General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 10.0

This isn't entirely accurate. The statement I quoted when admonishing crash was:

quote:

---

And why is it that you can't present the least evidence for any of your assertions? Is it because they're all falsehoods?

---

You will note that crash DID NOT directly accuse NJ of lying. However, I am absolutely certain crash was fully aware of what he was doing. To promulgate a falsehood while knowing it is a falsehood - crash's accusation here - is different from lying how, exactly? I didn't suspend him for it, because it is borderline - and I try not to suspend people without giving warning first. How to do it? Well, everyone has their own style, of course. I like to use an indirect approach - a euphemism. For instance, "your assertion doesn't appear to be supported by the evidence" is a good one in science threads. "That turns out not to be the case", and "that is not entirely accurate" ( ) are alternatives. Naturally, you have to follow these up with the "why" bits, but they beat the hell out of saying "liar, liar pants on fire". I try to employ the best form of diplomacy - which a very wise man (whose name I can't remember to save my life) defined as "Diplomacy is the art of telling someone to their face to go to hell, and at the same time arouse in them a desire to purchase a ticket on the first train leaving for that destination". I don't always succeed of course.I guess the short answer is: if you wouldn't want someone to say something to you - don't say it to them. Figure out a better way of expressing it.

Well done, young jedi. I think you got it...

Truth. However, the other formulations are, shall we say, more diplomatic? The issue of "liar" and how to call someone on either blatant or subtle falsehoods is and has been (and probably will remain) a point of contention and discussion here. It was one of the points which resulted in Dr. A's extended suspension, for instance - a suspension that is still resulting in quite a bit of debate and discussion both openly and in the Private Administration Forum. Do we have a set, concrete policy on the issue? No. But I feel we are groping our way towards one.If crash feels I singled him out unfairly, then he can have my apologies. He is a poster who has been on EvCForum nearly as long as I have - and thus would be very aware of the nuances of how the board works/should work. He is someone whom I hold in great respect - insightful, very intelligent, an excellent writer - and one of several people whose posts I turn to first when I log on. However, he can be, as you noted, "somewhat fiery" to say the least. In his defense, it's likely because he doesn't suffer fools gladly. On the other hand, he does know better - and he was getting dangerously close to a suspension for it. Not wanting to see that, I gave him a warning that he was coming close to violating the forum guidelines, especially with the recent sensitivity here on the "liar" issue.I am very willing for someone to show how my action in this case (or in any other, for that matter) could be construed as unfair. I don't see it that way, obviously, but could probably be convinced. You'll note that I have a very low level of suspensions - but a lot of warnings. Usually, a warning is sufficient, I've found.Until and unless either the Admin team or the Big Boss comes up with an unequivocal rule on the issue (which may not even be possible), it will continue to be a judgement call. In the absence of such a ruling, my only recommendation is for all concerned to use common sense and strive for courtesy in debate - even if you believe the other poster is clearly equivocating. After all, the bottom line is that you are unlikely to convince your interlocutor directly in any event, but all the folks who read the threads are usually capable of making up their own minds as to the rightness of the case. Beat them with evidence and logical argument. It's unnecessary to stoop to overt name-calling. Edited by AdminQuetzal, : added dropped word

Sure. The entire discussion of the Michael Shermer presentation was off-topic for the thread. I already spoke to the person to whom you responded - s/he is going to open a new thread to discuss this. My suggestion would be to wait until that topic is proposed and promoted - then copy your response to the new thread.

Apologies. I jumped the gun. Post is now re-opened to comment.Edited by AdminQuetzal, : No reason given.

Hey Nuggin.I completely concur with the Moose closing that topic. That was one of the worst examples of off-topic nonsense I've seen in a while. If I'd caught it before Moose, I'd have slammed the door as well.

An admirable intent. Perhaps trying to accomplish the same goal in the context of the actual topic might avoid similar problems in the future. Since you knew you were off-topic - you've been around long enough to know what that means - your reasoning here becomes weaker, don't you think? It's a fool's game to attempt to second-guess another admin. Moose has explained what happened and why there was such a short timespan between warning and closure. Would I have done the same thing? Probably not - I'd have just closed the topic for a cooling off since the messages were passing between you two pretty quickly. After all, you had exchanged some ten messages in a relatively short span of time (actually 18 messages between 12:18 am and 1:07 am), absolutely NONE of which were on topic - on a thread which had been inactive for a month.Please DO continue to try and educate the newbies. Just do it in the context of the thread in question. Actually, I would say that this is a pretty fair description of what admins on EvCForum are supposed to do. We should NOT use admin mode in any thread where we ARE actively participating. And it isn't a question of "disagreeing with the discussion". It's a question of trying to maintain civility and focus on an active board with a wide variety of posters, styles and topics. Just keeping track of active threads is a challenge. Feel free to disagree with and challenge admin actions. Sometimes we even reverse decisions based on member feedback in this and related threads. That's what the General Discussion of Moderation Procedures, etc, is for. In this particular case, however, I don't think your argument is a good one - you were blatantly off topic; you knew you were blatantly off topic; you continued to post off topic for numerous posts. Would you have stopped if an admin had posted a warning, or would you have wanted to get your last licks in?