Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: sirs
Post Volume: Total: 917,646 Year: 4,903/9,624 Month: 251/427 Week: 61/103 Day: 5/14 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Change in Moderation?
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3977
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 5 of 303 (30449)
01-28-2003 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Admin
01-28-2003 8:01 AM


quote:
There is simply more activity here than moderators can keep up with.
There has been an ongoing, albeit perhaps feeble, effort to bring on more moderators.
The glitch is, is that Admin (Percy) feels the need to balance the numbers of creationist and evolutionist moderators. And as it currently sits, Adminquility (TB) is admin in title only; he has really not done anything (that I have noticed) in the "admin mode". Which is probably best, as he is so active as a debater, in so many topics.
Personally, I feel that a creationist/evolutionist balance is not that significant. I think we can have fair and proper administration/moderation, even if it came down to being that all moderators were from the evolution side.
Perhaps various members would like to e-mail me, with nominations for new moderators. These can be others, or themselves. Moderators can be specific to an individual forum, or to more than one forum.
In particular, my impression is that we really need help for the "Evolution" forum. My biology background is such, that my brain goes numb and my eyes glaze over when I even try to read the more technical stuff in that forum.
In conclusion, I'm not going to make any public judgement on the current Jet situation. At worst, the suspension is only for 24 hours. Even if Admin were wrong, it's not really that big of a deal.
Adminnemooseus
------------------
{mnmoose@lakenet.com}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Admin, posted 01-28-2003 8:01 AM Admin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by wj, posted 01-28-2003 6:26 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

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


Message 7 of 303 (30491)
01-28-2003 7:55 PM


Re: http://EvC Forum: Nucleotide sequence variation in ancient human mtDNA -->EvC Forum: Nucleotide sequence variation in ancient human mtDNA
Like I said above, I haven't at all been monitoring the various "Evolution" topics that closely. But, I do seem to have seen a lot of messages constisting all or mostly of the trading of slurs and insults.
SLPx is certainly not the only guilty party. But he has succeded in making himself high profile. To me, the message in question (especially in the context of the Jet situation) was him jumping up and down, waving a red flag, begging for a suspension. So I did one.
If we had the ability and the desire, we (the administrators) could be issuing warnings and suspensions all over the place. Especially if we wished to enforce the guidelines hard core.
Personally, all I look for is for the participents to be reasonably nice to each other, try to put some real content into their messages, and try to stay somewhere in the vacinity of the topic of the forum. Or something like that.
I may be wrong, but hey, like I said before, a 24 hour suspension of posting rights at can't really be that big of a blow.
Assuming he hasn't quit the site entirely, SLPx's posting rights are scheduled to be restored at about 1:30 pm on 1/29.
Adminnemooseus
------------------
{mnmoose@lakenet.com}

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


Message 9 of 303 (32905)
02-22-2003 11:58 PM


From another topic
From "Darwin in the Genome"
http://EvC Forum: Darwin in the Genome -->EvC Forum: Darwin in the Genome
quote:
Admin (Percy) said: The moderator guidelines prohibit moderation of threads in which one participates, and since I'm participating in this discussion as Percy I am powerless here, so I only issued a general admonition.
My reply:
quote:
I, in the minnemooseus mode, have not taken part in this thread, or for that matter, much if any part, in any "Evolution" topic.
As minnemooseus, I have previously started a "Suggestion" topic, which suggested that Peter Bourger and his ideas might be best served by (at least for now) confining them to one topic (such as William Scott has done with his flood ideas). I don't think that Peter Bourger's "scatter shot" presentation of his GUToB is doing a service to to either his ideas, or to the discussion being done in the various topics.
I'm rather confident that the official forum guidelines can give me a weapon towards guiding Mr. Borger towards a more unified discourse on his theory, should push come to shove. Right now, I just wish to STRONGLY encourge Peter to take his theory to a single topic location, so that we can coherently discuss it's merits.
There is a GUToB topic in the "Welcome, Visitors" forum. I don't know why it was started in that forum, but perhaps it best be moved to "Evolution".
Maybe I should make this message it's own topic. We'll see.
Adminnemooseus
I came down on Peter Borger rather hard here (although I still stand behind that position), and I'm rather surprised that there has been no response.
I think the general moderation efforts have been to error on the side of excessive freedom, rather than the side of excessive restriction. But, seemingly, things could stand for a bit of tightening up. But that is no small trick - any effort could easily swing too far the other direction.
Comments?
Adminnemooseus

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


Message 11 of 303 (34785)
03-20-2003 2:19 PM


From another topic
At the "Intelligent Design and Irreducible Complexity Questions" topic, at http://EvC Forum: Intelligent Design and Irreducible Complexity Questions -->EvC Forum: Intelligent Design and Irreducible Complexity Questions, Peter said:
quote:
Admin,
Do you not feel that your input has become overly high
in the 'Admin' mode.
Take the above for example ... Marlowe's post was most likely
intended to provoke some oposing opinion, and we probably all
know that.
If that is against forum guidelines then I understand your interjection, otherwise I wonder that perhaps you are
wishing to enter the thread in discussive mode.
The phrase 'heavy handed' has sprung to mind of late with some
posts by 'Admin'.
As a fellow admin, I will not comment on this, at least for now.
Adminnemooseus
------------------
{mnmoose@lakenet.com}

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


Message 12 of 303 (34849)
03-21-2003 3:38 AM


I suggest that discussion of moderation issues take place in this topic.
Please provide a link back to the message(s) of issue.
AM

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


Message 38 of 303 (35010)
03-23-2003 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Admin
03-22-2003 8:36 PM


First a side note - For some reason, the Mozilla browser is crashing, when I try to reply here. I've gone back to using IE for the moment. Added by edit - well, Mozella does't seem to want to work at Terry's place either - might be a javascript thing - I wonder if that "critical update" I recently did from Microsoft, is mucking things up (the "evil empire" strikes again?). - end edit.
Admin, I agree with what you're saying in message 31, but I'll add some comments.
quote:
You know, there's another issue here. I feel I'm just enforcing the guidelines. I don't let SLPx do what Salty is doing, why should I let Salty? {snip} ...but I feel I'm being asked to ignore the guidelines for certain individuals.
I fully concede that I'm "protecting" (note quotes) Salty a bit. But he is new to this forum, and so far has confined himself to the one topic. He is also in the position of being the one against the many. SLPx has a substantial history here, and has very much earned special administrative attention. That said, it is my intent to get back to the Salty topic, and give it a careful review. I will post some comments there, and link back to this topic.
As I see it, individuals such as Salty, Peter Borger, and Michael Behe straddle the line between "old earth creationist" and "theistic evolutionist". Peter Borger has (as far as I know) never defined himself as such; Salty has (at Terrys Talk Origins) explicitly stated that he is an old earth evolutionist (non-Darwinian variety), and has strongly implied that he thinks God input was part of it.
The difference between Salty and Borger (in my view), and Behe, is that Salty and Borger are mostly on the "old earth creationist" side of the fence, which essentially leaves them in no-mans land in the creation/evolution debate. Behe is 99+ percent on the evolution side - he is an evolutionist with a touch of creationist in him.
Adminnemooseus
------------------
{mnmoose@lakenet.com}
[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 03-23-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Admin, posted 03-22-2003 8:36 PM Admin has not replied

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


Message 48 of 303 (35104)
03-24-2003 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Mammuthus
03-24-2003 11:16 AM


I guess my vision of the "Unique Perspective" forum would be as a halfway house, between "Evolution" and "Free For All". "Unique Perspective" could be made open to all like "Free For All" is.
Further comment certainly welcome.
Moose/Adminnemooseus - Operating in non-admin/admin mode
Added by edit c. 11:55 pm, 3/24/03 - Oops, I just remembered that the "Free For All" isn't as free as it used to be.
[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 03-24-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Mammuthus, posted 03-24-2003 11:16 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Admin, posted 03-24-2003 12:13 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied
 Message 54 by Mammuthus, posted 03-25-2003 3:14 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

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


Message 55 of 303 (35394)
03-27-2003 2:11 AM


wj comment elsewhere / Bump
wj has commented elsewhere (http://EvC Forum: Well, I guess it just goes to show... -->EvC Forum: Well, I guess it just goes to show...), on my closing of the salty topic. I am not going to comment on it there.
He is welcome to bring the question to this topic.
But right now, it's 1:10am where I live, and I got to get to bed.
Adminnemooseus

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Admin, posted 03-27-2003 7:33 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

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


Message 61 of 303 (36338)
04-05-2003 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Mammuthus
04-05-2003 1:22 PM


Re: Mammuthus extinct
There is a bit of ongoing e-mail discussion, between the various admins, concerning the problems of moderation. What I will say here are my opinions, which may or may not be in line with Admins (Percys).
quote:
It is a lack of consistency in applying moderation.
and
quote:
I see most board participants get a warning that they are crossing the line prior to suspension
A problem is, is that the various admins could be plastering warnings all over the place, which gets very messy in itself. I think Admin (Percy) chose to issue a suspension to you as to be a warning to all. In other words, you were being made an example of. There were probably other highly respected evolution side participants that could equally as well been used as the "whipping boy".
quote:
On top of that, I see that subsequently, salty has violated rules 1 through 3 in EVERY post since Peter and I were suspended
Salty, SLPx, and others are the more grievous offenders. They are currently on the razors edge of being given long term suspensions, or being restricted to certain forums (in a possible system yet to be set up).
quote:
If a standard set of moderating guidelines are developed or a new concept in running the forums emerges from this suggestion thread that seems to work well, I'll re-evaluate
Admin (Percy) is trying to come up with "new and improved" guidelines.
I personally don't really focus in on the official guidelines. My attitude is that the participants need to try to 1) Stay somewhere in the vicinity of the topic, 2) Bring something of substance into the discussion, and 3) Be nice to each other. I think my moderating efforts have largely focused in on #1.
Adminnemooseus
------------------
{mnmoose@lakenet.com}
[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 04-05-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Mammuthus, posted 04-05-2003 1:22 PM Mammuthus has not replied

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


Message 64 of 303 (36394)
04-07-2003 5:15 AM


SLPx (message 62):
quote:
I have been extraordinarily restrained in regards to Davison's attacks, assertions, infantile blather, etc, and I think it obvious that I have been so.
My impressions and recollections may be flawed, but "extraordinarily restrained" is not a phrase I tend to associate with SLPx.
quote:
We are told to "let salty be salty" - in other words, allow him to be a crotchety old crackpot, to insult us repeatedly, etc., and do nothing in return - apparently, not even trying to get said rule-breaking crank to stick to the topic for once - for if we do, we get the 'talking to'.
I made (as minnemooseus) the "let salty be salty" statement in message 46 of the topic string.
EvC Forum: John A. (Salty) Davison - The Case For Instant Evolution
quote:
SLPx, I do agree with you, but for at least now, I feel the need to let Salty be Salty. I certainly hope that this doesn't cause you to go into the "cranky mode".
This is not to say that Salty exempt from disipline, for any future transgressions he might do.
At that point the topic was less than 48 hours old. By everyone's point of view, Salty has a "unique perspective". As such, and at that time, I was willing to give him some "unique treatment". I had hoped that something good would have come out of that topic. Whether anything did, I will leave to the individual members' judgement.
quote:
Either enforce the rules across the board, or don't enforce them at all.
Coming from the evolution side of the debate, I fully admit that I tend to hold members of the evolution (aka "the science side") to a higher standard of rational behavior. I tend to view the creationist side (especially YECism) to be "fundamentally irrational". Of course, it is this "irrationality" that drives the entire debate.
Is SLPx pleased that Salty has done such a fine job of dragging him down to the Salty level?
quote:
I think I will be joining Mammuthus.
SLPx has a long and substantial history of abrasive behavior. This has come to be expected of him. What really pains me, is to see members such as Mammuthus (for whom I do have a very high regard) also occasionally descend to some sort of that level of behavior.
Quetzal (message 63):
quote:
salty - the most vitriolic, insulting, and utterly useless poster we have had on this board since I joined - is being allowed to stay. What is wrong with this picture?
I think this speaks to the basic problems Mammuthus and SLPx have articulated. I'm hopeful they will correct me if I'm wrong.
Quetzal is another of the "science side", whom I have very high regard for. I always appreciate hearing from him. Indeed, both Mammuthus and he are on the short list of people that I have been trying to get involve as official moderators.
Q, hopefully what I have said in response to SLPx is also relevant to your message.
At this point, I am leaving actions about Salty, SLPX, Peter Borger, et all, to be in the hands of Admin (Percy). It's his site. He pays the bills. He is the ultimate authority in the running of this place. Which isn't to say that I won't sometimes disagree with him, and make those disagreements known.
I'll probably need to do further comments later, but that's what I have to say for now.
Adminnemooseus
Added by edit: I do think that SLPx has done many fine messages at this site. I just wish that he would be more successful at keeping the "cranky mode" out of all those messages, not just some of them.
------------------
{mnmoose@lakenet.com}
[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 04-07-2003]

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Quetzal, posted 04-07-2003 6:31 AM Adminnemooseus has replied

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


Message 66 of 303 (36398)
04-07-2003 7:05 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Quetzal
04-07-2003 6:31 AM


Q, thanks again for your response.
Quoting myself, from my previous message of this topic:
quote:
At that point the topic was less than 48 hours old. By everyone's point of view, Salty has a "unique perspective". As such, and at that time, I was willing to give him some "unique treatment".
Obviously, this "unique treatment" has gone on for too long. I guess I'll post a special warning topic to Salty, alerting him to the fact that the exceptional leaniency he has been granted is ending. I presume a long term suspension will probably shortly follow.
Adminnemooseus
------------------
{mnmoose@lakenet.com}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Quetzal, posted 04-07-2003 6:31 AM Quetzal has not replied

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


Message 67 of 303 (37277)
04-18-2003 12:17 PM


There has been much discussion of behavior problems at the "Your favourite Bible absurdity" topic, leading up to this message. All this has quite possibly fatally derailed that topic.
Please try to confine moderation issues messages to this topic, with references back to the topic in question.
Adminnemooseus
------------------
{mnmoose@lakenet.com}

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Mammuthus, posted 04-19-2003 10:29 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

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


Message 72 of 303 (37842)
04-24-2003 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Mammuthus
04-24-2003 6:04 AM


Re: Are any changes planned?
Recent moderation methodology has been a trick to see who whould complain about the moderation methodology, so we would have a candidate to try to pass the job off on (off on?).
So, are you ready to become AdminMammuthus?
I'm serious, give me an e-mail.
Adminnemooseus
------------------
{mnmoose@lakenet.com}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Mammuthus, posted 04-24-2003 6:04 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Mammuthus, posted 04-25-2003 3:45 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied
 Message 78 by Quetzal, posted 04-25-2003 10:12 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

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


Message 81 of 303 (38126)
04-26-2003 5:54 PM


Brad McFall and Budikka
Percy (in the non-admin mode) has posted some comments concerning his views of Brads place in this forum, at http://EvC Forum: does it matter which is or not when there is value commercially? -->EvC Forum: does it matter which is or not when there is value commercially?.
These comments tie into Budikka's suspension, which was a result of his comments directed at Brad. Admin's Budikka suspension message can be found at http://EvC Forum: Creationists Cannot Define "Kind". -->EvC Forum: Creationists Cannot Define "Kind".. Please read up the thread, to see what lead to this suspension.
In checking the membership list, it appears that Budikka has ended his membership at .
Adminnemooseus
------------------
{mnmoose@lakenet.com}

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Admin, posted 04-27-2003 11:11 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

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


Message 88 of 303 (43716)
06-23-2003 2:08 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by crashfrog
06-22-2003 11:54 PM


The context
I think this opening message, in a new topic, is the main source of contention (http://EvC Forum: He's not going away -->EvC Forum: He's not going away):
Mike said:
quote:
have just read a funny funny attack against Jesus,saying something like 'we would not be saved if Jesus died in jail'
is it just me or is this thinking COMPLETELY irrelevant.These arguements against our creator are getting funnier each day,i am sticking around just to laugh at this stuff.you can argue against him 'till your tongue drops out but as a follower of Christ i can tell you its gonna take a hell of a lot more than this to get me down.He's not going away!
To which I replied (before closing topic):
quote:
Mind your bahaviour, mike.
Closing this topic, which is otherwise only destined to be a flame war.
Adminnemooseus
1) Is there anything of substance in that opening message?
2) Why did Mike start a new topic ("He's not going away"), rather than replying in the "have just read a funny funny attack against Jesus,saying something like 'we would not be saved if Jesus died in jail'" topic (http://EvC Forum: The only difference between suicide and martyrdom is press coverage. -->EvC Forum: The only difference between suicide and martyrdom is press coverage.)?
Mike was also posting in other topics, including http://EvC Forum: Your favourite Bible absurdity -->EvC Forum: Your favourite Bible absurdity (posted 19 minutes after his message above):
quote:
What is your favourite bible absurdity? '
is that all you can manage Brian ,oh dear down and down we go bible haters not in the know,
arguements drowning
evos frowning
i'll stick to the good word i know.
Which, for better or worse, Brian Johnston replied (http://EvC Forum: Your favourite Bible absurdity -->EvC Forum: Your favourite Bible absurdity):
quote:
Have you been drinking Mike, or are you filled with the brain numbing Holy Spirit?
Anyhow, Mike replied to my topic closing message (above) in the "Booboocruise Files" topic (http://EvC Forum: Booboocruise files, The -->EvC Forum: Booboocruise files, The}:
quote:
why so harsh on mike the wiz, was he really being so naughty?
For which I reopened the first mentioned topic, to reply:
quote:
Mike, you're succeding in rubbing me the wrong way.
I'm confident that you're violating some forum guidelines.
You're headed towards a posting rights suspension.
Mind your behaviour.
Complaints can be take to "Change in Moderation?"
Adminnemooseus
I then reclosed the topic. Mike then replied with the upstring message (I should have posted the "Change in Moderation" link in message 2).
Now, I don't have the forum guidelines memorized - But my impression was, that Mike was putting out a fairly good supply of pretty dubious messages.
Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by crashfrog, posted 06-22-2003 11:54 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by mike the wiz, posted 06-23-2003 1:02 PM Adminnemooseus has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024