Each of the Admins probably has their own reasons, but there was a consensus that it was good idea. The general argument is that allowing threads to go on interminally was creating something akin to thread stagnation. Closing threads at a certain point gives threads a set beginning middle and end structure, and encourages new threads to be opened with follow up discussions and so on.
Your bumping that thread just brought a long thread to our collective attention.
As soon as Admin Modulous (who, for the most part is an excellent moderator, likely 2nd to Adminnemooseous) made a snap judgment not well thought out, so I jeered him for it.
For what its worth, my snap judgement was to leave it to Percy to deal with. After further consideration however, I could not let the offense slide without action. I would have thought that it being a considered action would mean it merits a jeer more, but I'll leave that to you to decide.
I don't blame Moose a bit.
I'm sure, however, that if hooah called you an idiot with shit in your head and he didn't get suspended you'd at least chalk that up as further evidence of pro-evolutionist/atheist bias, either that or you'd publicly cry foul.
Nah - I'm positive you'd think Percy was blameless if he called you an idiot with shit in your head and suspended you for a week for what appeared to be nothing short of the crime of proposing a new topic.
First off, Adminnemooseous has been going at several trollish members like Jar, Hooah, et al, Hooah being the worst.
If hooah performs some act that merits a suspension, the correct procedure is to notify us in the appropriate thread. Whining non-specifically won't change anything. Did hooah's PNT merit a one week suspension, or are you in support of the suspension simply because you don't like hooah?
So far as the manner in which he issued the suspension, that's the sort of shit Hooah has been flinging around ever since he came to the proverbial troll bridge under which he resides.
So bad behaviour becomes acceptable behaviour if it is done against someone who behaves badly? Your moral system is clarified, thanks.
At this forum, however, we try to hold people accountable for being disrespectful in the way Moose was. And moderators are not only not an exception - but should be held to a higher standard.
Likewise, Adminnemooseous is/was one of out two chief Admins, 2nd to Admin. (I forgot the terminology) You et al are down the chain of command as Admin moderators. Imo, did what a military corporal who stood up to a captain would have done. Perhaps the captain erred on some matter, but nevertheless, he's still the captain.
They are Directors, which means they have a few more powers (such as the ability to delete posts, create new forums etc). It does not render them unaccountable to other moderators should it be judged they have broken forum rules, such as the classic rule number 10.
The system is very definitely not modelled on the military, and I would not be a moderator if it was. The only chain of command is that Percy has final say. I would like to think however, that if a Captain committed a crime on a military site, a lower ranked MP would be entitled to arrest him - and the Captain couldn't/shouldn't 'pull rank' to get out of it.
There's no singular definitive description. The general guideline might be to say a troll is someone who expresses a viewpoint insincerely with a view purely to garnering significant response or fostering intercommunity arguments.
The more of a storm they can cause, the better.
It is possible to troll evolutionists here quite easily. Unfortunately it would simply be by posting lots of creationist talking points so they would be largely undetectable. See Poe's Law for ancillary information.
Creationists here are very hard to troll in the larger sense of the term. There are few of them so any response won't be particularly impressive. And again, the most straightforward way to do it if you were interested would be to simply raise evolutionist talking points. So again, they would be largely undetectable.
Does Hooah fit that description?
Not that I have seen. I would not regard him as the ideal debater, and I can see why you dislike him. But trolls are not people that are merely unpleasant to others, or are disliked by someone.
Except for the part where I defended neither Hooah nor trolls.
What your lengthy biased explanation ( hardly a definition} better describes debating because...
I do believe that I said
quote:There's no singular definitive description.
And went on to explain how good trolls can make their efforts indistinguishable from standard debating at a forum such as this.
A more concise definition of a debate forum troll is as I cited from the link. The term originated in Norway in a folk tale where the troll prevented the movement across the bridge. He would jump out from under it and demand a toll before crossing. He contributed nothing in the process.
I'm not sure which link you are referring to, but the prevailing wisdom is that the term actually derives from from fishing, rather than from Norwegian folklore. Getting them confused is common enough.
AdminModulous, imo, this is why you suspended Adminnemooseous who saw Hooah as a troll.
I've have already given the reason why I suspended AdminMoose, but you are free to be of the opinion that I was being deceitful.
Re: ThinAirDesigns Suspension and Admin personal insult
Well that explains which one of us was throwing out insults.
I wouldn't regard it as an insult, if I were you. Moose was merely exorting you to not stoop down to the level of your opponents and instead to exhibit your smartness. It's a bit like saying 'act your age not your shoe size' for a different context. It's a comment on temporal juvenile behaviour (usually) rather than an assessment on your overall personality.
I can't speak for Moose's mind but I expect it was partly to avoid the thread collapsing into a series of personal snipes which it apparently was in the midst of at the time. Partly as a means of general discipline, to help you focus on the subjects rather than winning wars of snide with.
I'm not justifying Moose's specific action, but as you are new I'd thought some insight into moderator thought might help understand what might have seemed entirely arbitrary rather than merely partially arbitrary
Normally suspensions follow warnings, and this time seems no exception: Message 161: "remain focused on the topic."
I'll be interested to learn why Message 160 is flagged as edited by the admin.
Moose appears to have edited the message purely to add the message that you were suspended for the message, presumably for transparency and warning's sake. Personally I'd prefer an actual posted message as to why someone was suspended, only editing a post to hide material that contravenes the rules, including a message that some text was hidden.
I hope that helps provide additional illumination. As someone else indicated, you kind of won an EvC lottery of sorts with this one. Glad to see you taking it with dignity
Re: ThinAirDesigns Suspension and Admin personal insult
Yeah, the short of it is that I mistook message 152 and 161 due to having numerous tabs open.
No need to thank me for attempting to assist you quite so vociferously though - I get showered with enough thanks at my job as it is and always appreciate more. Alternatively, you might consider how you are presenting your views, because you really managed to come off as condescending, sarcastic, faux-innocent and potentially other fun stuff in a relatively short space of time. I expect the way you communicate, intended or otherwise, may need some self-moderation to avoid other seemingly arbitrary acts of moderation. I hope this also helps.