|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consecution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminBen Inactive Member |
No guidelines? No page of instructions? Learn by example and by asking questions. The second-guessing is your "guideline." Experience on the board is your "page of instructions." And ready and willing colleagues make it all work.
(By the way, my post about the thread reopen request was basically a thread-don't-reopen request that got out of hand.) I know. I try to be willing to step out of the way and let users inform each other... it's the whole "got out of hand" thing that drew my response. If you're going to step in, do it cleanly. Otherwise, stand aside. Every good admin has to have a strong set of admin pet peeves.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Akshully, Ben, thanks for the invite, which has also been extended by Percy on other occasions, but the hostility shown to me by certain of the current admins (and I've been VERY good lately so I know I haven't provoked it) is the reason I'm not going to take you up on it. Thanks anyway.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Requests for thread reopenings should go to the "Thread Reopen Requests" thread. lol, that makes sence. I honestly didn't see it.
At first I thought you were complaining about how AdminPhat handled the situation. Nah, I figured the name calling would get noticed. I just felt like I had her on her heals and was gonna make some progress and then it gets shut down and now I'll probably never get the reply I wanted to see. But if she thinks she is just beating a dead horse the reply might have been worthless anyways.
After reading the thread subtitle (somehow the last thing I read) I'm pretty sure you're just asking for the thread to be reopened. Is that right?
Yes. I cannot believe and am angered by Faith replying to the message and it took all of my willpower to not reply back which I realized would just bring the debate to this thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminBen Inactive Member |
Sure. It's not my job to recruit people; that's Moose's job. And it's totally up to you, of course.
But what I do ask (we all ask, really) is that if you're not interested in being an admin, then try and stay conscious not to participate like an admin. Give us time to address the issues. I think sometimes you have a habit of addressing admin-type issues in the course of writing your flurries of replies. Try to stay conscious of it, and give the admins time to sift through things and address them ourselves. Even though it may seem like there's 1000 of us, we're still fairly slow in some cases. Thanks. Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminBen Inactive Member |
I cannot believe and am angered by Faith replying to the message and it took all of my willpower to not reply back which I realized would just bring the debate to this thread. I understand, and I REALLY appreciate that willpower. I'm addressing that issue with Faith now. Hopefully she'll understand that her reply to your post would be inappropriate as well. People should be able to request admin review of things without having regular users, especially those involved in the issues, following them. I do really appreciate your restraint in this case. That was the right thing to do. Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13044 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Faith writes: No guidelines? No page of instructions? There is a webpage of moderator guidelines made available to new moderators after the fact (so as to give them no oppportunity to change their minds ). This message has been edited by Admin, 10-12-2005 02:53 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13044 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Faith writes: Akshully, Ben, thanks for the invite, which has also been extended by Percy on other occasions, but the hostility shown to me by certain of the current admins (and I've been VERY good lately so I know I haven't provoked it) is the reason I'm not going to take you up on it. Thanks anyway. Teasers get what they deserve - * I've also turned on all your privileges, you have full board access now.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4989 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
Can you explain the reasoning behind Faith's appointment?
Cheers. Brian.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nighttrain Member (Idle past 4023 days) Posts: 1512 From: brisbane,australia Joined: |
Every good admin has to have a strong set of admin pet peeves
Hi,AB. To avoid flagellation descending from unsuspected directions, any chance we could see a list of Admins X Pet Peeves? That way we can know who to suck up to and who to dodge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminBen Inactive Member |
Haha I was actually thinking of starting a thread on that very subject... with the stipulation that admins themselves could not describe their pet peeves; users had to figure it out from observation.
Here's a hint though: just about everything is covered in the special little box attached to this message which we call our "admin signature." Feel free to start calling it the "peeve box." Read it, understand it, and follow it, and you'll be our "little angel." Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nighttrain Member (Idle past 4023 days) Posts: 1512 From: brisbane,australia Joined: |
I guess the majority of offences fall under either 'adhomming' or wandering off topic. While I prefer the rapier to a blunt block of wood, a lot of ad homs have a beauty of their own, and if the recipient applauded the mastery of English instead of taking it to heart, we mightn`t degenerate into a reprimand. And while the ideal thread would go from A to B, should off topic comments be chastised when gems are being dropped into the convo? Such a fine balancing act demanded of our admins.May they err on the side of creativity.:-P
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trixie Member (Idle past 3735 days) Posts: 1011 From: Edinburgh Joined: |
I'd like to echo Brian's request. It would be nice if we were at least informed of the rationale behind the decision.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1970 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Percy writes: It means that in the science forums one must argue scientifically. This doesn't mean that you must accept the TOE, but only that objections raised to the TOE must be scientifically well founded. Does that mean it is reasonable to request that the words 'science/scientifically' be replaced by the word 'biblical' and the word 'TOE' could be replaced with 'Bible' in the relevant fora I won't hold my breath...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
The Bible is certianly Evidence in a Faith oriented Forum but of course carries no more weight than any of the other regligous texts. Nor can it outweigh physical evidence that can be independently verified.
The big difference is that in the Faith Forums an answer of "Well, I don't believe that" is acceptable where simple disbelieve would not be acceptable in a Science Forum. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
This probably doesn't belong here... but I'm not sure where to go. There's a time and place for logical thinking and evidence. And there's a time and place for working outside of that. The debate is not about TruthTM but a lot less than that, and a lot more than that. yes, i agree.
Your post sounds to me like you think creation vs. evolution is a debate only about scientific theory and the history of life. I don't think so. Because of that, it IS possible to have both scientists and non-scientists here, just as it is possible to have both believers and non-believers. well, i think you misunderstood what i meant. yes, there was some fundie-mocking in there, i will admit. but the point i was trying to make is exactly what you said. one said really does have nothing to do with evidence. we look at truth different ways, science has one approach, religion has another. if don't allow the religious approach, we are indirectly limiting the debate and not allowing religous fundamentalists -- the core opponents here -- to debate. and that's not FAIR. so we have to make allowances for religion, even if it allwos the crackpots and numerologists and pyramidologists too.
The purpose, in my eyes, is to find the boundaries of what kind of thinking and what kind of knowledge is applicable where and when, and to find ways to deal with each other. well, the religion has a lot to say abotu the science. who says "god's trying to trick you with evidence!" is NOT a valid argument? heck, maybe they're even right. you certainly can't prove it.
Like I said, I think this takes a really narrow view of what's going on here. I don't think this is the case. And I don't think admins have to compromise as much as you think. i think they have to compromise more. i've noticed a lack of fundamentalists and evangelicals on the board lately. haven't you?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024