Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,854 Year: 4,111/9,624 Month: 982/974 Week: 309/286 Day: 30/40 Hour: 2/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   General discussion of moderation procedures - Part οκτώ
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3976
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 99 of 302 (361000)
11-02-2006 10:42 PM


Re: Archer and subbie's suspension
Adminnemooseus, from the suspension announcement topic writes:
Subtopic="Archer Opterix, Subbie given 24 hour suspensions"
Trash messages starting about here.
AnswersInGenitals, Faith were lesser offenders, so no suspensions.
Adminnemooseus
Source = EvC Forum: Suspensions and Bannings Part II
message 94 writes:
Am I missing something? How in the world do these posts merit a suspension? Especially with no warning.
Trash messages, disruptive and absolutely irrelevant to the topic. I consider both of them far too intelligent to requires warnings about doing such.
message 96 writes:
And it looked as though Faith was participating in that line of discussion, yet was not suspended.
See the above quoted Adminnemooseus.
message 97 writes:
No warning = unreasonable.
See reply to message 94.
message 98 writes:
yes, schraf, i do believe i used the word "moose" in that statement.
I commend your observation abilities. You message, however, contributes nothing to this discussion.
All that said, I had no intention that those suspensions were actually going to last 24 hours. They will be soon lifted.
Yes, I was making examples of Archer and Subbie. They and others should know better than to insert such stuff into such a topic. The "mini=suspensions" are intended as warnings to them and others. Warnings that will actually get paid some attention.
Adminnemooseus

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Archer Opteryx, posted 11-03-2006 12:00 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3976
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 188 of 302 (365053)
11-21-2006 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by nwr
11-20-2006 11:13 PM


Re: Request for moderator review
The reason for the review is to determine whether Percy has violated rule 10.
Well, maybe, but if so, it's subtle and difficult for my limited analytical abilities. Now, AdminPD could probably properly analyze the situation.
rule 10 writes:
Always treat other members with respect. Argue the position, not the person. Avoid abusive, harassing and invasive behavior. Avoid needling, hectoring and goading tactics.
Discussion of what is the nature of the big bang ("the position") sure does seem to be pretty scarce. Therefore, it would seem to be at least some basis for your complaint. But is the rule violation going both directions?
(The feeble minded) Adminnemooseus
Adminnemooseus
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Change ID to admin mode.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by nwr, posted 11-20-2006 11:13 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3976
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 193 of 302 (365073)
11-21-2006 3:48 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by Phat
11-21-2006 12:47 AM


Re: Request for moderator review - Percy suspended for 24 hours
In my opinion, Percy was staging a debate for the benefit of showing proper form to creationists (as to what not to say)
I strongly suspect you are correct. Percy is putting on a show of bad debate form. I wonder how much of it was pre-orchestrated with NWR?
Anyhow, I'll wrap of the afair by giving Percy a 24 hour suspension.
Adminnemooseus

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:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], [thread=-17,-45], [thread=-19,-337], [thread=-14,-1073]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Phat, posted 11-21-2006 12:47 AM Phat has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3976
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 205 of 302 (365531)
11-23-2006 12:48 AM
Reply to: Message 204 by AdminBuzsaw
11-23-2006 12:12 AM


Re: Request for moderator review - Adminnemooseus final statement (I hope)
Adminnemooseus writes:
Percy is putting on a show of bad debate form.
http://EvC Forum: General discussion of moderation procedures - Part -->EvC Forum: General discussion of moderation procedures - Part
When I saw NWR's review request, I skimmed the series of messages he cited. Not a careful, in depth analysis by any means.
At the time I posted the above quoted (and I was soon going to be off-line for many hours), there seemed to be an admin consensus that Percy was indeed in serious violation of guidelines. Thus I decided to do the suspension deed. Basically, I was presuming that Percy was shooting for a demonstration that not even the site owner was immune to suspensions.
Upon further reflection (but not after re-reading the messages), my recollection is that there was a lot of smoke with little substance. In such a mess, it can require (at least for me) a lot of work to determine who is at fault for the blather. In the past, I have sometimes just declared such a topic to be terminal mess and then close it.
In summary, it was a strange thing to have two members (of admin status no less) who I have such high regard for to be involved in such a mess.
Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by AdminBuzsaw, posted 11-23-2006 12:12 AM 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