|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consecution | |||||||||||||||||||
AdminBen Inactive Member |
Perhaps admins could copy the relevant posts and move the discussion to set it up rather than close down the OT posts? (trying to keep work to a min by combining activity of OT monitoring with PNT oversight) I like the line of thinking, but all suggesitons have to work within current software capabilities. And this we can't do. I'll keep fighting for certain members to get permissions to start topics without going through PNT. Maybe a "side order" forum like you specified is a good idea for that; maybe admins can also move threads from there to "proper" areas as time permits, but allow people to continue discussion unimpeded. I'll bring it up soon in the PAF. Lots of issues we're working through... Thanks for the suggestion. Ben AbE: adminmode=good This message has been edited by AdminBen, Sunday, 2005/11/06 06:02 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Another thread has been closed because of "topic drift".
quote: Why should we have to worry about it? Yes, I can see that we want to keep the threads focused more or less on a single topic. Yes, when the topics begin to drift then the discussion become too chaotic to be useful, or even enjoyable. On the other hand, one can be too anal about this, too. Why can't we just accept that at times the topic of the thread has changed and live with it? Why can't a thead support two or three different discussions if they remain somewhat coherent and are more or less related? Now I admit that I've lost interest in this particular thread myself; nonetheless I am, frankly, annoyed at what I see as another unnecessarily heavy-handed moderation action.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Nighttrain Member (Idle past 4024 days) Posts: 1512 From: brisbane,australia Joined: |
On the other hand, one can be too anal about this, too. Why can't we just accept that at times the topic of the thread has changed and live with it? Why can't a thead support two or three different discussions if they remain somewhat coherent and are more or less related? You mean we go ToE? (Thread offering Evolution). Should provide plenty of them missing transitional fossils.:-p
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3976 Joined: |
The following is an exact copy of a message I just posted in the "Private Administration Forum":
I'll throw my support behind the creation of a new forum: "Coffee House - Politics and Economics". I feel more tolerant to, dare I say, allow somewhat dubious quality topics to drift off into other somewhat dubious quality themes. But, in both the topics I closed earlier today - "Coffee House" topic Socialism in Venezuela has made illiteracy a thing of the past (my closing message) and "In The News" topic 'Intelligent-design' school board ousted in Penn (my closing message) there were very good themes, with very good discussions, that were very off-topic, and thus were getting buried somewhere bad instead of getting the good exposure they deserved - Topics of their own, with links back to the source topics. In the "Coffee House", I think that topic drift control is just as important as in any other forum. Remember, we even did topic drift contol in the "Free For All" forum. The "Coffee House" is home for both very light and very serious topics. I certainly have no problem with the light topics running much more freely, as long as some quality off-topic theme doesn't happen. Moose Adminnemooseus
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Tony650 Member (Idle past 4063 days) Posts: 450 From: Australia Joined: |
Hey NWR.
No problem or anything... I was just wondering what was wrong with the URL in my post. I wouldn't even ask except that I tried it after I posted and it worked fine for me. Just curious if there was a problem on that end. And, if so, thanks for fixing it.![]()
|
|||||||||||||||||||
AdminNWR Inactive Member |
was just wondering what was wrong with the URL in my post.
It ended with the string "m=16#26". This indicates that the page containing message number 16 should be displayed, and the browser should start by positioning itself at post 26. (Or at least I think that is how it works). Depending on the page size that users have set, message 16 might be on a different page from message 26. In this case the browser will position itself to the top of the page containing message 16. Somebody clicking on the link may have problems trying to work out which message you were referring to. I simply changed that "16" to "26" so that the right page is built.
I wouldn't even ask except that I tried it after I posted and it worked fine for me.
Your own profile defined pagination presumably puts messages 16 and 26 in the same page. Thus you would not notice the problem. For me, those messages are on different pages with the result that my browser loaded the wrong page. It was easier for me to fix it, than to work out how to contact you, then how to explain the problem, so that you could fix it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Tony650 Member (Idle past 4063 days) Posts: 450 From: Australia Joined: |
Ah! Ok, I understand. No problem.
AdminNWR writes: Your own profile defined pagination presumably puts messages 16 and 26 in the same page. Thus you would not notice the problem. Yes, that's correct. For me, the first post on that page is #16, and my post, #26, is about two thirds of the way down the same page. I'm sure my original link still took me directly to #26 rather than #16 at the top of the page... but, yes, I realize that this would be a problem if they were on separate pages.
AdminNWR writes: It was easier for me to fix it, than to work out how to contact you, then how to explain the problem, so that you could fix it. No, that's fine. I wasn't upset or anything. I was just genuinely curious what the problem could be, as I had specifically tried the link. Honestly, no worries at all. Thanks for the answer, and thanks for fixing the link.![]()
|
|||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
percy made a really good post in the now-closed "talk some sense into randman" thread. it's always entertaining when someone says something so outrageous that the owner of the board steps in in this manner.
i'm sure randman and co will just read this as biased, but it's a really good point:
percy writes: Faith was coddled here for a long time, and I took a lot of abuse for it from the evolution side. If I and the other moderators are not even going to be acknowledged for it by the Creationist side, i.e., by people like you, if you guys can't even tell it is happening, well, I guess I just don't know what to say. I guess I'll just say it feels to me that you must either be uninformed or irrational on this topic. you sort of have to feel bad for percy. i remember him getting all of that flack from the evolution side for being so lenient on faith. for the side he was defending to pretend like it never happened is just plain insulting. i also want to echo chiroptera's comment that i agreed with percy's stance. although i did ask a few tough questions, in the end i found myself arguing for faith to stay. also, i'm not sure i agree with moose suspending randman, but i'm sure he does need a break. {edit} ok, it looks like moose didn't actually do it, but was just thinking about it. either way, i don't really think it would help.{/edit} This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 11-20-2005 02:32 PM |
|||||||||||||||||||
AdminPhat Inactive Member |
Hi, Moose! In reference to my reply you say:
Adminnemooseus writes: In general,I dislike quotes within quotes. Yeah...occasionally I get carried away with formatting....but I like to make it appear as if I am addressing Guidos topic seperate from my response to Guido afterwards....I can do it your way if you insist, however! ![]() Adminnemooseus writes: Use I had to tweek your type formatting a bit, to get it to display correctly in this message. What you are doing, is having two qs's, but only one /qs. I am surprised it works at all.peek to see how I did it...I used two /qs, BTW.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3992 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.5 |
I went to pick up the thread By Their Fruits Shall Ye Know Them and discovered it was "surplanted" by another thread, "Right Behavior..." which is about Christian doctrines of acts and grace.
Am I missing something? I couldn't find anything in that latter thread about the environment or Christian attitudes toward it. Why? This makes no sense to me at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3976 Joined: |
You are absolutely correct - Topic reopened.
See message 28 there. I think I was looking at the simularity of the titles "By their fruits shall ye know them" and "Right Behavior Inherits Eternal Life", and didn't realize that the two topics had actually maintained having two different themes. Adminnemooseus This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 11-29-2005 12:51 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3992 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.5 |
Thanks, Moose. I'll work on stirring its embers.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3976 Joined: |
Message 128 of the "the phylogeographic challenge to creationism" topic
Mick writes: given that Faith is the only creationist other than Brad who has participated in the thread, and the Faith is a YEC, then it's a bit harsh for her to be attacked by dozens of biologists at once. I know these are the rules of the biology forums, but I have seen lots of decent threads killed with this kind of argument. I expect (and the EVC rules require) that all posters who disagree with Faith provide substantive evidence for their position or evidence against Faith's position. I'm a bit irritated to find a thread I started with a great deal of effort degenerate over 24 hours like this. I (and Mammathus, and robinrohan (and, dare I say it, Faith)) have put some effort into our posts on this thread and it's being spoiled by completely irrelevant bickering with no substantive points being made. (Not meaning to pick on you in particular, NosyNed. This is aimed at a lot of short content-free posts that appeared recently). Mick goes on to quote a number of "high noise, low signal" messages. Sidenote to Percy: Faith, as she mentions in the above cited topic, is apparently having trouble getting edits to take hold. Adminnemooseus
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Nighttrain Member (Idle past 4024 days) Posts: 1512 From: brisbane,australia Joined: |
Suspending the venerable Crash? Why that`s like locking Grandpa in his room because he keeps peeing on the floor.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
DorfMan Member (Idle past 6112 days) Posts: 282 From: New York Joined: |
quote: I have participated in those warnings stopping short of exposing my special issues with this man. Hundreds of others know the same thing.You have painted an accurate picture of John Jaeger and I concur and will, at any time, participate again. Anyone deemed jerk by careful observation, is allowed no time in my head. That means I do not think about noted jerks. Jaeger, on the other hand, has instant replay status, when he shows up.....alert! I assume the same from you. I also assume that being 'helpful' has its benefits. We spent an overdose of time, pleading with John to participate in a normal manner and become part of the group. He did not.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024