General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 13.0

I don't think that the red icon shows up for people who are permanently banned. It only shows up for people under temporary (timed) suspensions.

I dunno. The title is "Your reason for accepting evolution". Beretta is claiming that your reason is that you want to deny God, and that you've been bombarded with evolution dogma since you were little.That may be wrong, but it sounds on topic to me.

---

Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein

I was just sayin', is all.Hey, send 'im over to this thread. It's not quite the same topic, but maybe it's close enough.

---

Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein

It appears to me that DB is, to be frank, a crank. He has a certain view of the world that is firmly set, and I bet that it's pretty near impossible for anything to get through to him, not without medication anyway. I bet that moderator action will be ineffective, and will only result in his banning.Now some people may welcome this, although seeing how MartinV continues to make his mess on multiple threads, as does Willow Tree (currently going by Cold Foreign Object) this seems to be within accepted norms for a certain class of people.DB is not making a mess of other threads; he's confining himself to the one thread, and I think that anyone reading that thread should be aware of what they will be in for if they choose to participate.Just my 2 cents (American).Added by edit:I'll also add that DB started the thread himself in order to expound on his particular madness.Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given.

---

Progress in human affairs has come mainly through the bold readiness of human beings not to confine themselves to seeking piecemeal improvements in the way things are done, but to present fundamental challenges in the name of reason to the current way of doing things and to the avowed or hidden assumptions on which it rests. -- E. H. Carr

It is traditional here to close threads soon after the 300th post.It seems to be a new tradition for an admin to call for closing summaries before closure.Sometimes threads do go a little over 300 posts, especially to give people a chance to make their closing statements.Would have been better if Nem, despite participating, announced that he was going to close the thread soon, and then limited himself to one more summary statement? I see nothing objectionable to that.That said, would it be correct the problems you see if the thread were reopened to give people a chance to write their summaries (but not to continue debate)?I don't have a horse in this race -- just trying to suggest a compromise that everyone would be happy with.

Hi, Nem. As a college teacher, professional ethics are very important in my business. One of the main reasons we have for some of the rules aren't necessarily because the actions themselves are harmful, but because they prevent actions that can give the impression of favoritism or unfairness or otherwise prevent a productive relationship between the teacher and the student. The purpose of professional ethics isn't only to prevent harm to the public, it is also to assure the public that the confidence that they place in our profession is warranted. I assume that the same is true in law, medicine, law enforcement, and others.So I think that, as moderator, you not only have an obligation not only to be fair, but also to avoid decisions that are likely to appear to others to be unfair. I don't think that your actions themselves were unfair as much as it could very well give even a reasonable person the impression that you were unfair.

I hope that your, uh, suspension is a joke (it is kind of funny) and not a way of telling us that you're leaving for good.

Huh? Most of us are those "pro-evolution atheist god-haters", or whatever it is that you call us. If most of us don't realize that, then who is doing the hating?

---

If it's truly good and powerful, it deserves to engender a thousand misunderstandings. -- Ben Ratcliffe

I wrote a long message on the thread "Teacher Fired for Disagreeing With Literal Interpretation of Bible". Evidently NosyNed wrote his warning while I was writing, so I didn't see it until I posted. (Not that it's much of an excuse, since I admit that I knew it was off-topic.) I promptly hid most of my message when I saw Ned's warning, except for the part about Beretta being continually off-topic, and digressing further with each subsequent post. In response, AdminNosy suggested:

quote:

---

Why don't you help even more by actually stating a topic for Beretta?

---

Probably a good suggesting, but any suggestions for a topic? Beretta brought up several and I'm not sure which one he would most like to talk about.Added by edit:Actually, I do have an idea (evolution and morality), but it'll be a bit before I can compose it. Anyone can still offer suggestions, though.Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given.