Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9046 total)
160 online now:
AZPaul3, kjsimons (2 members, 158 visitors)
Newest Member: Dade
Post Volume: Total: 887,272 Year: 4,918/14,102 Month: 516/707 Week: 71/176 Day: 34/37 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 12.0
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 26 of 199 (419493)
09-03-2007 6:41 AM


Reminder
1. This thread is for "General Discussion of Moderation Procedures.

2. There is a thread to discuss PNTs: Considerations of topic promotions from the Proposed New Topics Forum

Please keep discussions in the appropriate thread and refrain from discussing nonmoderator behavior in this thread.

Thank you Purple


AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 69 of 199 (421662)
09-13-2007 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Rrhain
09-13-2007 6:40 AM


Re: To AdminPD regarding the "ramifications of omnipotence for God" thread
Yes and I've been watching the discussion between you and pbee.

By your own comments you two are going around in circles and are at an impasse. This comment by you is what prompted me to shake the tree.

Rrhain writes:

Nice try. Now, since I've pointed out that we've reached an impasse and since you are accusing me of anti-Semitism, why don't you go along with my suggestion of letting this go?

So before the personal barrage of "yes I did" and "no you didn't" started I opted to suggest that you two redirect. I do feel that the long posts were pushing the envelope a bit even for what side was allowing.

Since people can get very attached to their line of discussion I suggested an option of summarizing.

If you both feel you are already addressing the topic, maybe you both could take the time to explain how your discussion fits in with the topic without repeating yourselves for the rest of us.

Would you rather I change the action and ding you two for going in circles and not moving the discussion forward?

The goal was to break the circle before it devolved into more personal and less topic.

Can you suggest a generic statement more suited for that purpose?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Rrhain, posted 09-13-2007 6:40 AM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Rrhain, posted 09-15-2007 1:06 AM AdminPD has not yet responded

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 157 of 199 (423711)
09-23-2007 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by molbiogirl
09-23-2007 7:44 PM


Re: Link
Thanks for letting me know about the link error.

I'm asking you to try and make the argument in your own words, not just the conclusions.

This is your input:

As Lindalou may or may not know, "I've seen it myself" is not scientific evidence.

To wit:

LindaLou writes:

...as well as what happened to my husband's family in years past. That the events happened, is fact. What causes them, no one really knows...

This is the alternatype's party line.

Lindalou seems to find the Enfield case convincing.

The SPR is here.

Remarkably, none of their "Enfield evidence" is available.

Well. Lindalou. What is it you find so convincing?

It's obvious you don't agree with LindaLou but you didn't really make any argument concerning your position.

You've been here awhile, try putting more you in the post and less cut and paste.

Present your argument and use the links as support.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by molbiogirl, posted 09-23-2007 7:44 PM molbiogirl has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by molbiogirl, posted 09-23-2007 9:31 PM AdminPD has responded

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 160 of 199 (423747)
09-24-2007 7:43 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by molbiogirl
09-23-2007 9:31 PM


molbiogirl,

My comments aren't just concerning the OP.

Your response to Taz was the same. You don't explain what you consider to be "crap" about the links. If the link doesn't work for someone, your post has no substance. People shouldn't have to go to the link to understand your position on the subject.

I'm asking you to try to make your own arguments, with links for support; instead of cut and pastes or just links with your comments of agreement or challenge.

Stretch yourself. The rules ask that arguments be made in your own words.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by molbiogirl, posted 09-23-2007 9:31 PM molbiogirl has not yet responded

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 163 of 199 (423761)
09-24-2007 8:35 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by Jon
09-24-2007 6:53 AM


Re: The Nature of an Admin
I agree with AdminMod and add that in moderating a thread, sometimes we try to let the situation work itself out if the posts aren't grossly off topic or rude.

Sometimes our actions do depend on who is involved. When one does enough moderation we know what types of comments will set off some posters and which posters won't let issues go, etc.

Moderating isn't all black and white. It could be, but I don't think people would enjoy it. It would be like the zero tolerance in schools.

I agree with AdminPhat that there was no need for an off-topic call and he already issued a warning concerning respect.

But, given what I read in yesterday's interaction between jar and Nem, I think they both could use a stronger reminder to refrain from the personal and stick to the topic.

The sad thing is that they both know better.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Jon, posted 09-24-2007 6:53 AM Jon has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by jar, posted 09-24-2007 10:05 AM AdminPD has responded

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 166 of 199 (423809)
09-24-2007 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by jar
09-24-2007 10:05 AM


Re: The Nature of an Admin
quote:
I often have to wonder if the Admin staff here at EvC has a clue what a personal attack is. From the behavior of many members of the Admin staff it is not clear they do.
Personal attacks are as you describe them, but when I speak of personal, I'm not talking about personal attacks.

I see two types: 1) Asking or requesting personal information and 2) participants are arguing over debate style (for lack of a better description). IOW, they are no longer discussing the topic, but quibbling about what was said and what wasn't said. The discussion is no longer moving forward. There are just accusations of misrepresentation, misleading, misquoting, etc. It becomes a personal battle which can lead to personal attacks, but it doesn't really provide any more information concerning the topic or move the discussion forward.

Those are the types of unproductive discussion that I term personal. That may not be totally accurate, but now you know.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by jar, posted 09-24-2007 10:05 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by jar, posted 09-24-2007 12:44 PM AdminPD 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 © 2021