Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8927 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-23-2019 9:43 AM
28 online now:
Faith, JonF, PurpleYouko, RAZD (4 members, 24 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,269 Year: 15,305/19,786 Month: 2,028/3,058 Week: 402/404 Day: 6/63 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
234Next
Author Topic:   General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures (aka 'The Whine List')
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3892
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 1 of 1043 (594230)
12-02-2010 6:30 PM


This topic is the revival of sorts of the past "General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures" topic series. Links to that series, from first to last topic, are:

Change in Moderation?
General discussion of moderation procedures
General discussion of moderation procedures: The Sequel
General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consecution
General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consequtive Consecution
General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consequtive Consecution Sequel
General discussion of moderation procedures - Part 7
General discussion of moderation procedures - Part 8
General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 9.0
General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 10.0
General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 11.0
General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 12.0
General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 13.0

I thought there was at least one more topic in that series, but I've been unable to track it down. There's also a variety of other major and minor topics concerning moderation procedures. Search through the Suggestions and Questions forum index to find them.

Note that this topic is in the "Free For All" forum. The difference between those above cited topics and this new one is that the various admins are under no obligation in any way to respond to or otherwise act upon the member messages. Admin (aka Percy) has stated elsewhere - "Members should understand that nothing official can emerge from a thread in FFA."

The Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0 topic is still the place to report perceived discussion problems. And that topic is still NOT the place to discuss moderation procedures - This new topic is the place for such discussion.

Please keep messages on-topic, relevant to moderation procedure issues. If this topic turns into a big stinking garbage pile, I suspect it will be closed without there being any successor topic.

Adminnemooseus

Edited by Admin, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Stile, posted 12-09-2010 11:53 AM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded
 Message 146 by Butterflytyrant, posted 08-06-2011 11:01 AM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

    
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3892
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 2 of 1043 (594273)
12-02-2010 9:14 PM


Thread Copied from Private Administration Forum Forum
Thread copied here from the General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures (aka 'The Whine List') thread in the Private Administration Forum forum.

Edited by Admin, : Fix quoting.


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Coyote, posted 12-02-2010 9:29 PM Adminnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

    
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3892
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 31 of 1043 (595298)
12-07-2010 9:23 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by arachnophilia
12-07-2010 5:29 PM


The "It could be worse" defense
You are defending your sans capitals writing style/formatting by, directly or indirectly, comparing it to examples that are equally bad or even worse? By comparing it to archaic (eg. King James Bible) style/formatting?

I should be commending you because it's conceivable that your writing style/formatting could be even worse?

I'm comparing your writing style/formatting to the modern English standard of having capital letters at sentence beginnings and at proper noun beginnings.

Adminnemooseus


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by arachnophilia, posted 12-07-2010 5:29 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by arachnophilia, posted 12-07-2010 9:58 PM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

    
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3892
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 45 of 1043 (595489)
12-08-2010 9:35 PM


Side note - Possible new topic?
I have received a PM from a member:

The side conversation about language usage that sprung from Arachnophilias mild protest has become a fascinating topic of its own! Can we move a bunch of those posts into a separate topic of the general Whine list?

Or do we have the technology?

We don't have the technology. If someone, however, wishes to start such a Coffee House topic, they are welcome.

The discussion certainly has shot off on a tangent that's getting rather remote from the moderation issue in question. Personally, I can't get too offended by that since I am seeing the various viewpoints as largely supporting my stance on the issue - As I see it, arachnophilia's arguments are pretty damn lame.

Adminnemooseus


Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by arachnophilia, posted 12-08-2010 9:52 PM Adminnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

    
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3892
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 97 of 1043 (608865)
03-14-2011 7:54 PM


Hey idiots
Re: This

Message 1 of the "Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0" topic:

This thread is to report discussion problems and bring them to the attention of the Moderators.

This is not a discussion thread.

If you aren't reporting a problem or commenting concerning an Administrative message you received, you should not be posting in this thread.

Thanks
AdminPD

In the "Index to certain important topics (updated for traditional beginning of the month blink)":

Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0 - Report problems, but not a moderation procedures discussion topic ('The Whine List', below, is the discussion topic).

General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures (aka 'The Whine List'). - Free For All forum whine cellar. Please, only quality on-topic whines.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Take link out of subtitle and add the "Re: This" line.


Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Omnivorous, posted 03-14-2011 8:13 PM Adminnemooseus has acknowledged this reply
 Message 103 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-15-2011 7:45 AM Adminnemooseus has acknowledged this reply
 Message 107 by AZPaul3, posted 03-15-2011 1:25 PM Adminnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

    
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3892
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 119 of 1043 (609754)
03-22-2011 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Omnivorous
03-22-2011 7:36 AM


Re: Moose Didn't Know + Brevity = Suspension
pogue mahone
This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Omnivorous, posted 03-22-2011 7:36 AM Omnivorous has acknowledged this reply

    
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3892
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 122 of 1043 (612719)
04-17-2011 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by jar
03-22-2011 10:52 AM


Barer than bare links
Posts that do not contain links cannot be a violation of Rule 5 that prohibits bare links.

You gave a two word phrase, key words that were usable in Google to come up with a link.

Had you included a link with those key words, it still would be essentially a bare link. But Your link was so bare, there wasn't even a link.

Need we have a forum rule prohibiting barer than bare links? I don't think so.

Adminnemooseus


This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by jar, posted 03-22-2011 10:52 AM jar has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by ringo, posted 04-18-2011 12:53 PM Adminnemooseus has responded

    
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3892
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 125 of 1043 (612885)
04-19-2011 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by ringo
04-18-2011 12:53 PM


Re: Barer than bare links
ringo writes:

Adminnemooseus writes:

Need we have a forum rule prohibiting barer than bare links?


Prompting somebody to do his own search is often preferable to posting links. "Seek and ye shall find," is more likely to to provide enlightenment than, "Swallow what I feed you."

While that may very well be true, and while such a procedure may be more acceptable in one of evcforum.net's "lite" topics, it is very contrary to evcforum.net's general operation standards - It is clearly a violation of forum rule 5:

quote:
Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.

Jar's methodology makes me think of Jeopardy:

Moose: Alex Jar, I'll take "Something to do with earthquakes" for $400.

Jar: Cumbre Vieja

Moose (does Google search): What is a volcano in the Canary Islands whose eruption has the potential of triggering a mega-tsunami which would wipe out a significant portion of the east coast of the United States?

Evcforum.net is not the place to be playing Jeopardy.

Adminnemooseus


This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by ringo, posted 04-18-2011 12:53 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by jar, posted 04-19-2011 8:41 PM Adminnemooseus has responded

    
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3892
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 127 of 1043 (612894)
04-19-2011 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by jar
04-19-2011 8:41 PM


Re: Barer than bare links
jar writes:

Where is the bare link?

Here:

Jar writes:

Check out Cumbre Vieja

I'll call it an "implied bare link" - A link is implied but not presented. Had you actually had a link there, then it still would essentially have been a bare link.

Look, if you had included a couple of sentences detailing the implications of the Cumbre Vieja volcano, and supplied a link to your source, I would have been happy and no suspension would have happened.

Forum rule 5 calls for you to bring the information into your message and supply a source link. Giving key word(s) and saying "go Google" does not cut it.

Adminnemooseus

Added by edit:

Note: The relevant two Jar suspension announcements - 1 - 2

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Note.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by jar, posted 04-19-2011 8:41 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by jar, posted 04-19-2011 9:10 PM Adminnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

    
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3892
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 130 of 1043 (613000)
04-20-2011 11:42 PM


SavageD's dog-pile problem at "Why only one designer"
SavageD commented/complained at message 214:

SavageD writes:

you think I'm super human, give me a break, can't respond to all of you, I'm constantly bombarded with responses.

Of course (IMO), his complaint does have merit. Generally, every SavageD reply gets several replies.

In summary (as of message 214), SavageD posted 21 messages, to which he got 45 replies, to which he returned 19 replies. This says nothing about the quality or lack of quality of any of the involved messages.

Anyway, one little Jar/SavageD/Jar exchange caught my attention (messages 161,163, and 168):

161:

Jar writes:

SavageD writes:

Natural selection - The process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring. This adaptability is driven by several organic mechanisms.

Hardly anything as simple as being "the universe we live in".

Again, get your definitions correct. Natural Selection is just the filter, it is the world and environment we live in. It really is that simple.

163:

SavageD writes:

"get your definitions correct"....what is wrong with my definition?

168:

Jar writes:

Natural Selection is only the filter. It is the environment critters live in. If the critter lives long enough to reproduce it gets through the filter and passes on its genes.

Other than the quotes of previous message, the above quoted are the entire messages.

I sure seems to me, that SavageD's "Natural Selection" definition was pretty good, and Jar was griping about it while agreeing with it.

WTF?

Adminnemooseus


Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by PaulK, posted 04-21-2011 1:45 AM Adminnemooseus has responded

    
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3892
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 132 of 1043 (613007)
04-21-2011 2:44 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by PaulK
04-21-2011 1:45 AM


Re: SavageD's dog-pile problem at "Why only one designer"
SavageD, as quoted in message 161 of the topic in question, writes:

Natural selection - The process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring.

Jar, in message 168 of the topic in quesion, writes:

Natural Selection is only the filter. {snip} If the critter lives long enough to reproduce it gets through the filter and passes on its genes.

PaulK writes:

Natural selection doesn't CAUSE better adapted individuals to survive and have more offspring as he would have it.

SavageD may or may not have said something to that effect upthread, but I fail to see that (natural selection as a cause) in the above quoted. I don't see significant conflict between the SavageD and Jar statements quoted above.

As I see it, SavageD's statement might have been worded better as:

Natural selection - The process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to better survive and to produce more offspring.

I fail to see how Jar's statement clarified the situation.

Adminnemooseus


This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by PaulK, posted 04-21-2011 1:45 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by PaulK, posted 04-21-2011 4:05 AM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

    
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3892
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 137 of 1043 (620833)
06-21-2011 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by AZPaul3
06-21-2011 6:05 AM


Re: Fidelity
I wouldn't dare go that off-topic. We'd get moosed in a heartbeat.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, 06-15-2011 11:29 PM: Changed "moosed" to "Moosed".

Edited by AZPaul3, 06-21-2011 4:59 AM: Too far, Moose. This is MY message, not yours!

Link added.

It was a joke - a token "Moosing". And I am surprised that you or anyone else even noticed.

Adminnemooseus


This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by AZPaul3, posted 06-21-2011 6:05 AM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by AZPaul3, posted 06-21-2011 1:12 PM Adminnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

    
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3892
Joined: 09-26-2002


(3)
Message 165 of 1043 (628201)
08-07-2011 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by purpledawn
08-06-2011 3:42 PM


Re: Use Common Sense
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.

What AdminPD had done was probably adequate, but my impression was "What a jerk", so I decided to put an exclamation point on AdminPD's response. I subscribe to the theory that a little overkill can be a good thing. It was to send a strong "Don't be a jerk" message to Butterflytyrant AND to other members. Or something like that.

To be of the creationist side at this forum is to carry a heavy burden. I don't like dog piling, be it responses to a message or via proposed new topics.

So, everyone, think of the unwritten 11th commandment: "Don't be a jerk".

Adminnemooseus


Please be familiar with the various topics and other links in the "Essential Links", found in the top of the page menu. Amongst other things, this is where to find where to report various forum problems.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by purpledawn, posted 08-06-2011 3:42 PM purpledawn has not yet responded

    
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3892
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 183 of 1043 (629647)
08-19-2011 2:33 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by hooah212002
08-18-2011 2:04 AM


Re: Coyote booted from Coffee House
Bit much, innit? I didn't think EvC was a place that stifled dissenting views...

I would love to see quality conservative political perspective in the political topics, and as a minority perspective such would probably get enhanced administrative protection, something along the lines of what the creationist side gets. Coyote's political messages, however, have been essentially nothing but trollish. All flame and whine, with little to no content.

Or something like that.

For the record, Coyote's "Coffee House" permissions have been restored.

Adminnemooseus


Please be familiar with the various topics and other links in the "Essential Links", found in the top of the page menu. Amongst other things, this is where to find where to report various forum problems.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by hooah212002, posted 08-18-2011 2:04 AM hooah212002 has acknowledged this reply

    
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3892
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 208 of 1043 (631590)
09-01-2011 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by Coyote
09-01-2011 8:46 PM


Re: Moderation problems

Your reply to Just being real's message was not a reply to the content of that message. Things downthread are also problematic.

Or something like that.

Adminnemooseus


Please be familiar with the various topics and other links in the "Essential Links", found in the top of the page menu. Amongst other things, this is where to find where to report various forum problems.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Coyote, posted 09-01-2011 8:46 PM Coyote has not yet responded

    
1
234Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019