Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-17-2019 12:48 AM
17 online now:
AZPaul3, PaulK (2 members, 15 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 853,883 Year: 8,919/19,786 Month: 1,341/2,119 Week: 101/576 Day: 2/99 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 13.0
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 190 of 312 (435539)
11-21-2007 3:21 PM


Suggestion
Perhaps moderators might consider their time better spent on reigning in the distruptive and dishonest behavior that represents an obstacle to debate, rather than reigning in the posters who complain in appropriate threads about how moderators are ignoring that behavior.

You know? If you guys spent half the time moderating that you spent defending yourself against complaints and suspending those who raise issues, a lot less posters would be running rampant, derailing threads with their personal pet issues.


Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by Buzsaw, posted 11-22-2007 1:45 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 222 of 312 (437949)
12-02-2007 3:58 AM
Reply to: Message 219 by Hyroglyphx
12-01-2007 7:52 PM


Re: Nem closes Positive Evidence for Atheism thread
No, it's fishy as hell, like it usually is when mods moderate threads they've participated in.

It would have been better if you had taken steps to avoid the appearance of mod power abuse. Did you abuse your power? I'm not saying that you did. But the appearance is there, and it's best avoided.

I know it seems like there's not enough mods to go around and that people who see something that should be done - like a 300-length thread needs closing - should just do it, but there's something to be said for avoiding apparent conflicts of interest and abuses of power. One shouldn't use one's moderator power to privilege their own posts. And one of those privileges is the privilege of the last word.

First off, what is "fishy" about it if I happen to be the last one making a post?

You didn't just "happen" to make the last post. The appearance is that you used your moderator power to ensure that yours was the last post. It looks fishy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-01-2007 7:52 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 226 of 312 (438014)
12-02-2007 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by Hyroglyphx
12-02-2007 1:59 PM


Re: Nem closes Positive Evidence for Atheism thread
Seriously...... what....... is........ the....... problem?

Gosh, I thought the three of us explained it.

The problem is that you used your admin power to ensure you had the last word.

Why don't you see that as problematic?

I just so happened to be the last one posting before it reached the 300 limit.

The 300 limit isn't a hard rule, so it's somewhat irrelevant. You just "happened" to be the last one to post because you ensured you would be with admin power.

You really don't see that as objectionable?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-02-2007 1:59 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by Thugpreacha, posted 12-02-2007 4:39 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 229 of 312 (438022)
12-02-2007 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by Hyroglyphx
12-02-2007 2:06 PM


Re: Nem closes Positive Evidence for Atheism thread
Instead of being a sarcastic ass, it would have been sufficient for you to say "hrm, I guess you're right, there's the appearance of malfeasance there. I probably should have either refrained from posting or given others a chance to have the last word, if they wanted, or better yet, allowed another moderator to have closed the thread."

With all the power you guys have around here I find it incomprehensible how tone-deaf some of you tend to be about using it. Mod power isn't an excuse to do whatever you want, NJ. It's a tool you use to meet your obligation to manage the board.

Ok, so the last part was me being sarcastic, since I find their objections to be very silly.

Maybe instead of finding serious concerns silly, you could try to see the merit in them. We're not asking you to do anything but recognize that your actions had the appearance of malfeasance. Your insistence that no dirty dealings were intended doesn't change that appearance. Better for you to simply admit fault and pledge to do better next time, than to salve your wounded pride with sarcastic jibes. Does the concept of professional behavior mean nothing to you?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-02-2007 2:06 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 231 of 312 (438031)
12-02-2007 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by AdminNem
12-02-2007 2:50 PM


Re: Nem closes Positive Evidence for Atheism thread
Oh, God.

And now we see how moderators always respond to constructive criticism around here - ridicule, sarcastic denials, and general jackassery.

When you guys have the power, and we have none, it's important for you to take these things seriously. Why is that so hard to grasp, NJ? Why is it so hard for you to treat criticism seriously? Why do you find the discussion of a potential misuse of power appropriate for playing the fool?

Why is "I'm sorry and I'll do better next time" an impossible phrase for you to write?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by AdminNem, posted 12-02-2007 2:50 PM AdminNem has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-02-2007 3:05 PM crashfrog has responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 235 of 312 (438038)
12-02-2007 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by Hyroglyphx
12-02-2007 3:05 PM


Re: Nem closes Positive Evidence for Atheism thread
The real problem, I suspect, Crash, is that you have a general aversion to any authority, no matter how innocuous a ruling may in fact be.

Of course I'm averse to authority. Those in authority are invariably human, and authority tends to empower a human's worst impulses far more than their best virtues.

Why wouldn't a reasonable person be averse to authority?

Also - why is your immediate response to criticism about your moderation efforts personal attacks against those who dare question you?

You have proven that you are incapable of objective thinking and will stoop to any level to get the last word, or will weasel in any way to make your own case look pretty.

See what I mean? Why the personal attacks? Why is it so hard for you to say "I can see how what I did might be construed as improper; next time I'll avoid even the appearance of impropriety"?

For someone that has been here as long as you, with over 15 billion posts, and no one has ever offered such a position to you is the surest way to know that no one trusts you.

What makes you think it's never been offered? And what's the relevance of whether or not I'm an admin? Do I have to be one, to offer a perspective on how people perceive your actions?

I'm not even the one who brought it up, remember? Kuresu did, and your first response was to call him a drug-addled paranoid delusional. Why the personal attacks, NJ? Why not simply admit and apologize for the appearance of impropriety he objected to?

If I thought I had something to be sorry for, I would apologize.

Why not apologize for the appearance of impropriety? When it became obvious that three people, including the guy who runs the board thought that conduct was a mistake, why not apologize for the mistake?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-02-2007 3:05 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by Thugpreacha, posted 12-02-2007 4:37 PM crashfrog has responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 236 of 312 (438039)
12-02-2007 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by AdminNem
12-02-2007 3:06 PM


Re: Nem closes Positive Evidence for Atheism thread
Why suspend NJ, when clearly AdminNem was the one who's conduct was improper?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by AdminNem, posted 12-02-2007 3:06 PM AdminNem has not yet responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 245 of 312 (438081)
12-02-2007 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by Thugpreacha
12-02-2007 4:37 PM


Re: Nem closes Positive Evidence for Atheism thread
If we convince ourselves that our arguments are ironclad and not open to question, might it be that we become our own authority and thus potentially close minded?

Sure. We should neither be afraid to investigate the possibility that we're wrong, nor be afraid to convince others that they are.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by Thugpreacha, posted 12-02-2007 4:37 PM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 246 of 312 (438084)
12-02-2007 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by nator
12-02-2007 4:39 PM


Re: Nem closes Positive Evidence for Atheism thread
The truth is, I don't think Crash is particularly interested in being a moderator.

Moderating means suffering fools, and I don't think he much enjoys that.

Haha! Well, I never think of anybody here as a fool, though I may not think much of the argumentation they've put forth to defend a position.

Truth be told I'd rather be in the thick of it, and I don't think I could participate to the same degree were I a moderator.

But thanks for the kind words, Schraf. We have been on different sides of stuff, but I've never thought less of you or anybody for disagreeing with me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by nator, posted 12-02-2007 4:39 PM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by nator, posted 12-02-2007 10:03 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 248 of 312 (438091)
12-02-2007 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by Cold Foreign Object
12-02-2007 6:13 PM


Re: Nem closes Positive Evidence for Atheism thread
Crashfrog evaded the tough points like the plague

So you say, but it was actually my rebuttals to you which went unanswered.

Don't get me wrong. There are some people whose asses I tend to ride about how they act and post. I bring it up with them because I believe they have the capacity and honesty to recognize the problem and change.

But even the best creationist among you, CFO, is ten times as evasive and dishonest. And the worst part is I don't think any of you can get better about it. Your mendacity in this post is the proof.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-02-2007 6:13 PM Cold Foreign Object 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