Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8937 total)
24 online now:
(24 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Happy Birthday: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,822 Year: 16,858/19,786 Month: 983/2,598 Week: 229/251 Day: 58/59 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures (aka 'The Whine List')
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1715 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 83 of 1043 (596162)
12-13-2010 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by arachnophilia
12-13-2010 11:41 AM


Re: Where are all the arachs?
quote:
i believe the pertinent question is whether a message board is an application of "formal written english", or more akin to "message sending, chat, tweeting etc".

i would argue the latter.


Maybe message boards in general, but I don't feel Percy wants the debate forums to function at that level. I feel he's looking for well thought out debates, not just bar or living room arguments.

It's been said many times that this isn't a chat site and that texting shorthand is not welcome. That's why the short useless commentaries are also frowned upon.

I realize that it's difficult to use caps on some of the electronic devices today; but when one is using a standard computer keyboard, there isn't really a good reason not to use caps.

If it's in the public eye, I want my best foot forward. It's the same when I physically go out in public.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by arachnophilia, posted 12-13-2010 11:41 AM arachnophilia has not yet responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1715 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


(1)
Message 90 of 1043 (596645)
12-16-2010 6:53 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by crashfrog
12-14-2010 6:25 PM


Great Debate
If you genuinely want to examine cases where you have misconstrued an opponents position and didn't adjust when corrected, then we do it in a Great Debate. Just you and me.

We won't be rehashing the subject of the posts, but examining your understanding of what was written.

You have to be willing to answer direct questions and explain why you came to the conclusion you did and/or why you feel the person is attempting to deceive you instead of clarifying.

Any references you make to other posts or information online, needs to have a link. No telling me to go do my homework or find it for myself.

We can also examine posts where you feel you are being misrepresented.

Are you up for it? If yes, do you have a moderator preference?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by crashfrog, posted 12-14-2010 6:25 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by crashfrog, posted 12-16-2010 4:22 PM purpledawn has not yet responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1715 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


(3)
Message 154 of 1043 (628081)
08-06-2011 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Butterflytyrant
08-06-2011 2:12 PM


Use Common Sense
quote:
You dont think a warning would have been nice?

Or maybe a comment on one of the failed proposed threads that I was doing something wrong?

Or maybe a list of the proposed new topic rules that I can get get banned for breaking?


So when I told you it was unconscionable to throw 7 threads at one member, you didn't get the idea you were doing something less than desirable?

When I told you, that you didn't really have subject matter in the thread for others to debate, you didn't get a hint your actions were undesirable?

The fact that you didn't seem to understand you weren't really presenting a viable topic is probably what sparked Adminnemooseus' actions.

When the rules say start a new thread, it means make a reasonable presentation that all can participate in unless you want a Great Debate.

Putting out the equivalent of "Oh yea? Prove it" doesn't make a good start for a topic. You also have to realize that the moderators have been around a bit and watched which types of threads move and which ones don't. We may decide to let one through to see what happens.

One concerning IAJ already went out and it didn't bear any fruit. You should have watched to see what happened with that thread before dumping similar threads in the PNT.

Use some common sense.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Butterflytyrant, posted 08-06-2011 2:12 PM Butterflytyrant has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by Butterflytyrant, posted 08-07-2011 12:06 AM purpledawn has responded
 Message 165 by Adminnemooseus, posted 08-07-2011 2:19 PM purpledawn has not yet responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1715 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


(1)
Message 163 of 1043 (628168)
08-07-2011 7:12 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by Butterflytyrant
08-07-2011 12:06 AM


Re: Use Common Sense
quote:
Just say something like -
there is an unspoken set of rules with regards to new topic proposals here, I know that the rules state to start a new topic when you want to discuss a new topic, but I doubt this will bear fruit. Keep in mind that if a new member starts many new topics that we do not consider to be alligned with the flow of our forum, they can be banned from starting new topics.
Each new member that comes in is a new personality for the moderators to understand. Just as you are learning about the site we are learning about you.

We've learned that the kindest of words can still annoy some people and that warnings go unheeded.

Timeouts, restrictions, or bannings are a universal way of getting someone's attention.

Now you know, you may get a warning and you may not. It all depends on the situation. We try to use our common sense, just as we ask you to. Sometimes we don't have time to see if you get the hint.

Butterflytyrant writes:

This would have been an effective way to deal with his Gish Gallops.

I will have to bring this up when I get suspended for wandering off topic to further discuss his claims that are off topic when he makes them in future. Message 71

No it would not have been an effective way to deal with the issue. Here's a hint: those who make copious off topic claims don't usually defend them in another thread. It is your responsibility not to go off topic. You just have to let those issues go.

Just remember this is a debate forum. The topic is the issue, not erroneous claims that are off topic; and not every erroneous claim can be turned into a good topic starter.

So now you know and I shouldn't see you go off topic in threads chasing erroneous claims; and I can expect your next PNT request to be well thought out, full of substance, and eloquently written.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Butterflytyrant, posted 08-07-2011 12:06 AM Butterflytyrant has acknowledged this reply

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1715 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


(1)
Message 230 of 1043 (631784)
09-03-2011 6:56 AM
Reply to: Message 228 by hooah212002
09-02-2011 4:27 PM


Check Bumper for Darts
quote:
This, IMO, shows me how much leeway the religious get, regardless how much they want to throw the persecution complex card.
Cry me a river. Good grief!

Both sides get away with a lot of crap.

If IAJ or anyone else is off topic, DON'T RESPOND!
If IAJ or anyone else doesn't make sense, DON'T RESPOND!

How hard is that?

In one case IAJ started on topic, but someone had to pick the one off topic comment out of the post and try to correct it. Then it went amuck.

How many times have we asked people to stop the useless one liners? Both sides.

This is a debate forum, not a correct-every-wrong-thought-or-fact forum.

A debate is a discussion involving opposing viewpoints of a specific topic. Notice the bold part. Specific Topic

How many times do we have to hear from some of those who are religion free that they feel religion is stupid? If it isn't the point of the topic, get over it.

How many times do we hear from some of the religious that unless one believes a specific way they will go to hell? If it isn't the point of the topic, get over it.

We are guests on this board and the owner has rules.

I like the rubber dart post.

Admin writes:

A Request
It really helps moderators figure out if a topic is disintegrating because of general misbehavior versus someone in particular if the originally non-misbehaving members kept it that way. When everyone is prickly and argumentative and off-topic and personal then it's just too difficult to tell. We have neither infinite time to untie the Gordian knot, nor the wisdom of Solomon.

There used to be a comedian who presented his ideas for a better world, and one of them was to arm everyone on the highway with little rubber dart guns. Every time you see a driver doing something stupid, you fire a little dart at his car. When a state trooper sees someone driving down the highway with a bunch of darts all over his car he pulls him over for being an idiot.

Please make it easy to tell you apart from the idiots.

In the Republican thread. IAJ's first post was basically on topic. After your response, his answer was baffling to say the least. Two others responded to that nonsense and kept the ball rolling off topic. Why? No one wants to hang up first?

Why respond to a post that is off topic?
Why respond to a post that seems incoherent?

This goes for both sides. Neither side is immune from the "holier than thou" attitude.

If people want to help?
Stop the useless wisecracking oneliners that don't move a discussion forward.
Stop responding to off topic posts or even off topic portions of an on topic post.
Stop responding to incoherent posts.

We are guests. Put our best foot forward, not our worst. IOW, try to keep our own bumper free of rubber darts.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by hooah212002, posted 09-02-2011 4:27 PM hooah212002 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by hooah212002, posted 09-03-2011 11:37 AM purpledawn has responded
 Message 243 by Admin, posted 09-04-2011 9:17 AM purpledawn has not yet responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1715 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 235 of 1043 (631817)
09-03-2011 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by hooah212002
09-03-2011 11:37 AM


Re: Check Bumper for Darts
quote:
Perhaps you should spend less time getting butthurt when people talk bad about religion and the religious and more time moderating.
You really are clueless aren't you?

quote:
posting more offtopic nonsense than ANY OTHER POSTER on this board.
Have you really done the math? I doubt it.

I know what your post was about. My point was that by not responding, opponents could cut down on the amount of off topic nonsense. Don't add to the problem.

It's the same thing I told IAJ to do when people pull out a piece of his post that is off topic and demand response.

So I give the same advice to both sides. Neither side listens. Imagine that.

I doesn't matter what people say about the religious or religion as long as it is ON TOPIC and follows the RULES. What part of that don't you understand?

Rule #10: Always treat other members with respect. Argue the position, not the person. Avoid abusive, harassing and invasive behavior. Avoid needling, hectoring and goading tactics.

Most importantly
Rule #1: Follow all moderator requests.

When the position is off topic, DON'T RESPOND!
When the post makes no sense, DON'T RESPOND!

Keep the darts off your bumper!

Coyote and Jar survived the meltdown. I'm sure they can survive this.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by hooah212002, posted 09-03-2011 11:37 AM hooah212002 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by hooah212002, posted 09-03-2011 12:27 PM purpledawn has acknowledged this reply

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1715 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


(2)
Message 516 of 1043 (663516)
05-25-2012 7:41 AM


Both Sides Are Guilty
Participants aren't necessarily trying to come to a mutual understanding.

The problem with the academic debate model is that it assumes that both "debaters" are fully rational, emotionally detached human beings that are trying to come to some sort of mutual understanding or settlement in the most efficient and correct way possible. I can count on one hand how many debates like that I've managed to be a part of; most people can safely set the count at precisely zero, since both sides have to cooperate and very few people are emotionally capable of detached debate at all. (Note that "emotionally detached" does not mean "not emotional"; I get emotional about many issues such as "abortion", but that does not mean that in the debate I let my emotions, such as anger at my opponent, frustration, etc., play out in the debate in the form of insults, slurs, intellectually dishonest accusations, etc. Not that I'm perfect but I do try.) The Metaphor Rant

The side that is offended or annoyed wants the other side banned or moderated.

A common assumption is that the more trivial a debate topic is the less passionate the debate will be. So, a debate about Presidential policy may lead to insults flying back and forth, but a discussion over teen literature will be tame and respectful. This is a logical belief. It is also horribly, horribly wrong. The topic of a debate has absolutely no bearing on the tone of it. If, for example, you feel that government run healthcare is a good thing, you will be called a communist; if you believe that The Backstreet Boys are a better band than N*Sync you will be called a communist child molesting faggot. No matter what you believe in at least one guy you encounter online will think you are the worst person to have ever existed. (My bold) Internet Debates

Those who enjoy the battle will continue to feed the "trolls".

On the Internet, rational and well thought out statements are scorned in favour of ridiculous hyperboles and personal attacks. Internet Debates

If you choose to feed the trolls or trollishness, don't whine when they don't appreciate the tidbits.


  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1715 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


(2)
Message 618 of 1043 (669925)
08-06-2012 7:15 AM
Reply to: Message 615 by Buzsaw
08-05-2012 9:45 PM


Re: Moving On
quote:
The reason remains that I'm not allowed in science, that I kick too much evo butt in them. Admin always sees to it that any effective threat to his own must be run off, no matter what it takes.
What Admin is trying to get you to do is understand what constitutes scientific evidence, not Biblicist evidence.

One also needs to understand the difference between evidence and inference. Evidence is an outward sign, something that furnishes proof. Inferences we should derive from facts, not from guesses.

In my simplistic understanding, evidence is something we can prove and inference is a conclusion we can draw from that which has already been proven (evidence). Theories are inferences.

IMO, a prophecy is a theory (inference) as to how the future will play out. So if one's contention is that Prophecy A has played out as described by the writer, then one has the task of showing the facts (not inferences) that support that contention.

Now the owner of this board has made it clear that on the science side of the board, the rules of science are to be followed. So when you contend that a prophecy is no longer a theory on the science side of this board you must play by the rules of science.

That means that if a Biblicist wants to show scientists or science minded individuals that a prophecy is no longer theory, then the Biblicist needs to use scientific evidence to make their case. This is the difference that Admin is trying to get you to understand. Biblicist evidence isn't going to make the cut on the science side.

Inferences are not evidence and Biblicists evidence is not necessarily scientific evidence.

If you want to play the game, you need to play by the rules. Besides, if you could actually make your case based on the rules of science, the impact would be much more impressive.

Bottom line: This is a privately owned board and as guests we should respect the owner's preferences.

As Paul supposedly said:

5 Conduct yourselves with wisdom toward outsiders, making the most of the opportunity. 6 Let your speech always be with grace, as though seasoned with salt, so that you will know how you should respond to each person. (Colossians 4:5-6)

Respectfully, you need to continue working out your evidence issues with Admin, not whining to the membership.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 615 by Buzsaw, posted 08-05-2012 9:45 PM Buzsaw has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 619 by Admin, posted 08-06-2012 8:19 AM purpledawn 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