Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: sirs
Post Volume: Total: 917,645 Year: 4,902/9,624 Month: 250/427 Week: 60/103 Day: 4/14 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Change in Moderation?
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1552 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 73 of 303 (37867)
04-24-2003 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Mammuthus
04-24-2003 6:04 AM


Re: Are any changes planned?
Actually I don't have a problem with Admins being harder on the evolutionists. For one thing it keeps us honest. If creationists want to make fools of themselves, why stop them? All it does is make evolutionists look like the well-reasoned, calm thinkers.
Anyway I think most creationists will stay out of the more technical, intra-evolutionist topics, purely from lack of familiarity with the subject. exceptions may be Salty who feels qualified to hold forth on any topic (usually with nothing more than "darwinism is dead!").
But it does kind of look like BooBooCruise needs to be reigned in... he's shooting topic continuity all to heck wherever he posts. I don't think he should be suspended just yet, but maybe we could start moving his posts into appropriate forums. (Lord knows some of us haven't been helping by resonding and encouraging him. I'm particularly guilty.)

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 75 by Mammuthus, posted 04-25-2003 3:51 AM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1552 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 76 of 303 (37980)
04-25-2003 4:15 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Mammuthus
04-25-2003 3:51 AM


Re: Are any changes planned?
I fail to see a distinction between say Peter Borger who was banned permanently from salty who has been given one 24 hours suspension (and then he resumed with no modification of his behavior).
I certainly agree that salty's behavior, under normal circumstances, begs to be barred. The problem is that he's made specific comments at other boards that he's bucking for suspension here. I say let's not give him the pleasure. So long as he wishes to post here let's let him do it, because to suspend him would only confirm, at least to his mind and those like him, that we have a bias.
Everytime he opens his mouth (well, types with his keyboard) he embarrases himself. And largely he sticks to a few topics. I say, let him post. I don't want to give him the satisfaction of being banned.
Contrast this to PhospholipidGen...I totally disagree with what this guy is saying. But he has stayed on topic and stuck to the topic he started. The quality of the posts in that thread are better overall.
You're definately right about that. I just wish PLG had the opportunity to post more often. I find his posts maddening (in the sense of being frustrating), but at least they're original. He's really thinking about what he's saying, not copying some Hovind website. A most worthy adversary.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Mammuthus, posted 04-25-2003 3:51 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Mammuthus, posted 04-25-2003 5:44 AM crashfrog has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1552 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 87 of 303 (43699)
06-22-2003 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by mike the wiz
06-22-2003 7:20 PM


Re: Topic bump for Gene90
Yeah, I agree with Mike - I thought that was a pretty harsh shut-down.
Honestly I don't find a Christian's passionate love of jesus any more offensive than my own flat-out statements that god doesn't exist.
Now, I'm not sure I'd start a thread joking at the percieved expense of believers. So that may have been a little over the top. Nonetheless, hasn't it been established that harsh crackdowns on creationists don't bolster our forum's reputation for fairness?
Furthermore a casual "I'm sure you're breaking someforum guideline" inspires about as much confidence in administrative fairness as a cop arresting me on charges of "I'm not sure but I'm sure you're breaking some law" inspires confidece in my local constabulary. Specific citations of forum guideline are more than appropriate for a shutdown of such harshness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by mike the wiz, posted 06-22-2003 7:20 PM mike the wiz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Adminnemooseus, posted 06-23-2003 2:08 AM crashfrog has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1552 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 99 of 303 (53534)
09-02-2003 5:55 PM


Re: Message 91 in "Evolution of Light" by Adminnemooseus
In e-mail communications with Admin, I have expressed concern about the volume of messages being posted by Crashfrog. While some of these are indeed very fine (Post of the Month level) messages, a lot are what I file under the term of "trite" or "blather". In his six month presence, the frogster has already become one of the top-ten (in count) message posters. I think that at least some of the others of that "top-ten" list might also consider activating their own personal "anti-blather" filter.
If there's a specific forum guideline you feel I'm violating, by all means, point it out.
But otherwise it feels a bit like you're picking on me simply because I post a lot. Which I realize I do.
However I largely see it as my "place" here to take on those creationists who are not likely to be swayed by evidence, because their objections to evolution are not based on evidence but rather faulty logic or equivocation. Discussions with these folks rarely take the form of deep, well-researched posts, I realize, but rather quick, short messages and bantering wordplay.
I make an effort to hold my tongue in discussions of a more evidental nature, though sometimes my enthusiasm gets the better of me. But even if I make a greater effort to curb my enthusiasm, what assurance do I have that you won't continue to take my large number of posts as a black mark against me? What could I possibly do in the face of so many posts that would make you think I was improving?
I guess my point is, if the large number of my posts is the only thing that makes you suggest I'm a less-than-helpful member, what could I possibly do about that? I can't erase my posts.
These are earnest questions. I'm genuinely curious what you think I could do to ease your objections besides a total suspension of posts while I wait for somebody else to "catch up".
[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 09-02-2003]

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by John, posted 09-02-2003 7:30 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 101 by Mammuthus, posted 09-03-2003 9:56 AM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 102 by Dr Jack, posted 09-03-2003 10:20 AM crashfrog has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1552 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 105 of 303 (53684)
09-03-2003 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Adminnemooseus
09-03-2003 11:01 AM


An extreme example of a bad signal to noise ratio (and I say this not having read most of the string), is the "Evolution of Light" topic. Probably, both Admin and I have written that one off as being a total wasteland, not worthy of even bothering to look at.
For persons interested in a serious discussion of the evidence, yes. But such topics provide an opportunity for posters like Wise, who are clearly inexperienced with the rigorous style of debate practiced here, to be shown a better way to argue.
Like, training wheels. People come here from all corners of the internet - from forums across a spectrum of civility. Is it really reasonable to expect a new poster to immediately take to heart a more serious style of debate? Can't one or two topic be spared for the express purpose of correcting some poster's bad critical thinking habits before they try to sit at the adults table?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Adminnemooseus, posted 09-03-2003 11:01 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Admin, posted 09-03-2003 11:38 AM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1552 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 107 of 303 (53687)
09-03-2003 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by Admin
09-03-2003 11:38 AM


I've temporarily closed the Evolution of "Light" thread. When it reopens later today I will hopefully have caught the attention of Wise, and perhaps he'll reengage more constructively. But even more importantly, I would like to request that those engaging in dialogue with Wise recognize that responding in kind isn't helpful, and so I'm asking that they respond with more understanding and helpfulness while trying to avoid being condescending. It's a lot to ask, I know, but I'm sure you guys are up to it!
We'll do our best. Perhaps it might be a good idea if you add a message to that thread that's a little clearer about what parts of Wise's behavior are so objectionable. After all we would hardly want him/her to get the impression that we object to his position, not his technique. And as the disinterested admin he/she might not immediately dismiss such suggestions as he/she might do from his/her opponents.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Admin, posted 09-03-2003 11:38 AM Admin has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1552 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 110 of 303 (64737)
11-06-2003 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by NosyNed
11-06-2003 10:46 AM


I had thought - hoped, perhaps - that the adminstrative attention was due to his unfortunate habit of obsessing over any percieved slight to the exclusion of substantial debate. I saw nothing truly objectionable about his stupid code brackets, but I do object to how he keeps forgetting to address the meat of arguments instead of their presentation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by NosyNed, posted 11-06-2003 10:46 AM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by NosyNed, posted 11-06-2003 2:52 PM crashfrog has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1552 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 115 of 303 (65356)
11-09-2003 3:04 PM


Re: Iron Man's suspension
What exactly is the procedure for a change of username? If there isn't one, is it really fair to suspend a person for shifting to a new identity, if the purpose wasn't to circumvent a suspension?
(Also how come IM's suspension didn't merit a notice on the Suspensions thread?)

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Trump won, posted 11-09-2003 4:37 PM crashfrog has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1552 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 122 of 303 (65427)
11-09-2003 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Trump won
11-09-2003 5:45 PM


Give him a little time than an hour, dude. Not everybody hangs out here full time.
I seriously doubt that there's a conspiracy afoot to cover up Iron Man's suspension, if that's even what's happened.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Trump won, posted 11-09-2003 5:45 PM Trump won has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1552 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 172 of 303 (92357)
03-14-2004 4:11 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by Syamsu
03-14-2004 3:51 AM


I think we can all agree that this kind of surpression is against forumrules, and that in future only serious counterarguments may be entered into threads I start.
I for one wholeheartedly agree. I propose that Syamsu only post in threads of his own creation. In return we'll all agree not to post in his threads unless we have something we know he would consider "a serious counterargument."
What say ye?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Syamsu, posted 03-14-2004 3:51 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by Syamsu, posted 03-14-2004 7:28 AM crashfrog has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1552 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 178 of 303 (94701)
03-25-2004 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by Adminnemooseus
03-25-2004 12:42 PM


I do think that extra protection is needed, for the endangered species "Creationist".
At what point does "extra protection" become allowing certain creationists to run ramshackle over the forum guidelines? And why does the protection seem to extend to people who aren't creationists at all?
I don't care if you have a problem with me, AM. I doubt we'll be able to approach a compromise on the issue. But if you ask me - and several others - your heavy-handed, inconstant attempts at administration are one of the leading discourages to participation these days.
You want to point some fingers about the "decline" in board quality? Start by pointing one or two at the mirror.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Adminnemooseus, posted 03-25-2004 12:42 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1552 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 188 of 303 (95692)
03-29-2004 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by Admin
03-29-2004 2:06 PM


I agree with Moose. Ignore him.
Is that really the best we've got?
I've never seen DU react to a potentially dissenting opinion with anything but an immediate declaration of victory after ridiculing the poster. If he's not going to play nice with the big kids, can't we bust him to Free for All?
[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 03-29-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Admin, posted 03-29-2004 2:06 PM Admin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by NosyNed, posted 03-29-2004 2:57 PM crashfrog has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1552 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 220 of 303 (148170)
10-07-2004 5:14 PM


From "Junk DNA":
Crashfrog writes:
Admins, at this point, I don't know what else JAD has to do to substantiate that he has no plans to engage in productive discussion. What else does it take to get some action taken around here? Maybe when the Moose gets done sitting on topics he can get his ass in gear, here?
Adminnemooseus writes:
Do you not have the free will of not responding to Salty/JAD?
Make any response to the "Changes in Moderation?" topic. Link back here.
What evidence do you have that that will work? JAD has said outright that he intends to rail against Darwinists rather than engage in productive discussion; there's no indication that he needs any provocation to do so. After all there was no provocation for him to return and begin posting anew.
I don't understand why you think ignoring him will make him go away, after he's pledged not to leave at any cost. What else does it take to get banned here besides saying "I'm determined to break the rules and act like an ass, and there's nothing you can do about it?"
This message has been edited by crashfrog, 10-07-2004 04:15 PM

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by AdminNosy, posted 10-07-2004 5:58 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1552 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 222 of 303 (148181)
10-07-2004 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by AdminNosy
10-07-2004 5:58 PM


They come here to engage people in conversation that, to them, gives them some importance.
But he's not here to engage in conversation. He's said as much. He's here to make fun of Darwinists, not address arguments.
I don't see that that's something we have a responsibility to support, or that we should wish to.
There is a chance that they will, in desparation for attention, start posting all over the place whether relevant or not.
Short of actually doing that, isn't an announced intention to do just that sufficient to merit action?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by AdminNosy, posted 10-07-2004 5:58 PM AdminNosy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by AdminNosy, posted 10-07-2004 6:19 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1552 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 224 of 303 (148186)
10-07-2004 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by AdminNosy
10-07-2004 6:19 PM


I hope you'll be complimented to know that I would not be inclined to let you get away with squat.
Well, I hope you won't.
As far as Davidson goes I wasn't following closely enough to make a decision.
I realize that. That was the point of my post; not to be an ass, but to bring a thread to the attention of admins who I knew weren't reading it.
I mean, isn't the fact that Salty's participating under two ID's now enough by itself? What does it take?
I was about to anyway when AdminMooseus stepped in and saved me from it.
By doing nothing?
In his case I think ignoring him will either cause him to go away or to do something that makes the suspension decision easy.
I still don't understand what's hard about the decision now. The Junk DNA thread was interesting. Now it's a landfill of JAD posts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by AdminNosy, posted 10-07-2004 6:19 PM AdminNosy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by AdminNosy, posted 10-07-2004 6:30 PM crashfrog 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