|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Topic Proposal Issues | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4670 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
I guess that this is because of me promoting my own topic yesterday. I in fact thought about it some time if I should promote it myself or not.
I certainly wouldn't be against a formal policy if some feel this would help the image of EvC as being a fair place.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
No, they shouldn't promote their own topics (in my opinion), at least for ordinary discussion topics.
Specifically moderator started topics such as announcement or the POTM threads are different from ordinary discussion topics. I assume this thread was started as a reaction to: Does Neo-Darwinian evolution require change ?. Jesus was a liberal hippie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Personally, I have no problem with moderators promoting their own topics. There are probably a lot of members who could produce good topics without moderator input.
However, like the peer review system in science, it's good to have a second opinion about whether or not there's a beam in your eye. "I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
Meh, so Mods get a perk in return for all their hardwork. Can't say I care.
More generally, I remain unconvinced that locking up topics in the intellectual Austwich of the New Topic Proposal forum actually helps.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4219 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
Maybe it should be that the mod can promote his own topic, providing there are no objections by the other Mods.
There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Iblis Member (Idle past 3925 days) Posts: 663 Joined: |
I assume this thread was started as a reaction to: Does Neo-Darwinian evolution require change ? If anyone else had proposed that topic, some smart mod would have stepped up and forced the poster to sharpen it up. "Please explain better what you mean by Neo-Darwinism" would have been one of the first dictates that would come to mind. As it stands, the majority of what Jar, for one, is saying in that thread thus far is just, what some mod should have said before it was ever promoted. And if they had, the results would have been included in the OP instead of spread out piecemeal over two pages so far. Edited by Iblis, : fix peek noise
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3486 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Rule of thumb. We don't promote our own topics. When you have questions of what you should and shouldn't do as an Admin, please bring up your questions in the Admin Forum or read through previous questions in that forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
If anyone else had proposed that topic, some smart mod would have stepped up and forced the poster to sharpen it up. As a mere member, I should like to agree. I don't mind slevesque promoting his own topics in principle, but in this particular case someone should have stepped in and made him be more clear.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2727 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Iblis.
Iblis writes: If anyone else had proposed that topic, some smart mod would have stepped up and forced the poster to sharpen it up. "Please explain better what you mean by Neo-Darwinism" would have been one of the first dictates that would come to mind. In all honesty, I think this is an example of over-scrutinizing the creationist. I don't think Slevesque's use of the term "Neo-Darwinism" is particularly controversial, and certainly shouldn't have caused as much confusion as it apparently did. Either the term refers to the first formulation of ToE that completely rejected all possibility of Lamarckian-style inheritance, or to a more developed version of the same thing that described all the same mechanics in terms of molecular biology and Mendelian genetics. It really isn't that big a deal. The rest of the OP, however, was rather confusing, and I couldn't figure out what Slevesque was saying until several posts into the thread. Slevesque apparently assumed that we all knew what he was talking about before we had even read the OP, and that turned out to be an incorrect assumption. I agree that the additional oversight of a different moderator would have been better. -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
In all honesty, I think this is an example of over-scrutinizing the creationist. And I don't. From slevesque's OP, it was and is hard to discover what it was he wanted to talk about. It was cryptic. I don't say that the topic shouldn't have been promoted --- I'm enjoying discussing it with him.
But if slevesque had been in the same position as an ordinary member, then the moderators would have pinned him down more carefully as to what it was he wanted to talk about and what his own position was on the subject.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3742 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
slevesque writes:
I have no personal gripe against you and I do not support any inferences of privilege abuse, but I do think it is impossible to be objective about your own posts. I certainly wouldn't be against a formal policy if some feel this would help the image of EvC as being a fair place.IMHO, insisting on moderators having their OPs critiqued by other moderators will only improve the quality of the thread topics. I am sure that we all want that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2727 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Dr A.
Dr Adequate writes: Bluejay writes: In all honesty, I think this is an example of over-scrutinizing the creationist. And I don't. Are you referring specifically to the discussion about Slev's using the term "Neo-Darwinian" in the title?Or about the overall lack of clarity in the OP? I don't disagree that the OP was unclear and should have had some oversight from other moderators. That was not what I was calling "over-scrutinizing the creationist." The over-scrutiny was the discussion of Slev's usage of the term "Neo-Darwinian." It's the standard usage these days, and I don't see how the other usage of the term would have had much of an impact on how to read the OP, anyway. It didn't merit the attention it got. -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4670 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
If anyone else had proposed that topic, some smart mod would have stepped up and forced the poster to sharpen it up. "Please explain better what you mean by Neo-Darwinism" would have been one of the first dictates that would come to mind. I'll be honest, I also felt this was a case of over-scrutinizing the creationist. The use I made of ''Neo-Darwinian evolution'' was in no way any different then how it is used in the peer-reviewed litterature today. Nor is it different to how vocal Evolutionists such as Dawkins use it in their writing. Does anyone question Dawkins for further explanations ? Do the scientists who peer-review papers not understand what is meant ? At the end of the day, Neo-Darwinian is just a term to distinguish the modern-day theory of evolution with Lamarckian evolution, chaotic evolution, or any other type of evolution. Back to the topic, seeing the reactions I certainly won't promote my own topics anymore even if I would have the right too. As Ringo said, it's to make sure you don,t have a beam in your eye. (Which seemed to have been the case here, since when I finished writing that OP I felt it was perfectly clear)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I'll be honest, I also felt this was a case of over-scrutinizing the creationist. The use I made of ''Neo-Darwinian evolution'' ... ... was in fact about the only three words in your OP that got anywhere near to clarity. I think there is a case to be made on both sides. Your OP was somewhat obscure, but not because you used the phrase "neo-Darwinian", which is a phrase that I should like to bring into wider usage because I am an elephantine pedant.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The over-scrutiny was the discussion of Slev's usage of the term "Neo-Darwinian." Agreed. But our favorite Canadian promoted his own thread without any scrutiny. I would agree with you and him that the particular phrase "neo-Darwinism" didn't need any scrutiny, but that is not to say that the rest of his post didn't need considerable clarification.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024