|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: General discussion of moderation procedures: The Sequel | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
deerbreh Member (Idle past 2892 days) Posts: 882 Joined: |
Fair enough - but I still think it could be spelled out in more detail somewhere. More information is better than having people guess at what is going on. Most new people go to the Rules (at least they should) so it should at least be mentioned there. And what is a PNT - dang these acronyms! Also, what is a POTM?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminJar Inactive Member |
PNT = Proposed New Topic.
POTM = Post of the Month.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12995 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
You're right, you're right, and there is a possibility these types of things might improve in the near future. No promises, but it could happen. It takes time and continuous familiarity to efficiently keep the pages updated, consistent and useful. The size of the site is a bit beyond what one person (this person, anyway) can effectively maintain at a high quality level on a continuous basis.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
It seems like a double-standard to me. Evolutionist posters can cuss, say outlandish, unsubtantiated things of the worst kind towards creationists, IDers, any other critics of evolution, and yet somehow it's the creationist/IDers getting banned because "they don't know what they are talking about."
I haven't read all of evopeach's posts, but it really looks like he is more being banned for being vehemently anti-evolution than he has acted differently than many of the flame-baiting posts of evos on the other side. There needs to be parity, if the forum is to have the respect of all sides on these issues. This message has been edited by randman, 08-16-2005 08:23 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
My reasons for wanting to ban EP are about 20% her/his attitude and 80% that I haven't seen a constructive post from him/her yet.
Of course, I don't read everything so maybe you can point to 3 posts of his that actually offer more than unsupported assertions. (I'll help -- there is one regarding animal conscienousness). He mouths off with statments that are based on utter ignorance of the topic. He/she seems to think that s/he may offer critisms about a topic which he demonstrates, over and over, he/she knows nothing. His attitude makes it apparent that he/she isn't going to learn so I don't think we need to clutter up the science threads with obvious (to the most slighty aware) crap. Others who offer unsubstantiated opinions may be held to the requirment to support them when asked. None of the admins are going to catch every case. If you point them out (as much as is needed) something will be done most of the time. Some are more like EP -- almost every single post is an affront to reason and the percentage with any support at all is small and shrinking with each new post.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12995 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
randman writes: It seems like a double-standard to me. Evolutionist posters can cuss, say outlandish, unsubtantiated things of the worst kind towards creationists, IDers, any other critics of evolution, and yet somehow it's the creationist/IDers getting banned because "they don't know what they are talking about." If true, then the evolutionist moderators must be casting a blind eye. We've had several Creationist moderators over time (Tranquility Base, True Creation, JazzLover), and not one has done a darn thing in the way of moderating. Most Creationists refuse offers to become moderators. One of my primary goals in setting up the site was achieving balance, and I thought having Creationist moderators was the answer. But we haven't been able to find any that have a moderator temperament, will actually accept the role, and then actually do anything. Adminnimooseus, EvC director emiritus, put a lot of time and effort into moderator recruitment, but we never managed to acquire that elusive Creationist moderator. It's not like we haven't tried and don't continue to try. I don't necessarily blame Creationists for this. This is a science site, but there isn't much that Creationists and evolutionists agree about concerning the nature of science, and I think that is a lot of the problem.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminJar Inactive Member |
The few posts that did try to address science were found to be cut & paste jobs from AIG and other creationist sites without even attribution. See Message 142 for an example.
New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
Message 1 Thread Reopen Requests Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
I haven't read all of evopeach's posts Well I would be glad if you had a look over his posts in his debut thread, 'Is ID scientific'. Read his comments on molecular biology and his argument from irreducible complexity based upon carbon and tell us ifyou think he is doing a good job making a scientific argument. TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3911 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
I feel that the "Why Won't Creationists Learn" thread shouldn't be in the Misc Topics in EvC thread. I didn't know that it was a science thread and the topic is more of a meta topic. Maybe Soc. Issues with EvC?
Also, I feel it should be in a place where Faith can defend herself. No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminJar Inactive Member |
Okay, good point. I'll move it.
New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
Message 1 Thread Reopen Requests Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
deerbreh Member (Idle past 2892 days) Posts: 882 Joined: |
I have pasted Tal's signature line below. I find it offensive and have told him so. He says raising the question is OT and that he has answered all of my questions about it. My question to administrators and other posters: Am I just being too sensitive or is this signature line indeed offensive to many? If it is, what are the forum rules on offensive signature lines? What I find offensive is it could be interpreted as being homophobic and misogynistic.
I am not trying to be argumentative here - I do find this offensive and informed Tal of that but he continues to use it and I wanted to get a second opinion. Tal writes:
Tired of the opposite sex? Want to turn your favorite football player into a raging homsexual? Then purchase your Gay-Gene Cattle Prod! One Zap from the GGCP will turn the Gay Gene off or on at your whim. So if you want your wife to get some hot girl on girl action, the Gay-Gene Cattle Prod is for you! *not intended for use on children*
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4127 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
I was always under the impression that I was suppose to be the poster who was suppose to trying to offend on purpose - i guess I'm losing my edge. Maybe if I start refering to lesbos, homos, fairies and the like I can get it back.
(so no I don't think you are).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
He has decided to get as offensive as possible with his signature ever since I pointed out that the Newton quote he was using as his signature was probably not a real quote. Then he decided to use another quote. Whe I mentioned that I could find a quote by the same person that said the opposite he switched to the offensive cattle prod line.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
I don't object to it. I think of it as a warning label. It's probably better to know that Tal's ignorant, immature and bigoted than not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Monk Member (Idle past 3923 days) Posts: 782 From: Kansas, USA Joined: |
Sorry deerbreh. Tal's signature should stand if he wants it to. As long as it doesn't violate forum guidelines, i.e. obscenity, profanity, etc. Tal's should be able to post any signature he wants despite of or because it is offensive to some.
I have seen signatures by atheist here that could be offensive to some religious folk. I will admit that none I have seen are as blatant as Tal's current sig, but then again Tal is not known for his subtlety.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024