Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
3 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?
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6561 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 77 of 303 (37983)
04-25-2003 5:44 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by crashfrog
04-25-2003 4:15 AM


Re: Are any changes planned?
I am actually not pushing for salty to be banned at all. I don't want anyone banned. Temp suspensions, critical moderating, etc. fine. I take issue with banning and that it has typically not been obvious (to me at least) why some are banned for relatively mild infractions and others are allowed to persist while being consistently useless i.e. salty. Look at the run around he is giving Percipient/Admin in even simply stating his own view on the difference between Darwinism and evolution!
I think PLG is useful since as you can see from his thread, not all of us are agreeing on a definition of mutation. So something productive comes out of debating with him..
cheers,
M

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by crashfrog, posted 04-25-2003 4:15 AM crashfrog has not replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5958 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 78 of 303 (38005)
04-25-2003 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Adminnemooseus
04-24-2003 12:07 PM


Re: Are any changes planned?
Whoohoo! What a great idea! Cooption is the best policy. He can't keep kvetching about moderators if he is one...
Besides, I think he'd make an outstanding moderator. Even if he doesn't agree with my definition of mutation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Adminnemooseus, posted 04-24-2003 12:07 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Mammuthus, posted 04-25-2003 10:55 AM Quetzal has replied

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6561 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 79 of 303 (38010)
04-25-2003 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Quetzal
04-25-2003 10:12 AM


Re: Are any changes planned?
Ah Quetzal my friend...beware, you are also on Moose's shortlist of potential moderators

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Quetzal, posted 04-25-2003 10:12 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Quetzal, posted 04-27-2003 3:25 AM Mammuthus has not replied

derwood
Member (Idle past 1962 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 80 of 303 (38027)
04-25-2003 2:00 PM


I think some more obvious and public admonishions to salty to stay on topic, not violate so many board rules, and actually address questions/comments rather than blather on with the boringly predictable "Broom would agree with me, if he hadn't died in 1951" (no, Salty never actually wrote that... sheesh!) routine would at least put it 'on record' that the admin is aware of his antics and is not 'secretly' plotting against him.
Percy re-asking him the same question over and over was interesting and effective, but I think it would have had more effect to have an admin "Hey how about it?" tossed in.

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

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5958 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 82 of 303 (38134)
04-27-2003 3:25 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Mammuthus
04-25-2003 10:55 AM


Re: Are any changes planned?
Hah! You're stuck with it on your own. (Q checks the "newly discovered vertebrate" database for Porcus volans references. Nope.) Good luck!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Mammuthus, posted 04-25-2003 10:55 AM Mammuthus has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 13082
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 83 of 303 (38147)
04-27-2003 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Adminnemooseus
04-26-2003 5:54 PM


Re: Brad McFall and Budikka
Budikka is still a member. That he doesn't show up on the membership list is a bug that is already on the bug list. I've known about this bug for a while now, but it's been tough to track down because every time someone new joins, the member left off the list often changes. For example, for a while this past winter Jet was missing from the member list. The nature of the bug implies that there's always a few members missing from the list, but there's no way no know which members unless someone happens to notice. This should be a simple bug to fix, and I may be able to give it some attention during my convalescence.
Most of Budikka's posts violate the guidelines. He was warned in Message 38 of the Fossils - Exposing the Evolutionist slight-of-hand thread. That it was a post to Brad that was his next violation was mere coincidence.
Budikka's posting privileges will be restored if he persuades me via email to Admin that he will follow the forum guidelines in the future. I know this approach represents a change from the enforcement procedures published in the current guidelines, but I think some experimentation is called for. The history of the 24-hour suspension, and even the 1-week suspension, is that it is a fairly ineffective enforcement measure with a very high level of recidivism.
SLPx is another member who is on the edge of a similar suspension. I fully identify with SLPx's complaint that he used to construct detailed and temperant responses that were for the most part ignored or not understood, but that doesn't justify his behavior. Many of the exchanges between Fred Williams and SLPx and between Peter Borger and SLPx and to a lesser extent between Salty and SLPx were 90% complaints about each other and for that reason impossible to follow, and that's where tolerance of this type of behavior leads.
Several have expressed concerns about tolerance of Salty's behavior. While I have no evidence to go on other than his posts, I'm convinced he's an energetic but senile old man who still has the agressively defensive posture of an academic but no longer possesses any of his former analytical gifts. In other words, the reason I'm not coming down harder on him is that I believe he's already operating at the outer limits of his competence. I understand the frustration that develops when Salty refuses to concede any point, but that he is losing every point is self-evident to anyone with even just rudimentary analytical skills. He's incapable of constructing any scientific arguments where the points are related and support one another, and the majority of his posts are simple repetitions. Who cares whether Salty admits he's wrong. That's he wrong is obvious to anyone qualified to have an opinion. In fact, the real danger to evolution that I see from Salty is the possibility that he'll bring other members down to his level and make it easier for convinced Creationists to conclude there's really very little difference between Creationist and evolutionist academics.
Hope this information is helpful.
------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Adminnemooseus, posted 04-26-2003 5:54 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Mammuthus, posted 04-27-2003 3:31 PM Admin has not replied

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6561 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 84 of 303 (38157)
04-27-2003 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Admin
04-27-2003 11:11 AM


Re: Brad McFall and Budikka
I for one appreciate the clarification Admin.
I disagree somewhat on SLPx as I think he has posted some informative and valuable posts. And I also fully understand his frustration with specific members of this forum (who I might note, he has engaged on other boards). I will also put it this way, it is hard enough to get scientists to interact with the public and even worse when it comes to an unwilling public like creationists. That SLPx has been such a long term participant in this activity is admirable and I give him a lot of credit for it. I wish we could get more scientists interested in participation.
Your assesment of salty is probably correct. However, the guy brings absolutely nothing to the debate. In fact, Mister Pamboli pointed out his errors of both interpretation and quotation of his hero's that he has been misquoting ad naseum... to which salty responded that he did not agree with everything Broom et al said...and then proceeded as if nobody had ever questioned him or addressed this. Borger was redundant and by the end interaction with him became useless...and yes, I did get "dragged down" into a flame war which I am not pleased with. However, there were some interesting and highly active debates with Borger last year. Salty's do not go anywhere because he is the sole advocate of a bone headed unsupportable idea which he himself refuses to debate but consistently posts that "Darwinism has failed" whatever the heck he even means by that....some normally very cool headed members here have certainly shown their frustrations with him since he was given an extraordinary amount of leeway for absolutely no contribution (I read most of his manifesto even and feel that I could not have destroyed more brain cells if I had consumed all of the Starkbier in Bavaria). I guess my take on Salty is by all means let the guy hang around. Buddika to....but if they cannot abide by the guidelines, boot their threads to the free for all and get them out of the more constructive debates...it just wastes everybodys time and energy otherwise.
As an example of constructive I will point out again the mutation thread started by Phospholipidgen is one of the most entertaining I have seen in a long time since none of us can agree on a definition of mutation (darn it Quetzal..we were close until you kaputted it today )
cheers,
A yet again participating Mammuthus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Admin, posted 04-27-2003 11:11 AM Admin has not replied

Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3946
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001


Message 85 of 303 (38868)
05-03-2003 2:50 PM


Topic bump for Gene90
Gene may not be aware of this topic, which has become the home for discussion of forum moderation procedures.
I will get back to the terrorism topic, and make a probably short statement, somewhere along the line. I am not going to do it off-topic, in a "Free For All" forum.
minnemooseus (the non-admin mode of Adminnemooseus)

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by mike the wiz, posted 06-22-2003 7:20 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4755
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 86 of 303 (43673)
06-22-2003 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Minnemooseus
05-03-2003 2:50 PM


Re: Topic bump for Gene90
dear admin can you suggest where i mis behaved , i do not think i was that bad in my topic 'He is not going away' .i would like to know so i do not mess up next time , i am not arguing with you i just do not think i was misbehaving,must i recieve a suspension just for disagreeing with the powers that be?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Minnemooseus, posted 05-03-2003 2:50 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by crashfrog, posted 06-22-2003 11:54 PM mike the wiz 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

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

mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4755
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 89 of 303 (43756)
06-23-2003 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Adminnemooseus
06-23-2003 2:08 AM


Re: The context
o.k i have listened, i will leave it there ,i guessi did not ask a certain question so i will take my slap on the wrist as hindsight.i will not persue the topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Adminnemooseus, posted 06-23-2003 2:08 AM Adminnemooseus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Adminnemooseus, posted 06-23-2003 1:06 PM mike the wiz has not replied

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


Message 90 of 303 (43757)
06-23-2003 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by mike the wiz
06-23-2003 1:02 PM


Re: The context
Oh-kee doh-kee
Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by mike the wiz, posted 06-23-2003 1:02 PM mike the wiz has not replied

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


Message 91 of 303 (44992)
07-03-2003 4:29 PM


The cranky-mode SLPx
Mammuthus, from http://EvC Forum: The Nature of Mutations II
quote:
Hi salty,
There is some reinforcment i.e. when someone regularly gets out of hand they can be suspended (not that it ever happened to me)and if it persists, they get banned. I will point out (since he seems to be the object of your ire) that Scott has been suspended before so it is not that he is completely free to say things any way he likes.
However, in any situation you will encounter those who are not civil or behave the way you wish...it should not be a reason to hide.
Maybe Admin would like to comment further?
SLPx seems unable to supress the expression of his "crankyness gene" for any extended period of time. Thus, he seems to be continuesly residing is the gray zone between acceptable and unacceptable behaviour.
What to do? Right now, I once again ask SLPx to try to be nice.
Adminnemooseus
ps: I believe that Peter Borger is one of about 3 people that Admin put on posting permission suspension, for an indefinite period. This is close to, but not the same as being banned. Peter has "read only" access to this site. I think (but may be wrong) that a full banning could go so far as to exclude a person from any access to the site.

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Mammuthus, posted 07-04-2003 3:57 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied
 Message 96 by derwood, posted 07-18-2003 11:41 AM Adminnemooseus 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