Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8936 total)
32 online now:
AZPaul3, Captcass, dwise1, Tanypteryx (4 members, 28 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Upcoming Birthdays: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,696 Year: 16,732/19,786 Month: 857/2,598 Week: 103/251 Day: 56/24 Hour: 1/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures (aka 'The Whine List')
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 87 of 1043 (596273)
12-14-2010 7:10 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by bluegenes
12-14-2010 4:47 AM


Topic
Participants,

One of the prerequisites of this thread is that participants stay on topic.

A thread has been started On the evolution of English as a written or spoken language. Please take discussions concerning capitalization there.

This thread is to discuss Moderation Procedures.

Thanks
AdminPD


Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach.-- Encylopedia Brittanica, on debate
This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by bluegenes, posted 12-14-2010 4:47 AM bluegenes has not yet responded

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 185 of 1043 (629817)
08-20-2011 8:13 AM
Reply to: Message 184 by Buzsaw
08-19-2011 10:56 PM


Re: Buzsaw Banned From Biblically Related Threads
Unfortunately for you, your banishment was made by the owner of the board.
There is no higher power to appeal to. Sorry.

You need to take a look at your debate style and the issues he has with it.

AdminPD


This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Buzsaw, posted 08-19-2011 10:56 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Buzsaw, posted 08-20-2011 3:01 PM AdminPD has not yet responded

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 293 of 1043 (634998)
09-25-2011 1:21 PM


!! Whine About Moderaton Procedures Only !!
This thread is for whining about moderation procedures only, not each other.

Please adjust accordingly.

Thanks
AdminPD


  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 305 of 1043 (635148)
09-27-2011 7:42 AM
Reply to: Message 304 by PaulK
09-27-2011 2:17 AM


Enough About Buzsaw
See Message 293.

Continuing to give Buz advice veers off the main purpose of this thread.

Thanks
AdminPD


This message is a reply to:
 Message 304 by PaulK, posted 09-27-2011 2:17 AM PaulK has not yet responded

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 311 of 1043 (638529)
10-23-2011 7:46 AM
Reply to: Message 310 by bluescat48
10-22-2011 9:30 PM


Re: Bad and even worse
So would you consider it appropriate for a thread to be closed for 24 hours to allow participants time to become aware of the call for summations?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 310 by bluescat48, posted 10-22-2011 9:30 PM bluescat48 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 312 by Panda, posted 10-23-2011 8:08 AM AdminPD has responded

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 313 of 1043 (638533)
10-23-2011 8:24 AM
Reply to: Message 312 by Panda
10-23-2011 8:08 AM


Re: Bad and even worse
That's more of a programming solution which could be suggested to Percy.

Until something is part of the programming, how can one who is only responding to the email they received know the thread is in summation mode?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 312 by Panda, posted 10-23-2011 8:08 AM Panda has not yet responded

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


(4)
Message 325 of 1043 (642706)
11-30-2011 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 319 by hooah212002
11-30-2011 4:24 PM


Address the Topic Presented
The OP of a topic presents the argument and sets the tone for the debate, not the title.

GDR made a very specific argument about inconsistencies in the Bible. Just because the thread is on the science side doesn't mean it has to be devoid of religious reasoning. It just means that evidence needs to be provided to support the reasoning. Opponents can't just say, because I believe it or because I don't believe it.

The Accuracy and Inerrancy thread allows a more critical look at the Bible and who wrote it.

GDR makes the argument that the Bible is written by men.

His thread is aimed at literalists/fundamentalists. Keep that in mind.
You didn't present and support a position concerning what he presented. You just did your standard rant and ridiculous questions.

So far all you're doing is attacking GDR. Argue the position, not the person.

If you don't feel his position supports the idea that the Bible is written by men, then provide your own argument and support.

If you don't feel the scripture he shared is inconsistent, then make your position known with support. If you feel they are inconsistent but for a different reason, then make your position known with support.

Pay attention to his argument.

When it comes to Bible discussions, your "arguments" tend to be devoid of support and evidence.

quote:
You just really don't like when atheists call the bible or christians on bullshit, do you?
Not when it doesn't have anything to do with the argument or position presented and it's pretty much just additional bullshit. It pulls the thread off track. On the science side, you don't just get to call bullshit either. You have to provide support and evidence.

Pay attention to the arguments presented.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 319 by hooah212002, posted 11-30-2011 4:24 PM hooah212002 has acknowledged this reply

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 376 of 1043 (647080)
01-08-2012 4:36 AM
Reply to: Message 375 by Butterflytyrant
01-08-2012 3:54 AM


Re: Moose?
He's gone inactive.

Since this is not a moderation procedure issue to whine about, please do not continue any discussion in this thread.

Thanks
AdminPD


This message is a reply to:
 Message 375 by Butterflytyrant, posted 01-08-2012 3:54 AM Butterflytyrant has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 377 by Butterflytyrant, posted 01-08-2012 5:47 AM AdminPD has not yet responded

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


(2)
Message 541 of 1043 (663747)
05-26-2012 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 540 by Dr Adequate
05-26-2012 9:42 AM


Topic Please!!!!!
Participants:

Free for All does not mean topic free. As AdminMoose noted in Message 528, this line of discussion has left the realm of this threads purpose, which is to whine about moderation procedures.

Individual creationists or evolutionists are not the topic.

Please stop all off topic discussion in this thread.

Thanks
AdminPD


This message is a reply to:
 Message 540 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-26-2012 9:42 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 548 of 1043 (664006)
05-28-2012 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 547 by Evangelical Humanists
05-28-2012 8:59 AM


Re: Disagree
Message 1 provides the criteria for the debate.

This thread will be for foreveryoung and others who share his view on the superiority of the 'protestant canon' (or any canon, for that matter) to defend their position and present evidence in its favor. I'd like to see the discussion follow along these lines:

First, those arguing for superiority of one of the canons will have to define that canon. This will mean listing all of the books that make up the canon as well as the versions of those books where significant variations exist.

Second, these folk will have to define and defend the criteria behind labeling one canon as superior or better than another. What is it about a canon that would make it superior? For example, foreveryoung seems to think that supernatural inspiration is a criterion for a superior canon.

Finally, they will have to show that these criteria are all met in the canon they hold as superior.

The discussion concerns various bible canons. Is the protestant canon superior to the catholic canon or other biblical canons and why?

Whether the NT is more reliable than any other ancient document is off topic. Other ancient documents are not the topic. I assumed your "it" was still referring to the NT since there was nothing else mentioned for it to refer to.

If the point is that one canon's NT is more reliable than the other, then that is on topic and evidence needs to be provided.

If the historicity of one canon is superior to another, then that is on topic and evidence needs to be provided.

The historicity issue started in Message 10 wasn't dealing with differences between canons. I don't see that your input was any different.

The issue is whether one Bible canon is superior to another.

Thanks
AdminPD


This message is a reply to:
 Message 547 by Evangelical Humanists, posted 05-28-2012 8:59 AM Evangelical Humanists has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 549 by Admin, posted 05-28-2012 4:25 PM AdminPD has not yet responded

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 559 of 1043 (664508)
06-01-2012 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 558 by Theodoric
06-01-2012 1:23 PM


Re: AdminPD is off base
1. I asked for clarification.
2. Didn't declare him off topic.
3. In Message 141, William Penn was used as evidence that America was based upon the first democracy, which the writer felt was a Christian nation. A round about association, but not addressed by Sigmund.

Whether America began a Christian nation is debatable, but what is not questionable is that it was based upon the first democracy in America, the Province of Pennsylvania founded in 1682 by William Penn, that was most definitely a Christian nation. Much of America's government was based on Penn's, which originated concepts like a 2-house elected assembly, a bill of rights with freedom of religion/speech/property, term limits, women's rights, and fair trial by jury. Message 141

4. Sigmund's post corrected the concepts. He didn't really say how correcting those concepts made any point concerning whether America is a Christian Nation or not or unhinged Jzyehoshua's position.

Just because the OP mentions founders doesn't mean any old discussion concerning the founders is on topic. It also mentions Texas, but that doesn't include just any old thing about Texas.

So far you haven't added any substance to that debate. I'm sure Sigmund is quite capable of airing his own concerns if he is uncomfortable or confused with my request.

AdminPD


This message is a reply to:
 Message 558 by Theodoric, posted 06-01-2012 1:23 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 560 by Sigmund, posted 06-01-2012 3:52 PM AdminPD has not yet responded
 Message 561 by Theodoric, posted 06-01-2012 4:09 PM AdminPD has not yet responded

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 621 of 1043 (670037)
08-08-2012 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 620 by PaulK
08-08-2012 6:52 AM


Re: Dubious off-topic ruling
We've had threads dealing with the problem with literal reading of the Bible. This thread is from a literalist's position asking how can those who worship God as a Christian can do so given that they don't believe that the Bible stories are all historically true.

You didn't address the questions presented in the OP. You just asked questions that really change the focus of the thread.

He's asking non-literalist Christians how they can trust any part of the book if part is fiction?
He's asking how can non-literalist Christians worship a being that uses lies (fiction) to communicate.
He's asking how non-literalist Christians determine what is true since some is consider fiction?

This is the religious side and it doesn't matter if he believes that God wrote the Bible or not. It isn't the point of the topic.

Please try to stick with the spirit of the topic.

Thanks
AdminPD


This message is a reply to:
 Message 620 by PaulK, posted 08-08-2012 6:52 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 622 by PaulK, posted 08-08-2012 8:38 AM AdminPD has responded

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 625 of 1043 (670047)
08-08-2012 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 622 by PaulK
08-08-2012 8:38 AM


Re: Dubious off-topic ruling
quote:
Which would make all my points on-topic. Indeed, rejecting the idea that God literally wrote the Bible is essential.
There's a difference between saying "non-literalists don't believe that God wrote the Bible" and "Who said that God wrote the Bible?" One is stating a belief and the other is asking for proof. It isn't in the accuracy and inerrancy thread. It doesn't matter if the Bible supports his statement or not (unless he actually claims that it does, which he hasn't yet in this thread) it is his belief.

IMO, by lies he means fiction, not inacurracies. From the OP.

foreveryoung writes:

... pure fiction but that are conveyed in such a way to appear as legitimate...

The sentence that Jesus used fiction to make a point was on topic. You got one sentence, but the question that followed was not. The thread isn't about literalism. You turned it back on literalism. This thread is about non-literal interpretation.

So Exodus lacks basic historical details, what does that have to do with those who don't believe it is an actual event, but still worship God? This thread isn't about convincing the author that there is fiction in the Bible. He's asking how can a Christian who believes there is fiction in the Bible still worship God?

PaulK writes:

If early Christians did not take the Gospels as inerrant, why should you?

The thread isn't about taking the Bible as inerrant. It is about the non-literal understanding.

Your last paragraph just turned the OP around and made it about literalism.

You changed the focus of the thread.

Each thread is a new beginning. Don't bring baggage from other threads or previous knowledge of the author. Address what is said, not what you know or think the author believes.

AdminPD


This message is a reply to:
 Message 622 by PaulK, posted 08-08-2012 8:38 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 626 by PaulK, posted 08-08-2012 9:48 AM AdminPD has responded
 Message 632 by arachnophilia, posted 08-08-2012 6:16 PM AdminPD has not yet responded

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


(1)
Message 627 of 1043 (670053)
08-08-2012 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 626 by PaulK
08-08-2012 9:48 AM


Re: Dubious off-topic ruling
quote:
It seems to me that I am clearly following this policy, and I cannot see your objection.
You seem to be making assumptions that aren't there.

The questions in the OP are to Christians who use a non-literal interpretation of the Bible and still worship God.

If you or anyone else can't address the actual questions asked concerning non-literal interpretation and worshiping God, then I suggest that the thread is not a good fit for you.

Thanks
AdminPD


This message is a reply to:
 Message 626 by PaulK, posted 08-08-2012 9:48 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 629 by PaulK, posted 08-08-2012 10:24 AM AdminPD has not yet responded
 Message 630 by NoNukes, posted 08-08-2012 10:50 AM AdminPD has not yet responded

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 658 of 1043 (671443)
08-25-2012 6:01 AM
Reply to: Message 656 by hooah212002
08-24-2012 9:32 PM


Re: Many thanks
Unfortunately the owner of this board has not come up with a uniform criteria for suspension length. Moderators are on their own. Maybe you can come up with a uniform criteria for suspension length and present it to Admin. Speed the process up a bit.

Just for the record, I didn't suspend you or recommend that you be suspended and I did not argue that you deserved worse. I argued that since Adminnemooseus suspended you, he should be the one to shorten the sentence if he chose to. He's the one you should have PM'd or emailed to ask for leniency.

Old threads resurface now and again. They aren't necessarily dead. Old threads are still a record of what has been discussed. You changed an opening post to something unrelated to the original. That means the responses to that post now make no sense.

It isn't wise to joke with moderation requests. We can't really take the stance that as long as you're joking, it's OK to break the rules.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 656 by hooah212002, posted 08-24-2012 9:32 PM hooah212002 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 660 by hooah212002, posted 08-25-2012 10:28 AM AdminPD 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