Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   General discussion of moderation procedures: The Sequel
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 46 of 300 (215616)
06-09-2005 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by contracycle
06-09-2005 4:02 AM


Re: Brief Advice
My end of this discussion is done.
Adminnemooseus
{Edited to change ID}
This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 06-09-2005 11:29 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by contracycle, posted 06-09-2005 4:02 AM contracycle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by arachnophilia, posted 06-09-2005 8:17 PM Adminnemooseus has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 47 of 300 (215740)
06-09-2005 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by contracycle
06-09-2005 4:02 AM


Re: Brief Advice
he adult response to making mistakes is to say "sorry", not to say "this decision is infallible and any challenge to it will be taken as further evidence of your delinquency". And it is that adult behaviour that has been conspicuous by its absence.
how does that follow from "Mistakes are made?"
mistakes are made is not only a statement of fallibility, but that, well, mistakes WERE MADE.
The problem is, as we see in Arachnophilia's post below yours, he is still misrepresenting the topic.
anyone can read the thread for themselves. there's a link right there. if i'm misrepresenting something, it should be fairly obvious.
The claim he made and which I challenged was "the consensus of academic opinion is that Soddom was destroyed for a failure of hospitality".
strawman. my claim was that most common opinion on the matter by far was that myth was one based around treatment of outsiders. i never once claimed for instance that sodom even existed. i don't care. this is not exclusive from a disaster explanation myth, as it would be the explanation for the disaster.
I pointed out that I found this implausible, and that I could find no trace of any such academic consensus - the only place such claims can be found is precisely in this very argument.
really? from the thread in question.
quote:
Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 109a
The men of Sodom waxed haughty only on account of the good which the Holy One, blessed be He, had lavished upon them...They said: Since there cometh forth bread out of (our) earth, and it hath the dust of gold, why should we suffer wayfarers, who come to us only to deplete our wealth. Come, let us abolish the practice of travelling in our land.
quote:
Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer
Rabbi Ze'era said: The men of Sodom were the wealthy men of prosperity, on account of the good and fruitful land whereon they dwelt... Rabbi Nathaniel said: The men of Sodom had no consideration for the honour of their Owner by not distributing food to the wayfarer and stranger, but they even fenced in all the trees on top above their fruit so that so that they should not be seized; not even by the bird of heaven... Rabbi Joshua... said: They appointed over themselves judges who were lying judges, and they oppressed every wayfarer and stranger who entered Sodom by their perverse judgment, and they sent them forth naked...
quote:
Josephus, Antiquities I: 194-5
The Sodomites, overweeningly proud of their numbers and the extent of their wealth, showed themselves insolent to men and impious to the Divinity, insomuch that they no more remembered the benefits that they had received from him, hated foreigners and declined all intercourse with others. Indignant at this conduct, God accordingly resolved to chastise them for their arrogance."
quote:
Genesis Rabbah, Parashah 50:7
R Menhama in the name of R Bibi: This is what the Sodomites had stipulated among themselves. They said, As to any wayfarer who comes here, we shall have sexual relations with him and take away his money.
quote:
Nahmanides (Ramban) Commentary on Genesis, 13th century
Their intention was to stop people from coming among them, as our rabbis have said, for they thought that because of the excellence of their land... many will come there and they despised charity... they continued provoking and rebelling against Him with their ease and the oppression of the poor... In the opinion of our Rabbis, all evil practices were rampant among them. Yet their fate was sealed because of this sin - i.e. they did not strengthen the hand of the poor and needy - since this sin represented their usual behaviour more than any other. Besides, since all peoples act righteously towards their friends and their poor, there was none among all the nations who matched Sodom in cruelty.
quote:
Eze 16:49 Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.
quote:
Luke 10:10-12
But into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you not, go your ways out into the streets of the same, and say, "Even the very dust of your city, which cleaveth on us, we do wipe off against you." Notwithstanding be ye sure of this, that the kingdom of God is come nigh unto you. But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom, than for that city.
it's pretty obvious to ANYONE that according to the traditions, sodom's sin has to do with treatment of outsiders: guests. now, you can say that's impluasible all you like, but you can't show one shred of evidence in favor of your position, can you? and yet i have a source up there, josphus, who is nearly 2000 years old.
that, and it's setup like a hospitality tale. disguised visitors who then bring reward or punishment for treatment. it's like i was to tell you a joke. if it starts "knock knock!" it's probably a knock-knock joke, not a priest-rabbi or a chicken-road joke. even if it involves a priest and a rabbi helping a chicken cross the raod.
after all, if it is as broad a consensus as Arachnophilia claims, that should not be too hard.
jesus, you can find it on GOOGLE.
No evidence has been forthcoming whatsoever. Instead Arachnophilia attempted to drag the argument onto other topics, as he continues to do here.
ahem.
YOU brought it up. you. not me.
does it really bother you that much that you have to keep bringing it up months later? boo-hoo, the admins hate me? but i wanna be a jedi master!
you lost. your argument was wrong on multiple levels, and you filled that thread with nonsense and argumentative crap. not to mention personal attacks and malice. they closed it because your behavior. now get over yourself, act like an adult, and respect the admin's decisions. now, you have one of three choices:
  • politely request for the thread to be reopened, or better yet, propose a new one
  • drop it and get over the fact that you were wrong, or
  • get lost.
And further, we see the habitual resort to personal abuse as when he says "He simply wants to agitate and "win" his arguments." Faced by the fact his argument is dishonest and evasive, he makes an appeal, once more, to my alleged mentality.
no, we don't know anyone like that, do we? i think it was YOU who said "You're an arrogant fucker for someone who's claims have been consistently dismantled."
Thats wholly unacceptable. If the moderators were fulfilling the role they claim to fill, and for which they demand respect, then Arachnophilia should have been compelled to demonstrate the existance of this alleged academic consensus or withdraw his argument. And all the closure of the thread served to do was protect him from this embarrasment.
i did. i even pasted it above, just in case you missed it. you were too busy arguing to notice, i think. now, uh, where's your evidence? want me to propose a thread? i'll do it.
The problem is that I have always accepted it - the problem is that the MODERATORS do not accept they are fallible.
except for the part YOU quoted that even said "mistakes are made." how does "mistakes are made" translate to "infallible." usually saying "we make mistakes" meands the oppositie of infallible. look:
quote:
Main Entry: infallible
Pronunciation: (")in-'fa-l&-b&l
Function: adjective
1 : incapable of error :
When they make mistakes, they do not apologise or correct but merely apply more force until the problem goes away.
yes, well, in this case it doesn't seem to have been a mistake, does it? look, i've been suspended before. a lot of people have. i've been threads that were closed before i could get my last words in.
BIG DEAL.
Will you be needing another week to consider one? That can easily be arranged.
you know, you act as if this place is yours. it's not. i don't think you're in the position to make demands of any kind, or tell the moderators the sorts of things you do. like it or not, they are the bosses. if you don't like it, go do somethign else with your precisious time. it's just a message board, it can't possibly matter THAT much.
This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 06-09-2005 08:23 PM

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by contracycle, posted 06-09-2005 4:02 AM contracycle has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 48 of 300 (215742)
06-09-2005 8:17 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Adminnemooseus
06-09-2005 11:26 AM


Re: Brief Advice
Moose, how about this? I'll propose a thread (thought not a great debate), in which contracycle can present his evidence on this particular topic, how genesis 19 cannot refer to hospitality.
You and the other admins can then judge his ability to be here by the nature of his discussion in that thread. If he fails to show evidence, and resorts to his usual ad hominems and nastiness, feel free to throw the book at him. But if he conducts himself in a mature and rational fashion, let him stay and debate as normal. That way, he can be exra-sure that his punishments are based solely on his own behaviour and attitude.
I'd be willing to submit to the same standard of course. Feel free to punish me for not showing evidence (which I have already done in THIS thread now) or for resorting to general nastiness (which I have also probably alread done in this thread now).
I would, however, like that thread closely watched by both the admins and the other members, who should feel free to participate and call us on things. Sound fair Moose, Cont?

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Adminnemooseus, posted 06-09-2005 11:26 AM Adminnemooseus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Adminnemooseus, posted 06-10-2005 2:32 AM arachnophilia has replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 49 of 300 (215786)
06-10-2005 2:32 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by arachnophilia
06-09-2005 8:17 PM


Re: Brief Advice
While I'm done replying to Contracycle, I will make at least one reply to you.
First comments re: your message 47:
"Mistakes are made"
While I did indeed use the quoted phrase, I now think that it may be stating the situation a bit too strongly. I will now say, that there may well be moderation mistakes made. The prime example that comes to my mind was that overly harsh suspension I laid on Darwins Terrier. At the time I did it, I felt a very strong action was called for. But, in hindsight, the suspension was overly long.
But I think the real monitor failing of sorts, is not so much blatent mistakes, but rather uneven moderation (including uneven topic coverage). But as I said a ways back, the nature of the system is that we are doomed to such flawed moderation.
There are typically about 275 messages posted every day. Amongst these messages are an abundance of forum rules violations, small and not so small. As per Admins example of speeders on the highway - Some forum rule violators are caught and some are not. Many messages may never even get an admin reading. Some violations may be seen but not commented on. Others may get warnings, while some may get suspensions. And of course, there is the famous admin bias to "try to cut the underdog creationist side a little extra slack". The admins strive to be evenhanded, but are doomed to be (well?) less than a total sucess at it.
If we had a moderator comment message for every forum violation that happened, we would end up with way too many of the total messages being of a moderation nature. That is not good. Besides, it would require way too much work for the admin staff.
Some members manage to make themselves "high profile". Once that happens, they do probably have a higher susceptibility to getting suspended. Such is life. Don't like it? Then don't make yourself "high profile".
Or something like that. The bottom line is, if you think Adminnemooseus is capable of doing anything close to perfect moderation, you are living a serious delusion.
Now, on to message 48.
Moose, how about this? I'll propose a thread (thought not a great debate),...
I push for a "Great Debate", because it would have a greater possibility for a quality moderator contol. Too many participents and too many messages per period of time, and a topic subject to going bad will go bad, and probably pretty damn fast.
I would, however, like that thread closely watched by both the admins and the other members, who should feel free to participate and call us on things.
We can have topic moderator(s) that do not have admin status. If a topic is going to call for special intense moderator monitoring, I still think it should be a "one-on-one" "Great Debate" And even then, limit the number of messages to only one per day. The recent Buz vs. Jar "GD" had too much happening too fast.
There you have it. Yet another flawed message from...
Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by arachnophilia, posted 06-09-2005 8:17 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Parasomnium, posted 06-10-2005 3:24 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied
 Message 51 by arachnophilia, posted 06-10-2005 5:59 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 50 of 300 (215797)
06-10-2005 3:24 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Adminnemooseus
06-10-2005 2:32 AM


Re: Brief Advice
Hi Adminnemooseus,
From the fact that you still post as an admin, can I take it that you withdraw your resignation? Or have I missed something?
Anyway, glad you're still here.
Cheers, Parasomnium.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Adminnemooseus, posted 06-10-2005 2:32 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by arachnophilia, posted 06-10-2005 5:59 AM Parasomnium has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 51 of 300 (215809)
06-10-2005 5:59 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Adminnemooseus
06-10-2005 2:32 AM


Re: Brief Advice
Or something like that. The bottom line is, if you think Adminnemooseus is capable of doing anything close to perfect moderation, you are living a serious delusion.
Well, yes, I gathered all of that. I know the various issues at hand, and compleely understand the fact that moderators are human beings.
I'm just at a COMPLETE loss as to how contracycle is deriving a position of infallibility from statements like this.
I push for a "Great Debate", because it would have a greater possibility for a quality moderator contol. Too many participents and too many messages per period of time, and a topic subject to going bad will go bad, and probably pretty damn fast.
Probably a good point. I was thinking that it might be in everyone's best interest if others could step in now and then to say "now, hold on a sec" when one party makes some king of grievous oversight. However, considering contracycle's reactions (or lack thereof) to something similar in the last thread, the point may be moot. Upon insisting that no directly similar stories existed, several people stepped in to remind him that one had already been mentioned. Repeatedly.
So uh, lemme take some time and consider it. If it's a great debate, I want it VERY closely moderated. Although it honestly will not be a debate contracycle can win: he's insisting that a group of people at a certain time had no concept of something. There's no way to prove the abscence, really, especially in spite of so much counter-evidence.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Adminnemooseus, posted 06-10-2005 2:32 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 52 of 300 (215810)
06-10-2005 5:59 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Parasomnium
06-10-2005 3:24 AM


Re: Brief Advice
From the fact that you still post as an admin, can I take it that you withdraw your resignation? Or have I missed something?
yeah, i was confused too. ah well:
Anyway, glad you're still here.
agreed.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Parasomnium, posted 06-10-2005 3:24 AM Parasomnium has not replied

contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 300 (215814)
06-10-2005 6:42 AM


This conversation becomes increasingly baroque.
Lets look at the sequence of events again. The thread is closed becuase I ask for supporting evidence that I feel has not been provided - a heinous crime. Then, I am suspended for requesting the thread be re-opened so that my questions can be answered, which is also a heinous crime. Now the proposal is that a new thread be created to discuss the very same topic... does it not occur to anyone that this whole situation would have been avoided if the moderators had NOT closed the thread, and NOT suspended me for requesting it be reopened? The proposal is now to do the very thing I was suspended for asking be done!
The whole debacle could have been avoided if the moderators had in fact acted according to their stated principles that claims must be supported.
Archnophilia:
quote:
anyone can read the thread for themselves. there's a link right there. if i'm misrepresenting something, it should be fairly obvious.
Yes, and it IS obvious as it is in this post: when asked to demonstrate a consensus of academic opinion, all you can come up with is a group of Jewish scholars. That does not cut it, especially when their analysis contradicts my archeological reading. I can show that a fair amount of kink existed in this region, including "priests who turned men into women with their sharp obsidian blades". For therse reasons, as well as the weaknesses of the alleged myths you raised, I consider that the opinion of your Jewish scholoars is not definitive, and is not nearly as reliable or evidence based as archeological research. Your position that this matter is "obvious" becuase there is a "consensus" is wholly undemonstrated and remains undemonstrated; it does not mesh with the general archeological picture of the region or period, it is as simple as that.
Claims must be supported. Case closed.

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by arachnophilia, posted 06-10-2005 7:55 AM contracycle has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 54 of 300 (215827)
06-10-2005 7:55 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by contracycle
06-10-2005 6:42 AM


This message is off-topic. Please do not respond here. --Admin
Yes, and it IS obvious as it is in this post: when asked to demonstrate a consensus of academic opinion, all you can come up with is a group of Jewish scholars.
considering that the book was originally compiled by jewish scholars, i think that's forgivable. and mind you, this is not "a group" of jewish scholars.
this is a range of people, including biblical authors, secular historians (josephus), the talmud, and external midrashim. that about covers all of the bases on jewish opinion, from about 200 bc to 1800 ad or so.
for reference, genesis was compiled around 600 bc or so. that puts one of the source withing 400 years. so your archaeological data can say whatever you think it says, but they people who wrote the book clearly thought it meant this, at about the time it was written.
That does not cut it, especially when their analysis contradicts my archeological reading.
oh really? well, as they say, turnabout is fair play. let's have some evidence. i've provided a little more than a half dozen sources (which, btw, could have been in your beloved wikipedia, if you had looked. or google, for that matter). i've also provided in the thread a contextual basis for interpretting the story this way: it bears elements strongly similar to hospitality testing myths. i've also provided the correct cultural context, and several very good reasons why something such as hospitality would have been generalized.
what does your "archaeological reading" say, exactly? if it's "bronze-age" anything don't bother. you've repeatedly shown your gross ignorance with the subject matter in that area.
for reference, let's review:
  • genesis's latest elements date to 600 ad or so
  • genesis was compiled well into the iron age
  • genesis was compiled, and probably written, by a society that lived in a major metropolitan city. or possibly captivity of a foriegn nation.
  • the torah = the first 5 books of the christian bible. it says the same thing, i promise.
  • the talmud is not in the bible. there's no room for it's 35,000 pages or so.
now, in the previous thread, you demonstrated that you were not aware of these relatively simple facts regarding the story. why bother debating if you don't know the basics?
I can show that a fair amount of kink existed in this region, including "priests who turned men into women with their sharp obsidian blades".
irrelevant. i can find just as good in the bible, too. but it has nothing to do with story of genesis 19.
For therse reasons, as well as the weaknesses of the alleged myths you raised,
especially the one which was the same exact story, that you repeatedly denied even existed. yeah, that was real weak. two gods kill a whole town for not accepting them with hospitality.
I consider that the opinion of your Jewish scholoars is not definitive
no offense, but NO SHIT. jewish opinion is anything but definitive. the talmud's about as full of disagreement on all sorts of things. it's almost as bad as here. yet, i have never heard another take on this story (the THEMATIC aspects of it, i mean) from any source. your first piece of evidence, perhaps, would be showing something from jewish opinion that reads it another way.
and is not nearly as reliable or evidence based as archeological research.
archaeological research cannot show that opinions did not exist. writing from the time, however, can show that certain opinions did exist. and this one exists in extra-biblical sources for almost the entire age of the story. what archaeological evidence are you even talking bout?
Your position that this matter is "obvious" becuase there is a "consensus" is wholly undemonstrated and remains undemonstrated
strawman again. i never said there's a consensus. heck, i'll be the first to admit that there's a whole group of people who read it differently: christians. they think it's about homosexuality. but that's just a translation problem. the words used in the story don't indicate gender. so "the men of city" and the "men" in lot's house should really people "citizens" and "people." and there's no reason to assume that "know" in this case is the sexual euphemism "know" although SOME of the opinions above clearly read it that way.
anyways. what i DID say was that most of academic and rabbinical world regard the story as a fable about the treatment of outsiders. which is equatable to hospitality on a larger scale.
it does not mesh with the general archeological picture of the region or period, it is as simple as that.
have you got right region and period yet?
and, i should like to point, a lot of time, records ARE the contributing factors to the archaeological picture. suppose, hypothetically, that we had found no records of mammoth in france. no remains, nothing. but we have a picture of one at lascaux. which would be the more compelling evidence? do you think there might have been mammoth there? granted, it might indicate the migration of the people, and not the mammoth.
but it's the same with genesis. lots of genesis is babylonian, for instance. does your archeaological picture include babylonian tradition?
The whole debacle could have been avoided if the moderators had in fact acted according to their stated principles that claims must be supported.
the whole debacle could have been avoided if you could have conducted yourself like an adult. not just in that thread, but afterwards. one does not petition the administration to get what they want by attacking them.
This message has been edited by Admin, 06-10-2005 08:47 AM

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by contracycle, posted 06-10-2005 6:42 AM contracycle has not replied

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 55 of 300 (216191)
06-11-2005 3:18 PM


Faith Crosses The Line!!!!
So hitchy gets a full on 24 hour suspension for a tini little snipe but Faith gets to say this at
Message 95
{I don't know why this link is not working. It is post 95 in the Academic Bill Of Rights thread}
{Fixed link - Topic number changed from "11" to "113". - Adminnemooseus}
You are the anti-intellectual kneejerk mindless accuser of people who has no respect for anything decent, you and most others here. Anyone who can say that it could possibly be objective fact that Bush is a war criminal has no respect for true intellect, for clear thought, no respect for the majority of decent Americans who voted for him, no respect for human beings, period, no respect for truth, for reason, for reality, no mind, no heart, no human decency. No respect for the American values of tolerance and giving the benefit of the doubt and treating your opponent with respect. No respect for American freedoms. The Leftist propaganda juggernaut is destroying everything true and good in this country and you and most others here are just riding along on it, blindly, unthinkingly, having NO idea of the true source of its evil anti-American smear campaign, while a very few of us have the guts to look it in the face and call it what it is. It's insanity, it's lies, it's evil. Get an education in what matters.
I am not trying to be a tattle and I am not known for my objections about other posters stype but this has gotten outrageous!
I will seriously have to question the objectivity of the administration of this board if nothing is done about Faith's behavior in that thread. That post was simply the pinnacle of disrespect displayed by her to her fellow posters.
I know of at least 2 admin alter-egos who are posting in that thread.
If you going to enforce the rules then enforce the damn rules. That thread actually had a reasonable discussion going on before it was hijacked by petty slander. Now an important issue is mired in invective. I guess if it is the goal to allow agitators to dive bomb a good thread into obsecurity then this has been achieved.
This message has been edited by Jazzns, 06-11-2005 01:22 PM
This message has been edited by Jazzns, 06-11-2005 01:26 PM
This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 06-11-2005 03:40 PM

Organizations worth supporting:
Electronic Frontier Foundation | Defending your rights in the digital world (Protect Privacy and Security)
Home | American Civil Liberties Union (Protect Civil Rights)
AAUP (Protect Higher Learning)

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Adminnemooseus, posted 06-11-2005 3:57 PM Jazzns has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 56 of 300 (216203)
06-11-2005 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Jazzns
06-11-2005 3:18 PM


Faith "Suspension" fixed, now actually suspended
Actually, Faith was suspended by AdminPhat. See here. AdminPhat's anouncement (under "Phatboy" ID) was posted within an hour of the time of the Faith message.
BUT... I've just now checked Faith's posting permission status, and no actual suspension was done. I fixed that - Faith is indeed now suspended.
It seems we might be having some technical problems in doing suspensions. There have been 3 recent examples of suspension anouncements where no suspension actually happened, until a somewhat later "fix" was done. These suspensions were done by 3 different admins, including one by Adminnemooseus. Perhaps we are forgetting to click the "submit" button.
So admins, when you do a suspension, go back and check to see if the suspension set up actually happened.
Adminnemooseus
Edit: Changed subtitle
This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 06-11-2005 04:07 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Jazzns, posted 06-11-2005 3:18 PM Jazzns has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by wj, posted 06-12-2005 7:38 AM Adminnemooseus has replied

wj
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 300 (216353)
06-12-2005 7:38 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Adminnemooseus
06-11-2005 3:57 PM


Re: Faith "Suspension" fixed, now actually suspended
Admoose
I can appreciate the limitations imposed by the time that moderators can make available to this pastimes. In fact I've just been tied up in a pastime for the last 2 days will only limited additional support. However it appears to me that Faith has repeatedly instigated slanging matches and this behaviour warrants very careful supervision if she is to be allowed to continue participating on the board. Anything that she posts should be checked by the relevent moderator as a matter of priority, even at the cost of reducing monitoring of others' activities. That way other members will not be provoked into responding in kind and earning moderation censure.
I wonder if Faith has serious recurring psychological problems or is on medication. Even so, such a person has to be contained within society's accepted limits or removed from society. I ran into someone with a similar tag in a MSN board who had somewhat similar behavious some time ago.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Adminnemooseus, posted 06-11-2005 3:57 PM Adminnemooseus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Adminnemooseus, posted 06-12-2005 12:14 PM wj has not replied
 Message 60 by Admin, posted 06-13-2005 9:43 AM wj has replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 58 of 300 (216377)
06-12-2005 9:29 AM


Porteus = not me.
quote:
THAT I THINK WAS CHARLIE BUT IT COULD BE SOMEONE ELSE TOO.
"PORTEUS" ISNT ME.
I WOULD HAVE NO DESIRE TO POST INBETWEEN TIME OUTS.
I BET ALOT OF PPL THINK LOWER OF ME NOW
CHECK THE IP TOO
BECAUSE THE LANGUAGE LOOKS LIKE SOME ARCH NEMESIS'S OF MINE, SO IF YOU LOOK INTO IT MORE IT MAY NOT EVEN BE CHARLIE.
But it is not me
thank you
Cut back on the crack - I have no time or interest in pretending to be you. To be an "arch-nemesis" I would have to have some actual interest in you or your life. I have neither. Get a grip and some perspective.
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 12-Jun-2005 09:32 AM

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Trump won, posted 06-21-2005 5:27 PM CK has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 59 of 300 (216415)
06-12-2005 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by wj
06-12-2005 7:38 AM


Re: Faith "Suspension" fixed, now actually suspended
However it appears to me that Faith has repeatedly instigated slanging matches...
and
That way other members will not be provoked into responding in kind and earning moderation censure.
Warning: The following may well contain "evo side bias".
Faith seems to represent an extreme creationist perspective - She "knows what the Bible says, and has absolute confidence that it is absolutely correct". As such, her perspective is part of the evolution/creationism debate, and needs to be seen.
Evo side members need to be able to resist "responding in kind". They are "the rational side" of the debate, while the creationist pespective is inherently irrational. In general, this is a big part of why the evo side is granted less leniency in regards to guideline violations.
The (famous?) bottom line is: If Faith so offends you that you can't post a "decent" response, then don't post any response.
This is not to say that Faith has total immunity to censure.
Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by wj, posted 06-12-2005 7:38 AM wj has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 60 of 300 (216580)
06-13-2005 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by wj
06-12-2005 7:38 AM


Re: Faith "Suspension" fixed, now actually suspended
Here's a slightly different administrative viewpoint. While Faith's perspectives on religion and science are widespread within the fundamentalist community and deserve full representation here, her inability to follow the Forum Guidelines and remain civil while engaged in discussion with those she disagrees with is not felt to be an inherent nor even common component of the fundamentalist viewpoint. She is using her religious beliefs to excuse what is inexcusable behavior, especially in a follower of Christ.
As far as this moderator is concerned, the leniency shown toward Creationists is only regarding their ability to form coherent, evidence-based arguments. Christians incapable of maintaining a civil demeanor will receive temporary suspensions of posting privileges, just like anyone else.
This message has been edited by Admin, 06-13-2005 09:44 AM

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by wj, posted 06-12-2005 7:38 AM wj has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by wj, posted 06-14-2005 5:13 AM Admin has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024