Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
23 online now:
AZPaul3, kjsimons, Tanypteryx, Theodoric (4 members, 19 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Happy Birthday: Anish
Post Volume: Total: 863,466 Year: 18,502/19,786 Month: 922/1,705 Week: 174/518 Day: 48/52 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0
AdminModulous
Administrator (Idle past 388 days)
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 39 of 683 (585877)
10-10-2010 8:38 AM


Barack
As per Hyena Attacks I have reviewed the thread.

It's pretty light stuff for a debate. If you are looking for a 'dry' debate on the issues of global warming, then begin writing papers and engage in that debate in the journals. Here, the debate has a 'rough and tumble' feel to it, a clash of wits, a riposte, a parry a rhetorical flourish etc.

The guidelines are guidelines to avoid the tendency for flame wars, insult fests and generally more heat than light - not to completely remove spirited debate. The thread is clearly not one of the bests here, but then you are contributing with the 'liberal elite snob' counterthrust. With a dab of 'atheist conspiracy' theorizing and incessant ad hominems against Al Gore for some reason.

If you weren't doing things like that, and you were still getting the attitude you have received, I'd consider stepping in. But you're part of the furball now. Extract yourself and take the higher ground, or try to outwit them with some coup de grace. But don't complain to the moderators if you try the latter and it doesn't succeed as you might have liked. Sorry.


Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Admin, posted 10-10-2010 9:11 AM AdminModulous has acknowledged this reply

  
AdminModulous
Administrator (Idle past 388 days)
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 44 of 683 (586853)
10-15-2010 6:27 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by CosmicChimp
10-14-2010 8:28 PM


Getting suspended 3 times in about as many hours contains all the hallmarks of someone who is likely to be a bad influence on the quality of discussion here. I don't think I've indefinitely suspended a non-spam bot person here before - but given Matt wasn't even going to play by the rules of a short-term suspension (posting whilst suspended on another ID) I don't feel bad.

It is not permanent. Matt could email one of the Admins and discuss terms for his return - the emails are public.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by CosmicChimp, posted 10-14-2010 8:28 PM CosmicChimp has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by frako, posted 10-16-2010 3:00 PM AdminModulous has acknowledged this reply

  
AdminModulous
Administrator (Idle past 388 days)
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 53 of 683 (588064)
10-22-2010 5:43 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Just being real
10-22-2010 1:55 AM


Re: is profanity acceptable?
yes, when you replied to someone who used the word fuck with the ungentlemanly sarcastic and condescending:

quote:
I am sure all of your friends are charmed by your flavored words but they hardly are of any use in a discussion among gentlemen.

You were basically asking for more. Yes, this is common and accepted. That isn't free licence to go nuts - but the words themselves are rarely grounds for action.

Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Just being real, posted 10-22-2010 1:55 AM Just being real has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by sophia777, posted 11-15-2010 2:43 PM AdminModulous has acknowledged this reply

  
AdminModulous
Administrator (Idle past 388 days)
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 276 of 683 (616792)
05-24-2011 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by New Cat's Eye
05-24-2011 12:01 PM


This is not a discussion thread
or indeed, a crashfrog witch hunt.

The discussion problem is reported, who is to blame is not the topic of debate.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-24-2011 12:01 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
AdminModulous
Administrator (Idle past 388 days)
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


(1)
Message 437 of 683 (641746)
11-22-2011 7:33 AM


gay thread problems again
Starting at around Message 42 and it continues from there. Rrhain's defence when he feels he is being attacked seems to be to become sexually explicit. Onifre's response to this is to push buttons. It could probably do with an admin's attention. Given the history, I'm sure Rrhain wouldn't take moderator direction from me, so someone else I think needs to do the dirty work.

Replies to this message:
 Message 438 by caffeine, posted 11-23-2011 7:31 AM AdminModulous has acknowledged this reply

  
AdminModulous
Administrator (Idle past 388 days)
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 443 of 683 (642342)
11-27-2011 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 442 by PaulK
11-27-2011 6:25 PM


Re: Purpledawn in "Not the Planet"
I read through it, and I don't see any significant problem. I mean, I see two people disagreeing, but it does kind of look like you are just arguing past each other. It doesn't seem to me to be dishonest or evasive. Towards the end it got hard to understand your position more and more since it became one line responses to single line quotes.

Perhaps you could post a summary of your actual position regarding the thread topic is as a means of reinvigorating the debate? A lot of the time, I think purpledawn is having the same difficulties with what you are trying to say as I am, and a detailed outline of your position may help overcome the problem of arguing past one another.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 442 by PaulK, posted 11-27-2011 6:25 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 444 by PaulK, posted 11-28-2011 2:40 AM AdminModulous has acknowledged this reply

  
AdminModulous
Administrator (Idle past 388 days)
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 476 of 683 (649308)
01-22-2012 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 475 by Huntard
01-22-2012 9:59 AM


Re: Problem with notifications
I know it may well sound daft, but you are checking the right email aren't you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 475 by Huntard, posted 01-22-2012 9:59 AM Huntard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 477 by Huntard, posted 01-22-2012 11:58 AM AdminModulous has responded

  
AdminModulous
Administrator (Idle past 388 days)
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 478 of 683 (649317)
01-22-2012 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 477 by Huntard
01-22-2012 11:58 AM


Re: Problem with notifications
I believe your registered email can be accessed via the web. Have you checked your account there? I'm just thinking that maybe a spam filter is catching it at some point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 477 by Huntard, posted 01-22-2012 11:58 AM Huntard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 479 by Huntard, posted 01-22-2012 12:51 PM AdminModulous has acknowledged this reply

  
AdminModulous
Administrator (Idle past 388 days)
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


(1)
Message 534 of 683 (658849)
04-10-2012 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 529 by Dr Jack
04-10-2012 10:37 AM


Re: Moderator editing?
Moderators flat out shouldn't be correcting spelling.

Except possibly in the case where the spelling error is in the topic title. I don't think the proles can edit topic titles.

I think the best course of action upon detecting a spelling error is to use the PM function or to just ignore it. Especially in the case of typos where the meaning of the sentence is quite clear.

Incidentally, the subtitle of this discussion is spelled wrong. It should read 'Moderator editing?' - there's only one 't' in 'editing'.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 529 by Dr Jack, posted 04-10-2012 10:37 AM Dr Jack has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 535 by Thugpreacha, posted 04-10-2012 11:33 AM AdminModulous has acknowledged this reply

  
AdminModulous
Administrator (Idle past 388 days)
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


(1)
Message 583 of 683 (666390)
06-26-2012 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 581 by Bolder-dash
06-26-2012 2:29 PM


So an evolutionist who posts for the sole purpose of calling someone a babbling ***** gets one a 24 hour suspension, but a creationist supposedly being off topic on a science post gets a one month, or else a permanent ban from posting in certain topics?

You are commended for reporting a problematic post in the correct thread, but this really belongs over at General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures (aka 'The Whine List').

I looked back at Panda's suspension record and noted that he received a 12 hour suspension back in September. Since he has not been a problem poster, but since he had recently received moderator action I decided to suspend for 24 hours without notice.

Foreveryoung had received two suspensions in April, one for the delightful 'go fuck yourself' and had been problematic without suspension in other places. It was because short term suspensions were clearly not working to bring foreveryoung back into line.

If you have anything else you want to say, say it over at General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures (aka 'The Whine List'). Do not reply to this post or you may find yourself getting a suspension as well.

Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 581 by Bolder-dash, posted 06-26-2012 2:29 PM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
AdminModulous
Administrator (Idle past 388 days)
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


(1)
Message 614 of 683 (668202)
07-18-2012 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 611 by Jon
07-17-2012 6:49 PM


Re: frako
I'm not entirely certain what the problem is. Granted, there are some of frako's posts that aren't excellent, and I'd agree that some are of low quality. Frako has even received recent moderator attention because of this.

I don't have the time to do a complete audit of recent posts by frako, but if you had some examples in mind you could post them so that we can take a look. It would also be interesting to see if you have any suggestions for how this issue should be dealt with.

It would probably wise to note that you too have a tendency to make lots of short posts, some even one word long. Indeed, one of your recent posts managed the economy of just four characters (three of which were letters). You have of course received suspension when you managed to simply reply with a single word insult (Message 25). So if we're going to 'police' 'border-line spam' or 'clogging the forums' or a general low level of quality - you might find yourself hoist on your own petard.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 611 by Jon, posted 07-17-2012 6:49 PM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 616 by Jon, posted 07-18-2012 10:54 AM AdminModulous 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