General discussion of moderation procedures - Part οκτώ

quote:

---

gasby
I agree with AdminNWR. You've failed to provide a single shred of evidence for us to nitpick.
  —gasby

---

Well, I really don't want to point single people out. It becomes a little too personal in my opinion. But... I realise I have to back my up statement somehow. So, I'll be doing that as soon as possible.

quote:

---

Quetzal
If you feel strongly about it, move the thread.
  —Quetzal

---

I didn't know I can move the thread around as I wish, how? Now on second thought I would like my "thread" to go first to the coffee house to see if people even agree about these kinds of situations needing the help of admins.

Only Admins can move threads.

In the interests of fairness, your original thread has been promoted to the Coffee House hereAny further comments should be taken to the coffee house.Edited by AdminQuetzal, : No reason given.

I generally understand and agree with Admin decisions on this forum, but I am having trouble seeing how my post (Message 65) asking for clarification on aspects of the Trinity is off topic in a thread concerning the Trinity. Granted I was feigning incredulity and being somewhat sarcastic (except for my last question, which was wholly sincere), but I didn't know that sarcasm could be ruled off topic. Could someone please explain?

Read the Admin message following your post and show me how your post deals with understanding the Trinity Doctrine or the scriptures used to support it.Although I tagged your message, the thread had veered away from the spirit of the topic. Even the post you replied to had already strayed from the path. I'm not going to spend the time tagging everyone.As I said in the Admin Msg, the topic is not about the validity of the doctrine or whether it makes sense.

Thanks...I hadn't seen your clarification in the thread. Understood

In reference to my thread on Flood stories, the following was posted. (1) I think that Faith has asked a very good question. If I had thought of it, I would, in fact, have put it in my original post. It is irrelevant to know how common flood stories are unless we also have a context in which to put this data. I should have thought of that. As the guy who started the thread, could I ask you to regard this as on topic?(2) I should like to point out that my post on stealing fire from heaven was not posted in disregard of the moderator's comments: I was putting it together while that warning was being posted.

quote:

---

As the guy who started the thread, could I ask you to regard this as on topic?

---

You can, but I wouldn't advise it?Notice Faith's response? She's asking for a specific type of story. A disaster account, not an explanation of accquisition.We try to keep the topics narrowly focused. How does opening the door to fire disaster stories help answer the questions you posed in the OP?

Not sure what happened there, adminPD seems to attempt to keep me on topic, when I was on topic.If legend needs a spiritual journey to discover that Jesus wasn't a liar, then so be it. That's what the topic is all about. I was very on topic with my response.And yes, I was responding to the purple warning box.a lot of your warnings seem to be very subjective, and little too nazi for me. You are discouraging discussions with over warning people.It's not like we started talking about gays or something.

AdminPD did not flag your entire post. She flagged only the part where you were becoming too personal and confrontational. And that part was off topic.

---

This is the part tagged: Any response to those personal statements will potentially lead the discussion away from whether Jesus lied or not and to possible bickering. None of those statements supports or furthers the discussion concerning whether Jesus lied or not.That is the purpose of the off topic tag with the warning not to respond to those portions.

quote:

---

You are discouraging discussions with over warning people.

---

I don't see that it hurt your discussion, you and Legend seem to be continuing quite well.Admins go through stages of over warning and under warning; and sometimes it's just right.

(Closing those threads started by Robin)Edited by Parasomnium, : singular to plural

Why is my post (which I edited after your warning) off topic?Before God can be discussed, there need to be common definitions and/or awareness of others.Edited by Phat, : clarification and add link

The crux of the discussion, IMO, is: Not really whether God exists or what his actual purpose is.It's more about the argument that science removes God from the equation.

Hi Admin. Instead of bringing up the message in moderation part 2, I'll just say that you appear to be making a lot of debatable points supporting the views of my counterparts in debate (abe: in the what science is/isnt thread). We moderators regard taking sides in the debates in admin mode as a nono since this allows no recorse or response in the public thread as members are not suppose to address admin messages.Imo, if you wish to make your points relative to how you see things that you should post as non-admin (Percy) as the rest of us ih admin mode are required to do to make it fair in order for the opposite viewpoint to be aired as a response. I see this as using your position as chief Admin to give the advantage to yourself and those who agree with you ideologically on the issues.At the beginning of the thread I welcomed moderation in the thread and appreciate that you did help align to topic. It's just that imo, you went too far into actual debating the topic since most of what you said worked to shoot down my high points and give the advantage to my counterparts, some of who were needing some moderation regarding their shabby debate tactics clearly counter to some Forum Guidelines. Of course it would've been wrong for me to moderate them and I didn't really want to make a big thing out of it in PAF. I didn't see it as anything that serious that couldn't be handled on the spot so I just voiced a couple of complaints as you are likely aware, having read the thread. Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.