Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-18-2019 9:07 AM
34 online now:
edge, jar, JonF, kjsimons, Percy (Admin), Stile, Tangle, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (8 members, 26 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,004 Year: 9,040/19,786 Month: 1,462/2,119 Week: 222/576 Day: 25/98 Hour: 1/8


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2Next
Author Topic:   General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 13.0
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 152 of 312 (429667)
10-21-2007 7:50 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by PaulK
10-21-2007 4:22 AM


Re: Geology & The Great Flood Admin Moderation
The original request in Message 130 for a change of venue has clearly been denied by Admin in Message 136.

This discussion is concluded.

Any response or continuation of this subject will lose access to this forum for 24 hours.
--AdminPD


This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by PaulK, posted 10-21-2007 4:22 AM PaulK has not yet responded

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 171 of 312 (434771)
11-17-2007 8:23 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by nator
11-17-2007 7:01 AM


Re: AdminPD
No Dear.

My Admin Message was very clear concerning the issue.

Members do have a choice of who they respond to.

Continuing to demand a response is badgering.

Now we have a useless thread because you didn't get the hint that the member doesn't wish to respond to your post.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by nator, posted 11-17-2007 7:01 AM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by nator, posted 11-18-2007 9:35 AM AdminPD has responded

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 174 of 312 (434970)
11-18-2007 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by nator
11-18-2007 9:35 AM


Re: AdminPD
Your original post in the transcendent thread was Message 55 to which Petro did not respond.

Your friendly reminder in Message 95 to which he also did not respond.

nator writes:

Hey, Petro, any thoughts on my critique and questions found in message #55?

Another inquiry in Message 119

nator writes:

Petro, I wondered if you missed this message?

His response in Message 121 was that he did not miss the post, which should tell you that he chose not to respond to it. (October 25th)

He also felt pursuing it would be off topic and he was backed up by AdminQuetzal.

Petro did not intimate that he wanted to continue a discussion with you in a new thread.

On November 14th in Message 89 of the Rationalism thread you invited Petro to the mind reading thread you would be starting.

nator writes:

Speaking of irrationality, why don't you join me over at the thread I'm going to start on mind reading and the people, like you, who think they can do it?

Again Petro did not respond in that thread or the new mind reading thread.

In Message 5 of the Mind Reading thread you even said the only reason you called him out was because he called liberals irrational.

nator writes:

The whole reason I called him out on this thread is because he took a shot at liberals in another thread, specifically calling most of us "irrational".

After two days of no response from Petro you bump the thread with Message 6.

C'mon, don't you want to discuss your mad skillz?

When he finally responds with the inappropriate Midol comment, you seem surprised that he is upset. Message 15

nator writes:

Petro, how do you think it looks to everyone that you have resorted to calling me a bitch instead of actually addressing the OP? I haven't called you any names, yet here you are, getting all emotional and lashing out, um...irrationally.

Is it really irrational to lash out at someone who is goading you and can't take the hint to back off?

Holding someone's "feet to the fire" usually smacks of demanding.

nator writes:

I am not a "bitch" for holding your feet to the fire regarding your claim of being a mind reader, nor for starting this thread in response to your incredibly ironic accusation that liberals are irrational.

You didn't take the subtle hints, so he had to get aggressive, not that that excuses his inappropriate response.

quote:
If he doesn't want to respond, then nothing in the world can force him to, right?
That's easy for an antagonist to say. At some point people will try to defend themselves especially if they wish to continue on this board and the issue is brought up in unrelated threads and hinders discussion.

Per the forum guidelines though, the antagonist does not have the option to cast aspersions or deride those who do not respond. That is not respectful behavior.

Always treat other members with respect. Argue the position, not the person. Avoid abusive, harassing and invasive behavior. Avoid needling, hectoring and goading tactics.

You may not be calling anyone bad names, but you were trying to needle him into responding. Hence your persistence.

I do feel that this tactic of yours is in violation of Rule #10.

IMO, each thread is new (aside from continuations obviously), with no debating mistakes. Even though a member may have painted themselves into a corner in another thread, they have a chance to use better tactics in a new thread.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by nator, posted 11-18-2007 9:35 AM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by nator, posted 11-20-2007 7:19 AM AdminPD has responded

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 186 of 312 (435306)
11-20-2007 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by nator
11-20-2007 7:19 AM


Re: AdminPD
I'm addressing the specific moderator warning you questioned, which was based on the Forum Guidelines rule #10 as it was written at that time.

The moderator action was based on your behavior since the rude behavior in the thread had already been addressed by AdminPhat.

I outlined what I considered to be harassing behavior.

You weren't the only one to respond to Petro's Message 47.

Anglagard had already asked him about his skills a day before you addressed his skills. He also responded to that inquiry in Message 49 and to the subsequent questions.

Your post #55 was rather redundant considering what he had already answered for anglagard and that line of questioning did take the thread off course for a bit. If he had continued to respond, it might have needed moderator action. I do believe Petro was debating in good faith and did address reasonable rebuttals.

Given your response in Message 67 of the original thread, you already knew he hadn't been tested and your opening post in the mind reading thread shows that you knew what others had asked him and should have already read his answers. IOW, before your first reminder in post #95, you already knew he hadn't been tested.

I really don't see the rationale in nagging him for a response and starting the mind reading thread and needling him to respond since you already had an answer to your question.

I still feel that your behavior was a violation of rule #10 as it was written at the time.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by nator, posted 11-20-2007 7:19 AM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by nator, posted 11-20-2007 8:27 PM AdminPD has responded

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 189 of 312 (435487)
11-21-2007 6:58 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by nator
11-20-2007 8:27 PM


Re: AdminPD
quote:
Again, PD, you failed to actually address anything in the post you are replying to and are simply restating what you already said.
As I said in my post, I'm only addressing the specific situation I moderated.

I did not address the rest because you are getting into general policy discussion which is currently being discussed in the PAF and since you are also an admin, there is no point in also carrying on the discussion here.

quote:
I pointed out some flaws of this test. He ignored my post.

As was pointed out earlier, AdminQuetzal agreed with Petro in Message 122 that addressing your observations would be off topic.

AdminQuetzal writes:

Petro:

I agree that a detailed discussion of an investigation into telepathy, etc, bears only an extremely limited relation to the topic. This particular discussion should likely be taken to another thread. If either you or nator wish to propose one, I will give it favorable consideration.

Good call on your part.

Quite frankly the Mind Reading thread seemed to be started out of spite as opposed to a genuine interest in investigating telepathy.

I still see no reason to change the moderation post.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by nator, posted 11-20-2007 8:27 PM nator has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by CK, posted 11-27-2007 11:33 AM AdminPD has not yet responded

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 198 of 312 (437452)
11-30-2007 6:46 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by molbiogirl
11-29-2007 10:19 PM


Re: some action needed in the Logic thread
Admin action taken.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by molbiogirl, posted 11-29-2007 10:19 PM molbiogirl has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by Chiroptera, posted 11-30-2007 10:09 AM AdminPD has not yet responded
 Message 200 by molbiogirl, posted 11-30-2007 12:14 PM AdminPD has not yet responded

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 250 of 312 (438107)
12-02-2007 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by kuresu
12-01-2007 12:10 AM


Re: Nem closes Positive Evidence for Atheism thread
The thread has now been closed by an admin other than Nem.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by kuresu, posted 12-01-2007 12:10 AM kuresu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by kuresu, posted 12-02-2007 7:37 PM AdminPD has not yet responded

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 256 of 312 (438162)
12-03-2007 6:49 AM


Discussions Closed
The moderation concerns in the Atheism and Logic threads have been resolved to the best of our ability.

Since the discussions concerning moderation in these threads have ceased to concern moderation, it is time for those discussions to close.

Thanks
AdminPD


AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 267 of 312 (441342)
12-17-2007 5:57 AM
Reply to: Message 266 by Nimrod
12-17-2007 2:12 AM


Re: IamJoseph hijacking threads.
I recommend you respectfully explain to IAJ how you are using the term Palestine as a neutral term. Once you do that, if he continues to disrupt contrary to your use of Palestine, then we have a stronger reason to act.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Nimrod, posted 12-17-2007 2:12 AM Nimrod has not yet responded

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 287 of 312 (444242)
12-28-2007 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by molbiogirl
12-28-2007 10:44 AM


Re: AdminPD.
I disagree, so please refrain from similar style of posting in that thread.

quote:
In my opinion, you have yet again taken the opportunity to advance a personal agenda as a moderator (and it's not just with me -- you've done this with other participants as well).
What personal agenda? If you're going to make accusations, please substantiate them.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by molbiogirl, posted 12-28-2007 10:44 AM molbiogirl has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by molbiogirl, posted 12-28-2007 7:17 PM AdminPD has responded

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 289 of 312 (444266)
12-28-2007 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by molbiogirl
12-28-2007 7:17 PM


Re: AdminPD.
quote:
As I assumed you would. However, Percy said that Buz didn't add anything to the CnP either, so I am not alone in my assessment of the situation.
This isn't about your assessment of the situation. As a moderator, I don't consider Buz's post to be a violation of Rule #6. As a moderator, I asked that you refrain from using posts to chastise and not move the discussion forward.

A reminder that Rule #1 states: Follow all moderator requests.

Nothing in my admin action stops you from presenting your side of the argument concerning the topic.

quote:
I (and others) have done so in the past, to no avail.

Since you won't cop to your bias, I see no reason to repeat the exercise.


That is the oldest trick in the book. You have made an accusation, please support it.

What personal bias am I promoting while in Admin mode?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by molbiogirl, posted 12-28-2007 7:17 PM molbiogirl has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by molbiogirl, posted 12-28-2007 8:00 PM AdminPD has responded

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 292 of 312 (444294)
12-28-2007 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by molbiogirl
12-28-2007 8:00 PM


Re: AdminPD.
Please provide links.

So concerning nator's Message 169, you don't feel that I made the reasons for my decision clear from Message 171 on? What personal agenda was I promoting in that decision? Again, my admin action did not stop nator or anyone else from presenting their position concerning the topic.

Rrhain's Message 121 has nothing to do with promoting my own personal agenda as an admin.

Since we also participate in debates, admins will have to moderate those who have been our opposition at some point.

As I said earlier, nator was not stopped from arguing her position concerning the topic. She was asked to stop harassing another member per rule #10 at the time. I very clearly outlined why I felt it was harassment.

Rrhain was displeased with my attempt to break a repetitious cycle before it devolved into more personal and less topic. He did not insinuate that I was promoting a personal agenda.

If you read the discussions completely, I think you find that nator did not continue to push the idea that I was retaliating and Rrhain didn't insinuate that I was pushing a personal agenda.

So if you feel I am pushing a personal agenda, please explain what personal agenda I'm pushing. Your examples did not show anything except people displeased with an admin action. All admins who actively moderate have them.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by molbiogirl, posted 12-28-2007 8:00 PM molbiogirl has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by molbiogirl, posted 12-28-2007 8:48 PM AdminPD has responded
 Message 297 by nator, posted 12-28-2007 9:10 PM AdminPD has responded

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 299 of 312 (444312)
12-28-2007 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 293 by molbiogirl
12-28-2007 8:48 PM


Re: AdminPD.
I have no problem admitting when I screw up. I have done it before.

You have not shown that Rrhain's complaint expressed any problem with me pushing a personal agenda. I don't usually debate with Rrhain, so that kills your strong disagreement theory.

I don't consider harassment or rising anger piddly.

You have a habit of playing moderator. Sometimes you're right and sometimes you're wrong, but you only seem to do it to the opposition. Moderators don't have that luxury. You also have difficulty following moderator requests. I don't consider that piddly.

Why do you refuse to following requests from me?

You don't like it when others don't follow the moderators request. Try setting an example and not just quoting the rules.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by molbiogirl, posted 12-28-2007 8:48 PM molbiogirl has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by molbiogirl, posted 12-28-2007 9:29 PM AdminPD has responded

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 301 of 312 (444387)
12-29-2007 7:26 AM
Reply to: Message 300 by molbiogirl
12-28-2007 9:29 PM


Re: AdminPD.
quote:
Gently reminding creos of Forum guidelines is a habit shared by many. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Off the top of my head: Percy, CK, Dr. A, RAZD. Were I to do a thorough search, that list would be much longer.
Gentle reminders are not frowned upon. Unfortunately your technique is not so gentle. As I said, you play moderator. A moderator can post just to correct someone, you don't have that option. As a participant, your posts are supposed to contribute to the discussion and move it forward. We do allow the originator of the thread some leeway in keeping participants on topic if they choose.

When a moderator takes action, participants have a chance to comment on that action in the moderation thread, just as you have. When you post primarily to correct, the participant doesn't have that option. Their only recourse is to argue with you in the thread, which can take the thread off topic or inflame the discussion.

Aside from Percy, those you listed tend to remind those they are in discussion with. I don't notice them posting just to remind someone of the rules.

In that thread (which has ended), you posted twice on 12/22 and it was not to Buz. So what motivated you to respond to his post on 12/28 since you felt it didn't say anything? Why did you feel it necessary to call attention to a "piddly" post? Your subtitle called attention to it. Were you really trying to move the discussion forward or just embarrass Buz?

As you noted to AdminNem in Message 295, you can be as biased as you wish since you aren't a moderator. So when I feel that you have inappropriately zinged someone for a rule violation, it is appropriate for me to counter your "ruling."

quote:
Cites.

Your cut and paste style and short comment posts don't seem to be swayed by any admin, so this is the only blatant one.

Message 251 of the Childhood Vaccinations – Necessary or Overkill?
You did not comply.

Now as for my personal bias. From what I can tell you feel that because we have been on opposite sides of a discussion in the past that any admin action I take against you is generated by spite. Is that correct?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 300 by molbiogirl, posted 12-28-2007 9:29 PM molbiogirl has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 303 by Percy, posted 12-29-2007 8:16 AM AdminPD has responded
 Message 311 by molbiogirl, posted 12-29-2007 4:48 PM AdminPD has not yet responded

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 302 of 312 (444392)
12-29-2007 8:14 AM
Reply to: Message 297 by nator
12-28-2007 9:10 PM


Re: AdminPD.
quote:
I think it is hilarious that you are constantly encouraging people to "let go" of issues such as this, yet here you are, trying to bolster your position by implying that the reason I stopped "pushing the issue" was because I didn't think I was justified.
I didn't bring this up hon, molbiogirl did. I can only go by what you wrote. I can't read behind the lines. The subsequent discussion did not support her point.

Might you be inappropriately using your Admin status to lean on me, perhaps because you are resentful of what happened to you in the Misunderstanding Empiricism thread?

What exactly do you feel happened to me in that thread, that would warrant "leaning" on you almost a week later?

(ABE: BTW, my disagreement in that thread was with Percy. You didn't add anything new that we hadn't already debated earlier.)

Just because you retaliate because you don't like what someone says doesn't mean everyone else reacts that way.

Message 5
The whole reason I called him out on this thread is because he took a shot at liberals in another thread, specifically calling most of us "irrational".

The moderation action (Message 17), did not stop you or anyone else from discussing the supposed topic. As I suspected it was just a call out to a specific member and since he didn't wish to participate and Admin called a halt to insults and denigrations, the thread stalled. You didn't even try to continue it.

So you accuse me of leaning on you because I stopped you from leaning on someone else.
I can live with that.

Edited by AdminPD, : Added ABE comment


This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by nator, posted 12-28-2007 9:10 PM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 306 by nator, posted 12-29-2007 1:29 PM AdminPD has not yet responded

1
2Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019