Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 13.0
AdminNem
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 312 (425170)
09-30-2007 10:19 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Omnivorous
09-30-2007 9:37 PM


Re: Clarification on Jar
You poor pathetic fuck with worms in your head.
Simmer down, Omni. What he said really pissed me off too, and no doubt was uncalled for. But there is no sense in you joining the exiles. Try to contain your disdain, or at least express it minus the epithets.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Omnivorous, posted 09-30-2007 9:37 PM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Omnivorous, posted 09-30-2007 10:22 PM AdminNem has not replied

AdminNem
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 312 (425286)
10-01-2007 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Brian
10-01-2007 2:05 PM


Re: EvC becomes more of a joke
Admins should be embarrassed at this decision, you let Faith and other morons away with offence after offence and then ban Jar for stating a fact.
Whoever banned jar for this should feel ashamed at their blatant discrimination.
Brian,
Jar was not banned, he was suspended. And Faith has not been allowed to return. There is only talk of it currently.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Brian, posted 10-01-2007 2:05 PM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by kuresu, posted 10-01-2007 5:19 PM AdminNem has not replied
 Message 68 by Brian, posted 10-01-2007 6:03 PM AdminNem has not replied

AdminNem
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 312 (425299)
10-01-2007 5:51 PM


The Limbo forum
I'm sure this question has surfaced many times unbeknownst to me, but I was wondering why we no longer consign problem posters to Limbo any more, as opposed to Showcase.
Why is this?

AdminNem
Inactive Member


Message 168 of 312 (432724)
11-07-2007 10:31 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by kuresu
11-07-2007 8:24 PM


Re: Admin Nem's Decision
I disagree with his decision labelling pointmanzero's topic as not a topic. This board has promoted similar arguments in the past, both for creo and evo positions.
I don't understand why you are objecting to that. Requesting a list of creationist arguments is not a topic. There's no argumentum, there's no question, there is nothing to discuss other than doing all the work for his class.
I then provided him a link where he can get all of the creationist arguments in a single source.
What's the problem?
http://EvC Forum: I need a list of all creationist arguments. -->EvC Forum: I need a list of all creationist arguments.
Edited by AdminNem, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by kuresu, posted 11-07-2007 8:24 PM kuresu has not replied

AdminNem
Inactive Member


Message 230 of 312 (438030)
12-02-2007 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by ringo
12-02-2007 2:14 PM


Re: Nem closes Positive Evidence for Atheism thread
You should get an admin warning for that.
Sure thing.
Nemesis Juggernaut, your tone, which appears to me to be jocular and playful, could be construed as condescending by people with sensitive feelings.
One more outburst and your posting privilege's will be suspended.
This is an official warning.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by ringo, posted 12-02-2007 2:14 PM ringo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by crashfrog, posted 12-02-2007 2:54 PM AdminNem has not replied

AdminNem
Inactive Member


Message 234 of 312 (438036)
12-02-2007 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by Hyroglyphx
12-02-2007 3:05 PM


Re: Nem closes Positive Evidence for Atheism thread
Oh, that's it NJ!!! You're outta here!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-02-2007 3:05 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by crashfrog, posted 12-02-2007 3:13 PM AdminNem has not replied
 Message 237 by Chiroptera, posted 12-02-2007 3:48 PM AdminNem has not replied

AdminNem
Inactive Member


Message 285 of 312 (443150)
12-23-2007 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by Silent H
12-22-2007 9:08 PM


Re: crash...
I'll agree with you that CS's post was purely abusive, adding nothing to discourse. Though I would note Crash's post really wasn't much better.
While I also agree, it is really ultimately a moot point. Your own quote (which I enjoy, btw) expresses why in many ways it might be worse.
If swearing was allowed then I wouldn't have thought anything about it. That kind of stuff doesn't bother me, other than its not very useful.
Expletives aren't allowed or disallowed in and of themselves. Its all about context. While somebody yelling "f***" to express their displeasure might be considered tasteless, it usually is allowed without any challenge. But when somebody yells at someone else, it is a different story.
I was just surprised, given that I thought that was verboten around here, he didn't even get a verbal warning. And then to see to see CA get the whammy so quick and it suggested that CS owes brenna an apology... well okay then, I'd like mine! Heheheh.
CS should have, and was, promptly suspended over his egregious use of ad hom. You are right to have been taken back by the lack of a warning given to Crash. I personally would have issued a warning, but I wouldn't have suspended him. I wasn't aware that he even said it, otherwise I would have.
Your point is noted, but then the rules might be made clearer. Is swearing allowed at all, or at others, given sufficient argument otherwise?
You're right. The rules are a bit subjective here. There seems to be no concrete guideline concerning it. However, it is my understanding that it expletives are only disallowed given the context of their usage.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by Silent H, posted 12-22-2007 9:08 PM Silent H has not replied

AdminNem
Inactive Member


Message 291 of 312 (444291)
12-28-2007 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by molbiogirl
12-28-2007 8:00 PM


Re: AdminPD.
MBG,
You brought your grievance to the Mod forum, which is great, in search of an answer.
You've been answered. Whether or not the verdict was to your liking is now immaterial at this point. I also happen to agree with AdminPD. While I'm sure you'll just throw out the "bias" card, it would be well with you to know that you are in no position to talk about personal bias or critique others on lengthy copy and pastes.
Instead of hounding AdminPD and accusing her of bias when things don't go exactly the way you'd hoped, wait around until more Admins give their opinion. You might find one or two that agree with you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by molbiogirl, posted 12-28-2007 8:00 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by molbiogirl, posted 12-28-2007 8:59 PM AdminNem has replied

AdminNem
Inactive Member


Message 309 of 312 (444488)
12-29-2007 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 295 by molbiogirl
12-28-2007 8:59 PM


Re: AdminPD.
PD specifically asked me to support my contention that she is biased. I did so.
You are certainly welcome to believe that AdminPD is exhibiting a bias, however, it would do more to advance your assertion by giving possible motives. If she is exhibiting a bias while in her admin status, what is she gaining by doing so?
I am not a moderator. I can exhibit whatever bias I wish.
AdminPD is a very good moderator in my estimation. She is so good, in fact, that I honestly can't make heads or tails of almost any of her personal feelings on just about any given topic. I wouldn't know if she would characterize herself as an evolutionist or a creationist, pro-choice or pro-life, etc. Quite frankly, I don't care what she believes in because she does an excellent job of detaching herself from personal issues, which speaks of her impartiality.
Some members on the forum who are in an admin role participate almost solely as a moderator as opposed to an average member who posits any given philosophical or scientific position. (AdminPD, AdminAsgara, AdminMoose to name a few). I appreciate that sort of detachment because it does not cloud their judgment. I enjoy debate too much to distance myself only as a moderator. I'm glad there are some at EvC who choose to take up this role.
For clarification, do you think she is coming to the aid of Buz? If so, what is she gaining by it? Is it so inconceivable that what she said is her honest opinion rather than bias?
Unlike some, I provide support for my assertions.
You often provide a paragraph to substantiate any given one sentence blurb. That is neither here nor there right now. I only mention it because it seems rather hypocritical to chastise someone for doing the very same thing you are doing.
I would like to get at the heart of your grievance.
Detail your grievance and what actions you would like a moderator to take against Buzsaw. We can go from there.
Or you can take Jar's advice and just let it go for something of more substance.
As a member, you have a right to lodge a complaint about Buz or PD. I am not trying to dissuade from doing so. But I need more to go on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by molbiogirl, posted 12-28-2007 8:59 PM molbiogirl 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