Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8943 total)
45 online now:
Newest Member: LaLa dawn
Post Volume: Total: 863,889 Year: 18,925/19,786 Month: 1,345/1,705 Week: 151/446 Day: 47/104 Hour: 2/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 10.0
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15455
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 286 of 305 (410177)
07-13-2007 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by Dan Carroll
07-13-2007 3:31 PM


Re: To AdminPD
I agree that that is relevant, but I think AdminPD shut it down because of Nemesis Juggernaut and his theocratic politics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by Dan Carroll, posted 07-13-2007 3:31 PM Dan Carroll has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by berberry, posted 07-13-2007 3:52 PM PaulK has not yet responded

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 287 of 305 (410179)
07-13-2007 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by PaulK
07-13-2007 3:49 PM


Re: To AdminPD
If that is indeed the case then perhaps I owe an apology. I suppose we'll see.


W.W.E.D.?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by PaulK, posted 07-13-2007 3:49 PM PaulK has not yet responded

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 288 of 305 (410184)
07-13-2007 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by Dan Carroll
07-13-2007 3:31 PM


Re: To AdminPD
RR provided background on what spawned his question.

The discussion concerns atheists and their last breath. RR feels they would turn to God. The opposite position from that is that they won't.

As far as I know, Christian beliefs are irrelevant to whether an atheist will turn to God on his/her deathbed. Quibbling over who is tolerant and who isn't is irrelevant to whether an atheist will turn to God on his/her deathbed. Who babbles more about their beliefs is irrelevant to whether an atheist will turn to God on his/her deathbed.

If people feel that those things are relevant to support their position concerning whether an atheist would turn to God on their deathbed, then people need to show how their argument supports their position concerning the deathbed. Connect the dots at the end of your post.

What I see right now is the same old Christian vs Atheist argument.

Take a new approach people.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by Dan Carroll, posted 07-13-2007 3:31 PM Dan Carroll has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by berberry, posted 07-13-2007 4:52 PM AdminPD has responded
 Message 290 by Dan Carroll, posted 07-13-2007 4:57 PM AdminPD has not yet responded

berberry
Inactive Member


Message 289 of 305 (410186)
07-13-2007 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by AdminPD
07-13-2007 4:39 PM


Re: To AdminPD
In that case I don't believe I owe any apology at all. I repeat my earlier observation that, as you've done more than once in the past, you fail to see a moralizing, condescending attitude toward non-Christians and gays as insulting. It is only harsh language that you ever seem to notice.


W.W.E.D.?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by AdminPD, posted 07-13-2007 4:39 PM AdminPD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by AdminPD, posted 07-13-2007 5:05 PM berberry has responded

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 290 of 305 (410187)
07-13-2007 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by AdminPD
07-13-2007 4:39 PM


Re: To AdminPD
The discussion concerns atheists and their last breath. RR feels they would turn to God. The opposite position from that is that they won't.

Well then, I can see how what an atheist believes, how that belief differs from the beliefs of those who would turn to God, and what effect that belief has on the person believing it would be totally irrelevant. Another excellent moderating job, PD.


"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by AdminPD, posted 07-13-2007 4:39 PM AdminPD has not yet responded

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 291 of 305 (410188)
07-13-2007 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by berberry
07-13-2007 4:52 PM


Re: To AdminPD
I replied to your message because of the f word which is unacceptable, but the post was to everyone who was off track. Just too many things to note.

You have no idea what I consider insulting. Moderating isn't necessarily based on personal preference.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by berberry, posted 07-13-2007 4:52 PM berberry has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by berberry, posted 07-13-2007 5:16 PM AdminPD has responded

berberry
Inactive Member


Message 292 of 305 (410189)
07-13-2007 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 291 by AdminPD
07-13-2007 5:05 PM


Re: To AdminPD
The 'f' word has been used on this board for years. Again, there was nothing in that post that was any more insulting that nemjug's condescending and moralizing attitude toward gays and non-xians. You seem to be blind to that, and it calls to mind how you were only too willing to accept that man's patronizing, sham "apology" to me for comparing gays to animals in one of the Haggard threads last year.

My post should not have been singled out in any way whatsoever!


W.W.E.D.?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by AdminPD, posted 07-13-2007 5:05 PM AdminPD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by AdminPD, posted 07-13-2007 7:10 PM berberry has responded

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 293 of 305 (410208)
07-13-2007 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 292 by berberry
07-13-2007 5:16 PM


Re: To AdminPD
quote:
The 'f' word has been used on this board for years.
And people get dinged for it depending on how it is used. From a moderator standpoint your post is a sign a situation is brewing.

quote:
Again, there was nothing in that post that was any more insulting that nemjug's condescending and moralizing attitude toward gays and non-xians.
What in Nem's post mentions gays or non Christians?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by berberry, posted 07-13-2007 5:16 PM berberry has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by berberry, posted 07-14-2007 3:08 AM AdminPD has responded

Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5829
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 294 of 305 (410211)
07-13-2007 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 283 by PaulK
07-08-2007 3:24 PM


Re: Sleazy creationist tactics
I note that Nemesis Juggernaut has chosen to revive an months-old Showcase thread as an excuse to make the usual Creationist slanders about evolution.

First of all, I'm not a creationist. I'm an ID'ist. Secondly, I didn't revive anything. It was a brand new thread.

If he really wants to discuss the subject - and I don't think that he does - he has every opportunity to propose a thread to deal with the issue in the other forums. The only advantage of using the Showcase forum, are to escape moderation and to make it harder for people to point out the falsehoods in his post. Hardly noble motives.

What are you talking about?

All you have to do is address my post IN Showcase if you have a problem with it and debate the issue there instead of running in here and making slanderous accusations. You want to talk about sleazy tactics, yet here you are crying to the Admins over spilled milk. What exactly do you want them to do, Paul? Order me not to use the Showcase forum?

I just so happen to respond to the threads that interest me. The one in Showcase just so happened to interest me. Seriously, what's the problem?


"The problem of Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it is difficult and left untried" -G.K. Chesterton

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by PaulK, posted 07-08-2007 3:24 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by PaulK, posted 07-14-2007 5:23 AM Hyroglyphx has responded

  
AdminNem
Inactive Member


Message 295 of 305 (410212)
07-13-2007 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by berberry
07-13-2007 2:48 PM


Re: To AdminPD
Berberry,

AdminPD did the right thing by temporarily closing the thread. We all drifted off topic. I include myself in that indictment. This is why we have Moderators in the forums.

Don't take it personally. Its not directed to you, personally. We all were drifting OT.

With that said, I think it would be wise for you to tone down the aggression. We are here to debate. Debating is supposed to be both recreational and educational.

Of course we are not all going to agree. (Kind of hard to debate someone you agree with). Is it going to get heated? Are some people's feelings going to get hurt sometimes, even if that wasn't the intent? Yes. But lets not lose focus of what this means. At the very least, take from it a way to sharpen your debate skills and to learn something that perhaps you didn't know before.

If we can't keep it civil and in perspective, then some people are going to be banned or suspended. I think I can speak for us all when I say that we enjoy your company; we enjoy your contributions; and this place would be a little different without you in it.

We want you to stay and be a part of EvC. But not at the expense of EvC drifting in to the unmoderated free-for-all's that pervade other forums.


Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures
  • Thread Reopen Requests
  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
  • Proposed New (Great Debate) Topics

    New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:

  • "Post of the Month" Forum
  • "Columnist's Corner" Forum

    See also Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

  • Thou shalt not have any other Mods before Me


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 284 by berberry, posted 07-13-2007 2:48 PM berberry has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 297 by berberry, posted 07-14-2007 3:10 AM AdminNem has not yet responded

    berberry
    Inactive Member


    Message 296 of 305 (410268)
    07-14-2007 3:08 AM
    Reply to: Message 293 by AdminPD
    07-13-2007 7:10 PM


    Re: To AdminPD
    AdminPD writes:

    quote:
    And people get dinged for it depending on how it is used.

    But they do not get "dinged" for assuming an insulting air of moral superiority and talking down to gays and non-xians, do they? Certainly not by you!

    quote:
    What in Nem's post mentions gays or non Christians?

    Look at the passage I quoted, then look in an adjacent post where he compares gay sex to rape. You know, I should think you'd be capable of seeing this yourself, but I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that you can't.


    W.W.E.D.?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 293 by AdminPD, posted 07-13-2007 7:10 PM AdminPD has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 299 by AdminPD, posted 07-14-2007 8:04 AM berberry has responded

    berberry
    Inactive Member


    Message 297 of 305 (410269)
    07-14-2007 3:10 AM
    Reply to: Message 295 by AdminNem
    07-13-2007 7:31 PM


    Re: To AdminPD
    If you wish to communicate with me then respond to the message I wrote you. Otherwise, shut the hell up!


    W.W.E.D.?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 295 by AdminNem, posted 07-13-2007 7:31 PM AdminNem has not yet responded

    PaulK
    Member
    Posts: 15455
    Joined: 01-10-2003
    Member Rating: 3.0


    Message 298 of 305 (410278)
    07-14-2007 5:23 AM
    Reply to: Message 294 by Hyroglyphx
    07-13-2007 7:17 PM


    Re: Sleazy creationist tactics
    quote:

    First of all, I'm not a creationist. I'm an ID'ist. Secondly, I didn't revive anything. It was a brand new thread.

    Virtually all IDists are Creationists. So that's not much of aa distinction. And your second point is disproven by the dates in the thread itself. The first post was possted on 04-08-2007. Your reply was posted on 07-08-2007. That's three months. April to July. So you did revive a months-old thread, and - given the way this forum works - it would be hard for you not to know it.

    quote:

    What are you talking about?

    All you have to do is address my post IN Showcase if you have a problem with it and debate the issue there


    Not true. I believe that I currently have access to Showcase, however that was granted to pursue one particular thread - not that one. So by replying to you I would be going against the conditions under which the access was granted. Unless access has been generally opened - which I have no memory of - then many people have no access to Showcase.

    quote:

    instead of running in here and making slanderous accusations. You want to talk about sleazy tactics, yet here you are crying to the Admins over spilled milk. What exactly do you want them to do, Paul? Order me not to use the Showcase forum?

    I would like the Admins to close the thread and make you go through the usual process to start a thread. i.e. actually follow the forum rules rather than let you take advantage of the Showcase forum. What is wrong about that ?

    And I love the double standard. Telling the truth about you is a "slanderous accusation" - while you feel free to make vicious and baseless accusations against anybody who doesn't agree with your views. It's just so typical.

    quote:

    I just so happen to respond to the threads that interest me. The one in Showcase just so happened to interest me. Seriously, what's the problem?

    There are two problems that I believe should be addressed by moderation. The evasion of forum rules. The abuse of the Showcase forum.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 294 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-13-2007 7:17 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 303 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-14-2007 12:41 PM PaulK has responded

      
    AdminPD
    Inactive Administrator


    Message 299 of 305 (410301)
    07-14-2007 8:04 AM
    Reply to: Message 296 by berberry
    07-14-2007 3:08 AM


    Re: To AdminPD
    I do my best to keep debates from getting personal, but this is a debate board and the nature of the beast is opposition. Being generically candid, as opposed to being politically correct, is allowed. The rules require that it be done as inoffensively as possible. There's not much we can do if you find disagreement offensive.

    quote:
    Look at the passage I quoted, then look in an adjacent post where he compares gay sex to rape. You know, I should think you'd be capable of seeing this yourself, but I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that you can't.
    Your quote came from Nem's Message 81 and doesn't mention gays, non-Christians, or rape.

    Now in Nem's Message 79 gays are mentioned, but he was quoting TD's Message 44. Taken at face value, Nem's comment in Message 79 concerning rape had nothing to do with gays. It was a response to a different comment by TD.

    TD writes:

    I'm really sorry, everytime I see one of you talk about god, I just can't get past all the BS that I see you guys do and say about other people who have never done you any harm.

    NJ writes:

    Your reasoning goes on thus: I haven't been raped. Since no one has hurt me, rape must be extrapolated and manipulated in to terms that grant its freedom from prohibition.

    Actually the person who put gay and rape in the same sentence in that thread is Dan Carroll in Message 80.

    Dan writes:

    Remember, kids! Being gay is the moral equivalent of rape!

    Participants and Moderators on this board come from various backgrounds, cultures, beliefs, and gender differences. There are catch phrases, slang, innuendos, etc. that we may miss due to these differences.

    Getting annoyed with me because I don't see what is obvious to you, doesn't help me see your position.
    Sometimes we find that because of our own background, culture, etc., that an insult is seen where none is intended.

    So if I have still missed the phrase that offended you, yes, you are going to have to be very specific.
    Provide the link, quote it, star it, underline it, and circle it!

    Then clearly explain how it was offensive within the context of his complete message and the message he was responding to.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 296 by berberry, posted 07-14-2007 3:08 AM berberry has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 300 by berberry, posted 07-14-2007 8:42 AM AdminPD has not yet responded

    berberry
    Inactive Member


    Message 300 of 305 (410306)
    07-14-2007 8:42 AM
    Reply to: Message 299 by AdminPD
    07-14-2007 8:04 AM


    Re: To AdminPD
    AdminPD writes:

    quote:
    There's not much we can do if you find disagreement offensive.

    I don't know how much more clearly I can state it, but I'll say it once again: It is the condescending air of moral superiority that I find not merely offensive but deeply insulting. I am not offended by disagreement and I resent the implication that I am.

    See if you can follow this:

    Here's Taz:

    I'm really sorry, everytime I see one of you talk about god, I just can't get past all the BS that I see you guys do and say about other people who have never done you any harm.

    It should be clear that Taz is referring to "other people" who do not share that idiot's "moral framework". That would include gays. If it isn't clear enough, then read the entire post, which specifically mentions nemjug's condescending attitude toward gays.

    nemjug responds:

    Your reasoning goes on thus: I haven't been raped. Since no one has hurt me, rape must be extrapolated and manipulated in to terms that grant its freedom from prohibition.

    The comparison of gay sex to rape is crystal clear. If it isn't clear to you, then just what do you think that moralizing bastard was talking about?

    You can go back to my post, the one that started all of this, for an example of his presumption of moral superiority over non-xians.

    This is a long-standing pattern with nemjug, going back much further than even his comparison of gays to animals last year (then as now, by the way, it was not his insult but my response which drew your ire). I should think anyone of even the meanest intelligence, if not "washed in the blood of jesus" or what the fuck ever, would be able to detect nemjug's condescending and patronizing attitude toward anyone, and especially gays, who do not share his narrow-minded and unabashedly bigoted world-view.


    W.W.E.D.?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 299 by AdminPD, posted 07-14-2007 8:04 AM AdminPD has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 301 by Admin, posted 07-14-2007 9:29 AM berberry has not yet responded
     Message 302 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-14-2007 12:25 PM berberry has not yet responded

    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019