Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9036 total)
85 online now:
Aussie, DrJones*, dwise1, harpo, Pollux (5 members, 80 visitors)
Newest Member: Barry Deaborough
Post Volume: Total: 885,634 Year: 3,280/14,102 Month: 221/724 Week: 70/93 Day: 9/18 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 12.0
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 768 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 121 of 199 (422445)
09-17-2007 5:19 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by AdminNem
09-15-2007 4:03 PM


Re: To AdminPD regarding the "ramifications of omnipotence for God" thread
AdminNem responds to me:

quote:
AdminPD doesn't have to keep out of anything, ever, here at EvC.

Huh? She asked a question as to what I think she should have done. I gave her an answer. Now you're upset that I answered her? The fact that you don't like the answer is insufficient.

Question: Is it possible for an administrator to overreach?

Yes or no.

If so, then yes, there will be times when an administrator should keep his or her nose out of it.

quote:
Not only is she is a moderator, but this is a public forum.

Do you see me stopping her from posting? Saying she should go quietly into that good night and never darken our door again? I simply pointed out that she barged in, decided to throw her weight around, and that it was inappropriate for her to do so: She should have stayed out of it unless she had something constructive to add.

Is it impossible for an administrator to make an error?

Yes or no.

Yes, since the administrators are in control of the board, a case could be made that they never make mistakes since they get to make the rules. But let's not be disingenuous, shall we? If a set of guidelines has been constructed and the administrator violates them, is it not accurate to say that said moderator should have stayed out of it?

[Violation of forum guideline #10 deleted for space.]

quote:
So rather than tacitly asserting that everyone else is either crazy or unduly persecuting you

Huh? Where have I said so regarding this? I simply pointed out that AdminPD was apparently ignorant of what the author of the topic declared: The question of obedience and free will is directly related to the question of omnipotence and thus, on topic. Therefore, the conversation between pbee and myself regarding whether or not obedience requires knowledge of good and evil is directly on topic, despite what AdminPD might claim.

If the originator of the topic isn't a good place to go to regarding what the topic is, where else are we to go?

Please show me where in Message 97 or 69 where I even hinted at declaring someone "crazy" or that I (or anybody else for that matter) was being "persecuted."

I remind you, AdminPD was the one who brought up "dinging" people. She asked me what I thought she should have done. I took that question seriously and gave her an honest answer.

Why does that so upset you?

quote:
as opposed to asking for some kind of special dispensation.

Where did I ask for anything? Be specific.

AdminPD asked a question. I answered her.

You seem to be upset that I took her question seriously and answered it with integrity rather than simply groveled at her feet, begging her mercy.

quote:
Please find a more constructive way to voice your concerns.

Strange. That's my advice to you.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by AdminNem, posted 09-15-2007 4:03 PM AdminNem has not yet responded

Ihategod
Member (Idle past 4926 days)
Posts: 235
Joined: 08-15-2007


Message 122 of 199 (422610)
09-17-2007 8:36 PM


You guys shouldn't have suspended Rob for so long. I enjoy his threads and he is one of the few advocating team creation. No disrespect, however wouldn't this seem strange to kick someone for a month for trying to get a point across? I don't know all the details, nor do I want to. Perhaps you could let him back a week or two early? I would like that.

thanks. HEWG


The world embarrasses me, and I cannot dream that this watch exists and has no watchmaker.
Voltaire (1694-1778)

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by kuresu, posted 09-17-2007 9:12 PM Ihategod has not yet responded

kuresu
Member (Idle past 1409 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 123 of 199 (422626)
09-17-2007 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Ihategod
09-17-2007 8:36 PM


Um, if you'll pay attention, he's been able to post again for a short while.

In fact, check out his thread on the lack of evidence for adenine on the murchison meteor.

He got suspended for a week because he asked mike the wiz to post a new "summary" in a now closed thread while he was suspended. Admin moved that to a month after he was suspected of arguing yet again through another poster. After finding this wasn't the case, the suspension was reduced to the original week. The original suspension (1 day, as I recall) came because after giving a "summary" in that thread, he continued on debating after have been told, expressly, that people were to only summarize (the thread had but 12 messages left and was very active)

People are suspended for not following the rules, longer for brazen flouting of such. Asking someone to debate for you, while you are suspended, is but a variation on creating a new profile while your original is suspended so that you can continue to debate. It shows an immense disrespect for the rules, and as such, should be treated harshly. Anyone doing such deserves this.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Ihategod, posted 09-17-2007 8:36 PM Ihategod has not yet responded

jar
Member
Posts: 33343
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 124 of 199 (422648)
09-17-2007 9:45 PM


AdminBuzsaw giving false advice
In Message 49 AdminBuzsaw makes a typically erroneous suggestion that calling an idea stupid is the same as calling a person stupid. This seems to be a common error.

The goal is to address the content of posts and if an idea is stupid it should be shown to be stupid. The key point is "shown to be stupid".

AdminBuzsaw says:

I see you refer to the ToE as stupid. You need to be aware that in doing so you are implying that the vast majority of members of EvC, most of who are very intelligent people are stupid..

That is fine. If it were then possible for Biblical Creationists to support their position, there would be no issue at all. The problem is that Biblical Creationism is bankrupt and indefensible and so the only option is to allow as much leeway as possible for those trying to support such a position.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-17-2007 10:33 PM jar has responded

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 125 of 199 (422666)
09-17-2007 10:29 PM


Limbo forum
Why don't we use the "Limbo" forum for problem posters any more? Especially since it seems such a fitting consignment for those who continually flout good taste.


"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 126 of 199 (422669)
09-17-2007 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by jar
09-17-2007 9:45 PM


Re: AdminBuzsaw giving false advice
AdminBuzsaw makes a typically erroneous suggestion that calling an idea stupid is the same as calling a person stupid. This seems to be a common error.

The goal is to address the content of posts and if an idea is stupid it should be shown to be stupid. The key point is "shown to be stupid".

I'm a little confused as to what you are saying is false if you agree that he handled it well. What exactly are getting at?


"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by jar, posted 09-17-2007 9:45 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by jar, posted 09-17-2007 10:37 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

jar
Member
Posts: 33343
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 127 of 199 (422672)
09-17-2007 10:37 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Hyroglyphx
09-17-2007 10:33 PM


Re: AdminBuzsaw giving false advice
I'm a little confused as to what you are saying is false if you agree that he handled it well. What exactly are getting at?

Yet another example of the inability to read.

Exactly where did you get the idea that he handled it well, he did not. In fact he made a classic mistake, confusing an attack on content with an attack on the poster.

Calling a position stupid is certainly not an attack on the poster.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-17-2007 10:33 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Admin, posted 09-17-2007 10:56 PM jar has responded

Admin
Director
Posts: 12719
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 128 of 199 (422680)
09-17-2007 10:56 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by jar
09-17-2007 10:37 PM


Re: AdminBuzsaw giving false advice
In terms of the Forum Guidelines, we have to apply the spirit of the Forum Guidelines and not limit ourselves to its few inadequate words. There are only ten brief rules because we wanted the Forum Guidelines to be something people would actually read.

But no quantity of words could ever accurately characterize where the line of civility is crossed in all situations, and nothing will ever cause everyone to agree on where that line is drawn. All moderators can do is use the Forum Guidelines as a guide to applying their best judgement.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by jar, posted 09-17-2007 10:37 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by jar, posted 09-17-2007 11:02 PM Admin has responded

jar
Member
Posts: 33343
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 129 of 199 (422681)
09-17-2007 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Admin
09-17-2007 10:56 PM


Re: AdminBuzsaw giving false advice
But no quantity of words could ever accurately characterize where the line of civility is crossed in all situations, and nothing will ever cause everyone to agree on where that line is drawn.

I agree, and so we struggle with defining that line. In this case, calling a position stupid while not providing the supporting evidence or reasoning is just a weak, a very weak argument. But if that is the only tool available to a person to support their position, if that really is their best argument, they should be allowed to make it. They should not be penalized just because there is no other way to support their position.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Admin, posted 09-17-2007 10:56 PM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Ihategod, posted 09-17-2007 11:15 PM jar has not yet responded
 Message 131 by Admin, posted 09-17-2007 11:52 PM jar has not yet responded

Ihategod
Member (Idle past 4926 days)
Posts: 235
Joined: 08-15-2007


Message 130 of 199 (422683)
09-17-2007 11:15 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by jar
09-17-2007 11:02 PM


Re: AdminBuzsaw giving false advice
Calling theistic evolution stupid is a fact. I don't understand why the pep talk? Claiming that I have no evidence to back this statement up is incredulous. You have not heard but a small fraction of my objections towards the ToE, as I have just begun to settle in. It looks like I have my work cut out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by jar, posted 09-17-2007 11:02 PM jar has not yet responded

Admin
Director
Posts: 12719
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 131 of 199 (422690)
09-17-2007 11:52 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by jar
09-17-2007 11:02 PM


Re: AdminBuzsaw giving false advice
I found this wonderful Jefferson quote recently, let me see if I can dig it out again...

Ah, here it is:

Thomas Jefferson writes:

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by jar, posted 09-17-2007 11:02 PM jar has not yet responded

iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4811 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 132 of 199 (422703)
09-18-2007 1:02 AM


Request for Moderation Action
errr... another ill-mannered ambassador for Christ has blown a fuse in the Angular Unconformities thread. Could someone kindly have a look and clean it up. Thanks.

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 1538 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 133 of 199 (422704)
09-18-2007 1:02 AM


Admins, I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask (again) that youall take a look at HEWG's shenanigans.

Message 66

At the very least, warn him.


iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4811 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 134 of 199 (422713)
09-18-2007 1:44 AM


Thanks for removing HEWG
But is there any reason why HEWG's graffiti in the angular unconformities thread couldn't be removed? I know we are discussing angles and contours but I don't think his choice of images advances the discussion anymore than his nonsense comments.

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Adminnemooseus, posted 09-18-2007 3:37 AM iceage has not yet responded

Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3933
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 135 of 199 (422737)
09-18-2007 3:37 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by iceage
09-18-2007 1:44 AM


Leaving the message unhidden, at least for now
But is there any reason why HEWG's graffiti in the angular unconformities thread couldn't be removed?

I was about the use the "hide" code, which would render all of the message invisible other than via the "peek" mode. But then I wondered if it be best that the message remain free of any "edited by an admin" message. As such there is evidence that there was no admin tampering with the message - There can be no charge of a frame up.

Adminnemooseus


This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by iceage, posted 09-18-2007 1:44 AM iceage 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