The ingenious post-and-reply mechanism at EvC...
Finally, someone with perspicacity, and probably a gentleman and a scholar to boot! You've made my day!

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by Omnivorous, posted 08-14-2007 10:23 AM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by Omnivorous, posted 08-14-2007 7:22 PM Admin has not replied
 Message 302 by Nighttrain, posted 08-15-2007 12:58 AM Admin has not replied

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 298 of 304 (416183)
08-14-2007 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 296 by Omnivorous
08-14-2007 10:23 AM


quote:
That's quite an overreaction. There are ways to cope with inappropriate posts short of shutting down general discussions of moderation procedures and actions.
General discussion isn't shut down. You posted a concern.
quote:
The ingenious post-and-reply mechanism at EvC allows any two people to conduct a conversation regardless of the texts around their exchanges. How can complaints be trampled by other agendas?
When an issue snowball's out of control, new concerns are lost in the fray because most new concerns are general posts and not a reply to anything.
When those who are not a part of the issue or original action jump in and inflame the situation, the resolution process gets trampled.
quote:
Moderators have the power to suspend posters, to limit their access to threads, and to close threads.
Why is that better than giving warning ahead of time? Some have expressed that they prefer warnings. I prefer to prevent forest fires instead of fighting them. If I have to fight a forest fire, I'd prefer someone not throw gas on it.
Since you can read the post, it isn't censored. Suspensions, limiting access to threads, and closing threads also serve to silence.
I can change the wording to where it is specific to the complaint.
Example
I request that discussion concerning this complaint be restricted to the original complainant(s) and moderator(s). 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by Omnivorous, posted 08-14-2007 10:23 AM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by Omnivorous, posted 08-14-2007 7:19 PM AdminPD has not replied

Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 4001
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 299 of 304 (416226)
08-14-2007 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 298 by AdminPD
08-14-2007 11:48 AM


AdminPD writes:
General discussion isn't shut down. You posted a concern.
True. I posted my concern about being told I should not post about my concern. Telling me I should have no concern about that because I posted my concern anyway is a bit circular, I think. True, though, and that counts.
I'm not sure being made invisible is much better than being erased, and I did not realize certain posts remained beneath that cloack until I saw your reference to invisibility.
I do like your revised wording because I think we all benefit from multiple perspectives on moderation issues, and this thread is the only venue for that. It would be a loss to all if it became merely a complaint department.
Thank you for responding to my concerns.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by AdminPD, posted 08-14-2007 11:48 AM AdminPD has not replied

Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 4001
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 300 of 304 (416227)
08-14-2007 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 297 by Admin
08-14-2007 10:40 AM


I calls 'em like I sees 'em, boss.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by Admin, posted 08-14-2007 10:40 AM Admin 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