|
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: General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures (aka 'The Whine List') | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
I think Moderators should not make changes to the text of any message, whether to add line brakes, fix spelling or alter capitalization.
Fixing markup, or hiding off-topic messages, is one thing. Altering what we actually write is another.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3976 Joined: |
I wouldn't dare go that off-topic. We'd get moosed in a heartbeat. Edited by Adminnemooseus, 06-15-2011 11:29 PM: Changed "moosed" to "Moosed". Edited by AZPaul3, 06-21-2011 4:59 AM: Too far, Moose. This is MY message, not yours! Link added. It was a joke - a token "Moosing". And I am surprised that you or anyone else even noticed. Adminnemooseus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
It was a joke - a token "Moosing" Yes, I understand that. And it was trivial, not substantive, in nature. But that isn't the point, is it? You do know what the point is, don't you Moose?
And I am surprised that you or anyone else even noticed. You're laughing at your silly prank? Shoot yourself in the foot much? You do not understand the gravity of the situation at all, do you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined:
|
Don't you know how it works around here?
Moose did it; therefore, by definition, it was the right thing to do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 831 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
I have noticed a number of posts being "censored". Curse words being replaced with asterisks. I am curious as to why this is. You know me, I like my posts riddled with fucks and shits.
{abe}But apparently only for some members, some times? Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given. Edited by hooah212002, : IE at work = no spellcheck "Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
Omnivorous writes: Bare link. Shame. Source Guilty. I Should have posted at least a sentence or two of commentary. Must have been tired or maybe in need of doing the job that I actually get paid for (not unlike what I need to be doing right now). Of course, I presume you would accept a plea of general stupidity? At least I had a good subtitle. I have been keeping the topic open in a tab, meaning to get back to it. Moose
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chuck77 Inactive Member |
AZPaul3 writes: Yes, I understand that. And it was trivial, not substantive, in nature.But that isn't the point, is it?You do know what the point is, don't you Moose? If I can stick my nose in the conversation here, I personally think if Moose where to change the subject matter in your post THAT would be an issue. Also, since you referenced Him in the post as getting "moosed" He clearly did it in jest. If Moose wasn't referenced at all, (as he was basically the "subject" of your comment) I seriously doubt He would be worried about changing any capitals you may have missed. It was only a "play" on your comment, and a good one at that. All he did was acknowledge the flattery you were offering Him. IMO.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
It was only a "play" on your comment, and a good one at that. I understand this, Chuck77, and agree with your opinion. All is good.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 831 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
re: Message 307.
no, AdminPD closed it because I said FUCK too many times. She doesn't like people saying FUCK in the religious forums. That, and we were desperately far from the topic. "Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Butterflytyrant Member (Idle past 4451 days) Posts: 415 From: Australia Joined: |
I noticed this is the admin only discussion box.
Butterflytyrant can no longer start topics Far more than his share of dubious to profoundly bad new topics, including 7 new Proposed New Topics (PNT's) on July 29, 2011. Many were rejected; More should have been; No more are going to happen. Adminnemooseus Added by edit: Butterflytyrant's topic index. As of now, he has never posted to a topic he himself didn't start. First of all, do I get notified of this? Second, apart from the 7 to IamJoseph there are a total of 4 new thread requests. How many is my fair share exactly? I notice that you (Moose) think that the thread regarding light should not have started. There are 30 other posters, including yourself who have put forward their opinions. If that one was not worth it, then why did you decide it was worth posting a few replies? As to the others, two were rejected. Fine. No problem. You guys are moderators, if you feel that they dont hold up, then it is your right to knock them back. But if you are going to promote them, why then go back and say that many were rejected, more should have been. If you think they should have been rejected but were not, this is a problem you need to take up with the other moderators, not me. How many of the three that were allowed do you think should have been rejected? As to the seven IamJoseph threads, we get told to start a new thread instead of going off topic. Rule 2 in the Forum Guidelines
Please stay on topic for a thread. Open a new thread for new topics. IamJoseph asked me to start a new thread regarding the topics I wanted to discuss. There was a lot of information. I broke this down into 7 categories. Rule 3 of the Forum Guidelines.
When introducing a new topic, please keep the message narrowly focused. Do not include more than a few points. There was even an active thread discussing one of these already. The topics were denied. No problem really. Cant discuss the problems with his posts in thread. Cant start a new open thread to discuss them. Knocking back the threads is no issue. The way I see it, I was following the rules as listed on the website. Your comment about not posting on any threads i did not start. I was unaware there was some sort of rule in place that says I have to post on other topics. Is there such a rule? The day after this ban was put in place, I actually did post on another topic. What does it matter whose topics I have posted on. How many have I read? Do you have this information. I have spent hours reading others threads and not actually posted. So if i had put a few random replies on other threads you would be a bit happier? When this ban was put in place, I had been here for a month. My first three topic proposals were inside 14 days of becoming a member. It takes a bit of time to find your feet and get used to the way a new forum works. So, a total ban from starting new posts, with no actual conversation with me and no warnings particularly when no rules have been broken (as far as i am aware) seems to be a bit harsh. This is a ban on attempting to promote new topics. How about still letting me promote new topics, but not promoting them if you dont like them? Is there a limit to this ban? Can i find out what rules i have broken to receive a ban? Did I miss a warning about this? It looks like i have been indefinitely banned from attempting to start new threads without any warning that this could happen, without any notification that it could or has happened, without actually breaking any rules (I was actually following the rules). Is this what has happened? What else can I be banned for with no notification or warning and without breaking any rules? This is also in the Forum Guidelines
For the most part, members are expected to figure out for themselves how to stay within the guidelines. Have a not followed the guidelines? How much time do I get to figure out how to stay inside guidelines that are not listed? Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given. Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given. Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5
|
Butterflytyrant writes:
Given that you just quoted the notice, the answer would seem to be "Yes."
First of all, do I get notified of this? Butterflytyrant writes:
"More than one's fair share" is very common idiomatic speech in English (including the Oz version of English). So why play dumb and pretend that it is a reference to a defined quota, when you know that it is just using a common idiom?Second, apart from the 7 to IamJoseph there are a total of 4 new thread requests. How many is my fair share exactly? The admins attempt to keep the discussions orderly and rational. It did seem to me that your multiple new topics were excessive, so I was not all surprised when an admin thought you had shown poor judgment. May I suggest a little self examination as to how you can participate in keeping this a place for thoughtful and rational discussion.Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Butterflytyrant Member (Idle past 4451 days) Posts: 415 From: Australia Joined: |
Given that you just quoted the notice, the answer would seem to be "Yes." The notice was in the public record thread. Admin posts only. No PM to me. No warning or notice on any thread that i have posted on. no warning or notice on any of the proposed new topics. This is not a notice to me. It is a discussion between administrators that i happened to spot. See the difference?
"More than one's fair share" is very common idiomatic speech in English (including the Oz version of English). So why play dumb and pretend that it is a reference to a defined quota, when you know that it is just using a common idiom? I know what the phrase means. I was not playing dumb (fuck you by the way). The point I was making is that it does not describe an amount.
The admins attempt to keep the discussions orderly and rational. It did seem to me that your multiple new topics were excessive, so I was not all surprised when an admin thought you had shown poor judgment. You will notice that I included the two rules in the forum guidelines that I was following didnt you? And you did notice where I asked about rules I had broken didnt you? Judgement did not come into it. I was following the rules. And the request of the person I was debating with. The fact they were denied and the discussion that was included by the admin shows why they denied the threads. it was educational. As there are no guidelines with regards to starting a new topic, it will take a bit of time to get used to the way a new forum works. Without any guidelines or rules, it is a matter of trial and error. I checked your first half a dozen posts. They mostly went nowhere, had no relation to creation or evolution or were new topics started by you because they were off thread topics (which is what I was doing). Isnt that interesting. It is a pity you did not have some condescending smart arse to get on your back a month after you joined up about them. Thanks for your input though.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
fearandloathing Member (Idle past 4174 days) Posts: 990 From: Burlington, NC, USA Joined: |
Hi,
BFT writes: I was not playing dumb (fuck you by the way) Always treat other members with respect. Argue the position, not the person. Avoid abusive, harassing and invasive behavior. Avoid needling, hectoring and goading tactics. Just saying... I think you should've got a warning of some type, or had posting privileges suspended until you and moderation had a talk about what they want, a PM to you would've been nice. I think LJ wasn't going to participate with you any more than he did with me when I bumped a topic for him. Moderation may have felt you were harassing him by trying to start so many new topics aimed directly at him. It did seem a bit personal to me also. "No sympathy for the devil; keep that in mind. Buy the ticket, take the ride...and if it occasionally gets a little heavier than what you had in mind, well...maybe chalk it off to forced conscious expansion: Tune in, freak out, get beaten." Hunter S. Thompson Ad astra per aspera Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
Butterflytyrant writes:
Correct.The notice was in the public record thread. Admin posts only. No PM to me. As far as I know, it has always been the practice to give notifications in public. The PM feature is a relatively new addition to the forum.Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024