Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-20-2019 3:54 PM
28 online now:
DrJones*, jar, kjsimons, Larni, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (7 members, 21 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 857,182 Year: 12,218/19,786 Month: 1,999/2,641 Week: 508/708 Day: 67/135 Hour: 5/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consecution
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3886
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 99 of 300 (241261)
09-08-2005 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by Modulous
09-08-2005 8:08 AM


Re: Crashfrog's recent suspension
A few quick comments:

There has been considerable discussion in the "Private Administration Forum", over both the Omnivorous and Crashfrog suspensions (1 topic each). In both cases, it was a difficult call, but sometimes the situations call for a "do something even if it proves out to be wrong". My impression (IMO) both suspension were justified, but again, they were difficult calls.

Per the Jar/AdminJar participation - At least some of the Jar input was intended to be from AdminJar, but inadvertently got posted under the wrong ID. As things happened, Jar decided that it would be improper/too late to go back and change the ID to the admin mode.

It also should be stressed that in that particular topic, Jar and Crashfrog were/are NOT on opposing sides of the debate.

Per the standards of the "Coffee House" - I think the standards for serious topics there, should be as high as for the science forums.

Per the Omnivorous situation - His/her response was extreme, to an extreme statement from Faith. I think the bottom line is, that Faith is a representative of the Christian far right, and as such, extreme statements are to be expected from her. The various admins think that permitting "extreme fundy" perspectives are needed at . But we still don't want the "more rational" turning into the "unrational".

Adminnemooseus


This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Modulous, posted 09-08-2005 8:08 AM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by CK, posted 09-08-2005 9:48 AM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded
 Message 102 by Modulous, posted 09-08-2005 10:32 AM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded
 Message 104 by Nuggin, posted 09-08-2005 11:03 AM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3886
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 252 of 300 (255561)
10-29-2005 10:18 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by ohnhai
10-29-2005 9:30 PM


Re: The RAZD suspension - how long?
The closest thing to a public "Admin Only" forum is the "Proposed New Topics forum. The topic in question is in the "Suggestions and Questions" forum. I have recently suggested (in the "Private Administration Forum") that we have a new "The Public Record" forum, for "Admin Only" messages, but such has not yet come to be.

I would think that a "(MESSAGES BY ADMIN ONLY)" in the topic title should be plenty clear. RAZD has also posted to that topic on previous occassions.

More seriously, much of RAZD's recent output has been attacks on the person of Mirabile_Auditu. Feel free to look at RAZD's most recent messages.

Mirabile_Auditu is (perhaps) not unlike a maddened bull, and RAZD functioned as the pictador, sinking barbs and such into said bull.

I feel no rush to lift the suspension. Perhaps another admin might feel otherwise.

Adminnemooseus

This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 10-29-2005 10:20 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by ohnhai, posted 10-29-2005 9:30 PM ohnhai has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by ohnhai, posted 10-29-2005 11:04 PM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3886
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 256 of 300 (255571)
10-30-2005 1:52 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by Yaro
10-30-2005 1:00 AM


RAZD is a good member - OK, if you say so
My impression is that RAZD has largely been acting as a major league jerk since and in regards to Mirabile_Auditu's arrival. Remember, we expect the evolution side to be the rational perspective. RAZD reacted by dragging in all sorts of ugly past experiences from other forums.

I think that RAZD is very knowledgeable and intelligent. I also think he has heavy tendencies to be an arrogant bastard.

That said, I will now restore all RAZD's privileges.

Adminnemooseus


This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Yaro, posted 10-30-2005 1:00 AM Yaro has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by RAZD, posted 10-30-2005 7:57 PM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded
 Message 263 by RAZD, posted 11-06-2005 5:02 PM Adminnemooseus has responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3886
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 264 of 300 (257340)
11-06-2005 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by RAZD
11-06-2005 5:02 PM


Re: posting solution?
A new "The Public Record" forum, messages by admin only is in the works. Maybe I'll execute such later tonight.

Adminnemooseus


This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by RAZD, posted 11-06-2005 5:02 PM RAZD has not yet responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3886
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 274 of 300 (259257)
11-13-2005 12:10 AM


I say good themes and good discussions were happening in bad places
The following is an exact copy of a message I just posted in the "Private Administration Forum":

I'll throw my support behind the creation of a new forum: "Coffee House - Politics and Economics".

I feel more tolerant to, dare I say, allow somewhat dubious quality topics to drift off into other somewhat dubious quality themes.

But, in both the topics I closed earlier today -

"Coffee House" topic Socialism in Venezuela has made illiteracy a thing of the past (my closing message)

and

"In The News" topic 'Intelligent-design' school board ousted in Penn (my closing message)

there were very good themes, with very good discussions, that were very off-topic, and thus were getting buried somewhere bad instead of getting the good exposure they deserved - Topics of their own, with links back to the source topics.

In the "Coffee House", I think that topic drift control is just as important as in any other forum. Remember, we even did topic drift contol in the "Free For All" forum.

The "Coffee House" is home for both very light and very serious topics. I certainly have no problem with the light topics running much more freely, as long as some quality off-topic theme doesn't happen.

Moose

Adminnemooseus


Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by AdminPhat, posted 11-26-2005 12:28 PM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3886
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 281 of 300 (263982)
11-29-2005 12:41 AM
Reply to: Message 280 by Omnivorous
11-28-2005 11:07 PM


Re: Why the shut down?
You are absolutely correct - Topic reopened.

See message 28 there.

I think I was looking at the simularity of the titles "By their fruits shall ye know them" and "Right Behavior Inherits Eternal Life", and didn't realize that the two topics had actually maintained having two different themes.

Adminnemooseus

This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 11-29-2005 12:51 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by Omnivorous, posted 11-28-2005 11:07 PM Omnivorous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by Omnivorous, posted 11-29-2005 8:25 AM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3886
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 283 of 300 (264510)
11-30-2005 3:06 PM


Mick's well justified complaints from elsewhere
Message 128 of the "the phylogeographic challenge to creationism" topic

Mick writes:

given that Faith is the only creationist other than Brad who has participated in the thread, and the Faith is a YEC, then it's a bit harsh for her to be attacked by dozens of biologists at once. I know these are the rules of the biology forums, but I have seen lots of decent threads killed with this kind of argument. I expect (and the EVC rules require) that all posters who disagree with Faith provide substantive evidence for their position or evidence against Faith's position.

I'm a bit irritated to find a thread I started with a great deal of effort degenerate over 24 hours like this. I (and Mammathus, and robinrohan (and, dare I say it, Faith)) have put some effort into our posts on this thread and it's being spoiled by completely irrelevant bickering with no substantive points being made.

(Not meaning to pick on you in particular, NosyNed. This is aimed at a lot of short content-free posts that appeared recently).

Mick goes on to quote a number of "high noise, low signal" messages.

Sidenote to Percy: Faith, as she mentions in the above cited topic, is apparently having trouble getting edits to take hold.

Adminnemooseus


Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by Nighttrain, posted 12-01-2005 6:24 AM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded
 Message 286 by Adminnemooseus, posted 12-01-2005 1:39 PM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3886
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 286 of 300 (264763)
12-01-2005 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 283 by Adminnemooseus
11-30-2005 3:06 PM


More examples of "high noise, low signal" messages
Yaro and brennakimi, at the "Pakicetus being presented with webbed feet." topic.

Neither of those messages should have been posted.

You can scan upthread to see more dubious value input.

Adminnemooseus

Added by edit: I think that anyone is entitled to doing an irrelevant quip occasionally. That's OCCASIONALLY not OFTEN.

This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 12-01-2005 01:57 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by Adminnemooseus, posted 11-30-2005 3:06 PM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3886
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 290 of 300 (268048)
12-12-2005 3:50 AM
Reply to: Message 289 by crashfrog
12-12-2005 12:12 AM


Re: The Janus Fiction
I remember how it started, you know. Minnemooseus started it, if I recall correctly. It was a cute conceit in his writing, a way to make moderation a little more interesting and make it appear "fair" when the Moose moderated threads in which he was participating.

Percy was the first to adopt having a second admin name. lbhandli was the second admin, who fell into obscurity. I was the third admin, and I too adopted a second admin name. It seems like a nice way to try to seperate the non-admin messages from the admin messages, although some of the admins tend to also often moderate while still using the non-admin name.

To voluntarily abstain from moderating threads in which they have participated.

It's pretty tough to follow topics you are not interested in. And if you are interested in a topic, you tend to some degree to also participate in your non-admin mode.

By the way, my main computer is still pretty FOBAR. Had an old Win95 machine laying around, so I thought I'd give it a try.

Adminnemoose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by crashfrog, posted 12-12-2005 12:12 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019