Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,577 Year: 4,834/9,624 Month: 182/427 Week: 95/85 Day: 0/2 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Thread Reopen Requests
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3977
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 8 of 305 (42477)
06-10-2003 1:15 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Peter
06-09-2003 3:13 AM


quote:
We hadn't even got into quantum universes yet though!!!
I'm assuming that you're joking, but I may be wrong.
Minnemooseus, however, has also been telling me that he might want the thread reopened, so it might get reopened anyway.
Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Peter, posted 06-09-2003 3:13 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Peter, posted 06-13-2003 7:45 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3977
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 16 of 305 (44373)
06-26-2003 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by mark24
06-26-2003 3:01 PM


From message 88, of the topic in question (posted earlier today):
buzsaw said:
quote:
Yes, the flood indicates the supernatural factor, but after all, this is the EvC discussion board, is it not? Isn't this board suppose to be about debate between those who believe in the supernatural (creationists) and those who don't? So to disqualify statements in scientific discussion on the basis of it not being scientific seems to defeat the whole idea of this board. Your title itself suggests the supernatural on the part of your ideological counterparts. If you would recognize that here in these threads, maybe you'd get more participation from creationists here. I find it unusual on a board this size that I have practically no support in this discussion on the problems with dating methods, especially on that of C14 in relation to the pre-flood atmosphere.
I'll be outa town today, and company for a couple of days so will get back when I can.
The final sentence was influential in my decision to TEMPORARILY close the top. The rest of the above quoted, however, is also of interest.
After reconsideration, I'm going to stand with my decision. Everyone, take a break from this topic. As I currently see things, I'll reopen it Sunday night or Monday morning.
Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by mark24, posted 06-26-2003 3:01 PM mark24 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Adminnemooseus, posted 06-26-2003 7:44 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3977
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 17 of 305 (44388)
06-26-2003 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Adminnemooseus
06-26-2003 5:50 PM


Topic has been reopened
Well, I stand by my decision, but apparently one of the other admins have reopened the topic. So be it. I may have been wrong.
Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Adminnemooseus, posted 06-26-2003 5:50 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3977
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 18 of 305 (44579)
06-29-2003 12:34 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Admin
06-26-2003 5:38 PM


Somehow, seeing the preceeding message from Admin had eluded me until 6/28.
In case those concerned hadn't caught the info elsewhere, my closing of the topic was intended as a temporary cooling down period. Buz had indicated that he was going to be occupied elsewhere for a few days, and, in the meantime, I didn't see any value in others piling on to him.
Please see my message upstream also, which includes a quotation of Buz.
Now, let's try to be a little nicer to the creationists. If they all leave, the evo side will be stuck having to argue amongst themselves.
Adminnemooseus
------------------
Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
too fast closure of threads
ps: I'm inclined to start closing thread a little faster than before. They can always be reopened. I'd rather have that situation than see, days later, that I wished I had closed the topic.
Also, there could very well be better self-moderation of the various topics, by the participents. The non-admin members can also see when things are going off-topic, or otherwise bad. You shouldn't need a moderator to be on top of all the topics constantly.
By the way, we had a 24 hour record number of messages a few days back. As I recall, there were 214 messages. We average about 80 messages a day, and over the past 2 months, there has been an average of 100 messages a day.
[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 06-28-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Admin, posted 06-26-2003 5:38 PM Admin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Adminnemooseus, posted 06-29-2003 12:44 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied
 Message 20 by John, posted 06-29-2003 1:10 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3977
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 19 of 305 (44580)
06-29-2003 12:44 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Adminnemooseus
06-29-2003 12:34 AM


Oops - Nevermind - Content deleted.
AM
[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 06-28-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Adminnemooseus, posted 06-29-2003 12:34 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Mammuthus, posted 06-30-2003 3:55 AM Adminnemooseus has replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3977
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 22 of 305 (44698)
06-30-2003 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Mammuthus
06-30-2003 3:55 AM


I closed the thread to (possibly?) prevent further damage. When I checked yesterday, much of the early part was intact.
Repairs are beyond anything I can do. I e-mailed Admin about the problem yesterday. Only Admin can work with the truly inner workings of the forum. Hopefully he can restore all or most of the topic. The question may be, how often does he back things up.
I did save 2 of the damaged pages from my temporary internet cache. Unfortunately I had cleaned out the thing recently, and didn't have more. Perhaps other can recover pages the same way. But you have to try to load the pages while being off-line, or your cache will be overwritten by the damaged versions of the pages.
Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Mammuthus, posted 06-30-2003 3:55 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Mammuthus, posted 06-30-2003 12:24 PM Adminnemooseus has replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3977
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 24 of 305 (44727)
06-30-2003 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Mammuthus
06-30-2003 12:24 PM


The ever amazing Google cache
The topic in question is intact up to the middle of page 14.
In case anyone wants to try it, Google has intact versions of most (but not all) of the damaged pages in its cache.
Go to Google.com
In the to be searched for box enter {"The Nature of Mutations" + } (everthing beween the brackets), and click on the search button.
They will indicate that some of the simular pages were not included, and ask if you want to include them. Tell them you want all the pages.
Results: 5 pages of hits.
Go ahead, give it a try.
I've e-mailed Admin the 2 good pages (21 and 22) I pulled from my internet cache, and the Google cache versions of 6 more pages (14 thru 19). If he can work with that, maybe 8 pages can be restored. Which is most of the damaged pages. I couldn't track down a version of pages 20 and 23.
Cheers,
AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Mammuthus, posted 06-30-2003 12:24 PM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Mammuthus, posted 07-01-2003 9:01 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3977
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 27 of 305 (44733)
07-01-2003 2:53 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by NosyNed
07-01-2003 2:21 AM


Re: science or not?
I think that Buz was vaguely on topic, but didn't need a reply here.
This is a topic to discuss moderation procedured.
Don't make me close the "too fast closure of threads" topic.
Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by NosyNed, posted 07-01-2003 2:21 AM NosyNed has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3977
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 31 of 305 (45150)
07-05-2003 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Admin
07-05-2003 11:28 AM


quote:
Those are good points, but if Buzz isn't going to post to the thread there seems little point in keeping it open.
Again, we have a "gang" of evo's, versus a lone creationist. I see no point in cornering Buz in an alley, and beating an admission of wrongness out of him.
quote:
Not to take a position on whether Buzz is right or wrong, but whether Buzz admits it or not, whether he recognizes it himself or not, Buzz's lack of knowledge on scientific topics reveals itself in almost every post.
Buz certainly does seem to be having trouble grasping the methodology of geological studies (minnemooseus non-admin side comment?), but he does seem to be making an effort. Once again, we must realize that it is the creationist side that drives the coversation at this forum. Let's not "squash the Buz".
quote:
Neither Buzz nor anyone else is required to agree with the information contained in science books and at science websites, but the determination with which he maintains ignorance of this information combined with a matching determination to discuss these topics despite his ignorance is, in the view of this administrator, regrettable.
Again, my impression is that Buz does not so much have a "determination to maintain ignorance" etc. as he is having trouble relating to the ways of science. I like Buz. Let's try to be nice to him.
Adminnemooseus (w/ minnemooseus chipping in)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Admin, posted 07-05-2003 11:28 AM Admin has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3977
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 34 of 305 (45764)
07-11-2003 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by wj
07-11-2003 12:16 PM


Much of my previous commentary regarding Buz was probibly strongly influenced by his participation in the "radiometric" topic.
Indeed, much of Buz's input is erratic (confused?), but he seems to be one of the last of an endangered species here - the creationist side of the debate. I'm not inclined to punish him for his participation (or lack of participation?), however flawed it might be. It is being a stimulus to discussion, however wacky that discussion might be.
Admin/Percy said much in message 10 of this topic. I tried to get him to spin that message off, as a topic of its own, but nothing happened.
I encourage you to re-read the material upstring.
Well, probibly not much of an answer, but it seems to be the best I have in me, at the moment.
Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by wj, posted 07-11-2003 12:16 PM wj has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3977
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 38 of 305 (51319)
08-20-2003 4:35 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Mammuthus
08-20-2003 4:23 AM


Gotta do it when you have the time. Tonight I've had time, as my e-mail system attempts to keep up with the %*&#^@ virus generated e-mail. *%@#$%& thing is drowning out my spam deliveries.
Still AMoose after all these years
ps - We had ~225 messages this past day - maybe I'm just trying to get people (hint - Frog) to slow down a bit.
pps - You did notice that the topic was reopened?
EDIT ADDITION - I neglected to enter the new message totals for that one hyperactive topic. That ~225 above should have been ~315. From checkpoint to checkpoint, we had 329 messages in 25 hrs 22 min. That's 316.90 messages per 24 hour day.
[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 08-21-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Mammuthus, posted 08-20-2003 4:23 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Mammuthus, posted 08-20-2003 6:05 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied
 Message 40 by wj, posted 08-20-2003 7:53 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied
 Message 41 by crashfrog, posted 08-20-2003 9:49 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3977
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 42 of 305 (51468)
08-21-2003 4:17 AM


The now closed 'Giants' topic
I went and looked at the message index page.
The topic was open for 53 hours - During that time there were 138 messages posted.
There were 107 messages in the final ~23 hours.
There were 75 messages in the final 8.25 hours.
Especially since things had gone way off-topic, I think that's a lot of babble.
Per crashfrog:
In my perusing of the various topics, his avatar stands out as showing up a lot.
Also note the number of messages (1200+) in less than six months. That's an average of 6+ messages a day, every day.
In general (per my edit of my previous message) - We just had an approx. 24 hour stretch with messages coming in at 316 per 24 hours.
I can't help think that we're getting into a quantity rather than quality situation.
Cheers,
Adminnemooseus
[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 08-21-2003]

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by crashfrog, posted 08-21-2003 10:53 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3977
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 45 of 305 (51551)
08-21-2003 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Admin
08-21-2003 11:23 AM


quote:
I think pointy-haired, er, Adminnemooseus is trying to tie a couple different points together.
My avatar changes from time to time. At the moment, I was using the Pointy-Haired Boss from the Dilbert cartoon.
quote:
He's justifying the closing of a thread by noting that it had not only detoured off-topic, but had also turned into a series of brief comments rather than a discussion, and it had resisted administrative attempts to encourage discussion.
Essentially, the topic had turned into a chat line. God forbid, that a message of great substance be posted - for it is doomed to be badly buried before the general public would have a chance to see it.
The topic was running so fast that any moderation input was impossible.
quote:
And he's tying that to the possibility that at an individual level many brief posts may possbily indicate a tendency to make drive-by comments rather than engage in discussion.
Like I said above - The topics was functioning as a chat line. Perhaps such a thing needed to be in the "Short Term" forum. Despite the forum title and guidelines, the topics there are persisting in the available record. At least until we hit a server storage space crisis.
quote:
I think you were just a handy example of many posts, not a convicted culprit of thread diversion, and your distinctive avatar makes your posts stand out and be noticed.
Absolutely correct. It was also intended to be a comment extending beyond the individual topic. I look for members of the evolution side to be figures of restraint. A "lead by example" type thing.
quote:
While we try to encourage serious discussion in the threads reserved for that purpose, we don't want to ruin the fun when something else enjoyable happens. Spontaneity is important, too. I don't think it was so much that the thread had veered off course as it was that during administrative attempts to adjust things back on course the veering seemed to accelerate.
I guess I could have moved the "Giants" topic to the "Free For All" forum, and totally wrote it off as not being worth following. I still have a hard time figuring out how it was an "Evolution" topic in the first place. Likewise, for the new "Giants" topic.
quote:
While the administrators and moderators shouldn't be viewed as Gestapo troopers, neither are they potted plants.
Hmmm. An idea for a new avatarr. The potted plant, that is.
quote:
That being said, we not only appreciate and understand the feedback, but think it makes some very important points, and I'm sure I'm speaking for all the admins and moderators when I say we will definitely try to incorporate it into our future efforts.
I hope that all the members follow these administrative procedure topics. These topics are the place for such things. Doing the discussions in the individual topics would also be a substantial off-topic disruption.
In summary, I think my efforts are, to try to get the daily total number of messages down to a level that I and the other members can actually keep up with reading that that is worthy of being read. Also, I'm assuming that Percy/Admin (who is the one paying the bills) does not wish to support the cost of ever increasing server storage space needs, if a lot of the content is, dare I say, trite.
Cheers,
Adminnemooseus
------------------
Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
too fast closure of threads

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Admin, posted 08-21-2003 11:23 AM Admin has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3977
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 49 of 305 (63745)
10-31-2003 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by NosyNed
10-31-2003 9:05 PM


Care to start a "Too Slow Closure of Threads" topic?
I'd include a "smiley", but I'm actually serious. I think we could use some "defacto-moderators". People willing to point out problem areas.
It's tough going, to sign up "real" moderators. I've contacted a number of people, but most are reluctant at best. Give praise to AdminAsgara, the Queen of the Universe. As far as I'm concerned, she can also be parallel queens, to the parallel universes.
Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by NosyNed, posted 10-31-2003 9:05 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by NosyNed, posted 10-31-2003 9:39 PM Adminnemooseus has replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3977
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 51 of 305 (63751)
10-31-2003 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by NosyNed
10-31-2003 9:39 PM


I once used a topic to offer up a moderator position, only to be convinced the offer was an error. That left me in the position of also having to withdraw the offer in public. Thus, I have a reluctance towards making moderator recruitment discussions in the public forum. I will try to put together something, and send it to you via e-mail. May take a while though.
Your e-mail address isn't in the public record. With the special admin accesses, I can dig it up, but it would be nice if you contacted me at mnmoose@lakenet.com.
Cheers,
Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by NosyNed, posted 10-31-2003 9:39 PM NosyNed 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