Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9173 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,573 Year: 4,830/9,624 Month: 178/427 Week: 91/85 Day: 8/20 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Change in Moderation?
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 15 of 303 (34906)
03-21-2003 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Admin
03-21-2003 9:14 AM


Peter Borger and Salty at least make claims that are worth taking a look at, even if they also make a lot of claims that they cannot support, evade important issues and misrepresent opposing views. Granted the main point to looking at them might be to expose the errors, but at least in Salty's case there might be something worthwhile amongst all the dross. They may be more work than they are worth from a moderator's point of view but they are not COMPLETELY worthless.
Compared to drummachine, to use one example, there is at least a CHANCE of discussion even if it may be more work than it is worth. So far as I can see drummachine is a complete waste of time, and the only reason he has not been suspended is the lower volume of posts that he produces and the fact that he is so obviously a waste of time that he is easy to ignore.
On an unrelated point, might I suggest that if "Free For All" is used as a "dumping ground" as proposed, that there is an option on the main page to list topics from the moderated fora only (i.e. like "list all topics" but excluding "Free For All").

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Admin, posted 03-21-2003 9:14 AM Admin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by MPW, posted 02-02-2004 3:08 PM PaulK has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 50 of 303 (35122)
03-24-2003 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Admin
03-24-2003 8:40 AM


I don't even believe that Peter Borger has anything worthy of being called a GUToB. And I don't think that he can contribute much st this point without an administrator keeping him on a tight rein.
I do think that he should have been given the chance to present his views, but he's had that.
I am happy to leave the decision of what to do with him now in the hands of the administrators - since it is they who will shoulder the burden.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Admin, posted 03-24-2003 8:40 AM Admin has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 217 of 303 (146021)
09-30-2004 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by Wounded King
09-30-2004 11:40 AM


Syamasu/Nando
He's started posting to talk.origins again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Wounded King, posted 09-30-2004 11:40 AM Wounded King has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 259 of 303 (158268)
11-11-2004 3:29 AM
Reply to: Message 258 by Adminnemooseus
11-11-2004 3:15 AM


Re: helpful bare links?
In my opinion I think you need a little more sensitivity to context.
A bare link is not appropriate for making an argument. Nor is it appropriate to rebut a proper argument. But when the only thing on the table is a bare assertion I don't see any need for anything more to rebut it.
If you permit low content posts like techristian's then I don't think that you should complain if the responses are also low content - so long as they adequately address what little substance has actually been put forward.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Adminnemooseus, posted 11-11-2004 3:15 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 289 of 303 (164729)
12-02-2004 5:22 PM


A suggestion for AdminJar
Please take into account the time it takes to compose a post.

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by AdminJar, posted 12-02-2004 5:33 PM PaulK has replied
 Message 303 by Kid Oh No, posted 07-11-2006 11:10 AM PaulK has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 291 of 303 (164744)
12-02-2004 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by AdminJar
12-02-2004 5:33 PM


Re: A suggestion for AdminJar
Actually I don't see a need. Your post discussed the situation and then stated that there would be no further discussion of the issue on that thread. It didn't single out anyone in particular.
That's fair enough.
What I am saying is that I beleive that you should allow a grace period between posting and taking any further action to allow for the time it takes to compose a post. If discussion goes on too long beyond that THEN further warnings and picking out individuals may be in order.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by AdminJar, posted 12-02-2004 5:33 PM AdminJar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by AdminJar, posted 12-02-2004 5:54 PM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 293 of 303 (164747)
12-02-2004 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 292 by AdminJar
12-02-2004 5:54 PM


Re: A suggestion for AdminJar
I don't think that I was intentionally singled out, but I also think that you were a bit too quick off the mark as I had had no opportunity to see your post.
I suspect that it would have been better if the whole discussion had been quickly moved away from that thread but I think you have to take that one up with Percy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by AdminJar, posted 12-02-2004 5:54 PM AdminJar has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 300 of 303 (168804)
12-16-2004 3:58 AM
Reply to: Message 299 by Buzsaw
12-15-2004 8:07 PM


Re: Post 34 and 37 Thermodynamics Tread
Let me point out that Percy's response is largely shaped by your own recent thermodynamics thread which clearly showed that you had failed to do your homework, did not understand what you were talking about and refused to learn.
Percy cannot offer any guarantee that you would be allowed to introduce such a thread again since it was rightly closed and should probably never have been approved in the first place.
Percy is in a position where neither a "yes" or "no" answer is good. Yhere is nothing forbidding anyone from discussing thermodynamics provided they can do so in line with the forum rules and guidelines. Yet a "no" answer would contradict that. However there is no doubt in my mind that you would take a "yes" answer as indicating that your thread was wrongly closed even though the reasons for doing so were clear and do not relate to your question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by Buzsaw, posted 12-15-2004 8:07 PM Buzsaw 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