Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 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 (aka 'The Whine List')
anglagard
Member (Idle past 837 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


(5)
Message 556 of 1049 (664306)
05-30-2012 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 465 by anglagard
05-23-2012 12:24 AM


Retraction Due to Recent Posts
Artemis Enteri is now posting some quite accurate, informative, and often bordering on excellent material.
Have no idea why the change or what was the purpose of the previous image.
IMHO the 'new' AE is far more compatible with the spirit of this place as I know it. Unlike the gist of my previous posts, I fully support his inclusion, now that it is not about mud slinging.
PS - Hi Arach, I sure missed your presence, as I did the mighty Ringo during his temporary absence. Now if only a few of the ladies like Schraf and Brennakimi reappeared, that would be excellent.
All then that would be left is Archer, the person I learned the most from (roughly tied with RAZD, jar, and you).
Apologies to the administrators, can't get chat to work and am too busy with grad school to devote several hours to the cause.

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider. - Francis Bacon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 465 by anglagard, posted 05-23-2012 12:24 AM anglagard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 557 by arachnophilia, posted 05-30-2012 11:54 PM anglagard has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 557 of 1049 (664314)
05-30-2012 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 556 by anglagard
05-30-2012 10:33 PM


Re: Retraction Due to Recent Posts
anglagard writes:
PS - Hi Arach, I sure missed your presence, as I did the mighty Ringo during his temporary absence.
why thank you. i guess i got bored of the various other places i've been... or, you know, work.
Now if only a few of the ladies like Schraf and Brennakimi reappeared, that would be excellent.
i could ask brenna, but... if i recall, she quit for her own good. i believe she's friends with schraf on facebook. i dunno. i'll bring it up maybe when i see her in a few weeks.
Artemis Enteri is now posting some quite accurate, informative, and often bordering on excellent material.
yeah, i had a good discussion with him, and i come here, and it's nothing but complaints. i was sorta curious what was up...
Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 556 by anglagard, posted 05-30-2012 10:33 PM anglagard has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 558 of 1049 (664504)
06-01-2012 1:23 PM


AdminPD is off base
Message 205
That she is claiming that Sigmunds post Message 204 seems crazy to me.
The OP clearly mentions founders. That would mean a look at what the founders meant and what influenced them should be very on topic. We can not look at the question of whether the US is a Christian nation without looking at the historical background. To think we could is just ridiculous.
William Penn and the Pennsylvania Colony were presented by a poster as evidence showing the US was founded as a christian nation. This argument should not be considered off topic. It seems crazy to me that it could be considered off topic. Sigmunds response goes directly toward dispelling the reasoning behind the argument.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Replies to this message:
 Message 559 by AdminPD, posted 06-01-2012 2:01 PM Theodoric has replied

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 559 of 1049 (664508)
06-01-2012 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 558 by Theodoric
06-01-2012 1:23 PM


Re: AdminPD is off base
1. I asked for clarification.
2. Didn't declare him off topic.
3. In Message 141, William Penn was used as evidence that America was based upon the first democracy, which the writer felt was a Christian nation. A round about association, but not addressed by Sigmund.
Whether America began a Christian nation is debatable, but what is not questionable is that it was based upon the first democracy in America, the Province of Pennsylvania founded in 1682 by William Penn, that was most definitely a Christian nation. Much of America's government was based on Penn's, which originated concepts like a 2-house elected assembly, a bill of rights with freedom of religion/speech/property, term limits, women's rights, and fair trial by jury. Message 141
4. Sigmund's post corrected the concepts. He didn't really say how correcting those concepts made any point concerning whether America is a Christian Nation or not or unhinged Jzyehoshua's position.
Just because the OP mentions founders doesn't mean any old discussion concerning the founders is on topic. It also mentions Texas, but that doesn't include just any old thing about Texas.
So far you haven't added any substance to that debate. I'm sure Sigmund is quite capable of airing his own concerns if he is uncomfortable or confused with my request.
AdminPD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 558 by Theodoric, posted 06-01-2012 1:23 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 560 by Sigmund, posted 06-01-2012 3:52 PM AdminPD has not replied
 Message 561 by Theodoric, posted 06-01-2012 4:09 PM AdminPD has not replied

  
Sigmund
Junior Member (Idle past 4165 days)
Posts: 4
From: Baltimore, MD
Joined: 05-23-2012


(2)
Message 560 of 1049 (664520)
06-01-2012 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 559 by AdminPD
06-01-2012 2:01 PM


Re: AdminPD is off base
The reason I addressed my post as I did is due to the fact that Jzyehoshua used those examples as part of his support for his contention that America was founded as a Christian nation.
Disproving his examples "unhinges" the foundation of his argument, which is why I felt my post was on topic.
Regardless, I think I have edited my post sufficiently to alleviate your concerns about being on topic. If not, let me know.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 559 by AdminPD, posted 06-01-2012 2:01 PM AdminPD has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


(2)
Message 561 of 1049 (664522)
06-01-2012 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 559 by AdminPD
06-01-2012 2:01 PM


Re: AdminPD is off base
1. True but your warning seemed to giving him leeway from the declaration because he is a new member.
2. See above
3. Are you serious?
Lets look at what Sigmund quoted.
Much of America's government was based on Penn's, which originated concepts like a 2-house elected assembly, a bill of rights with freedom of religion/speech/property, term limits, women's rights, and fair trial by jury.
Destroying an essential part of the argument destroys the argument. Sigmundd was pointing out that this part of his argument fails. To see the association without Sigmund actually saying it does not take a very large leap of logic.
4.The obvious at times does not need to be expressed.
AdminPD writes:
Just because the OP mentions founders doesn't mean any old discussion concerning the founders is on topic. It also mentions Texas, but that doesn't include just any old thing about Texas.
Exactly but Sigmunds post wasn't any old discussion about founders was it. It was a direct refutation of JZ's unhinged arguments.
So far you haven't added any substance to that debate.
I didn't realize one had to be a participant of an argument to point out what one sees as a problem with moderation. So I am not to follow discussions I am not directly participating in? You seem to have some odd expectations.
I'm sure Sigmund is quite capable of airing his own concerns if he is uncomfortable or confused with my request.
I am sure he is also. I am not bringing this up for him but to point out overzealousness of moderation that will damper the debate on a very interesting thread. The historical threads are of great interest to me, I have not posted because other members are doing a great job showing the failure of JZ's arguments. It isn't fun shooting fish in a barrel.
If you want me to participate more before I make comments about moderation I will do so.
In actuality his edit to make it AdminPD acceptable actually seems to take away from the substance of his post.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 559 by AdminPD, posted 06-01-2012 2:01 PM AdminPD has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 562 of 1049 (664807)
06-05-2012 11:40 AM


Another hopelessly wrong Admin calll
Message 100
The question of good faith is not based on disagreement. It is based on Jar's continual refusal to actually address my points.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 349 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 563 of 1049 (665099)
06-07-2012 9:01 PM


Bad Call
Message 163
Hey Percy,
I realize that you cant please everyone and that you do an excellent job of finding the middle way.
I guess that it was the straw that broke the camels back in AE's case but there are others here who routinely show an equivalent lack of respect for the rules, perhaps more eloquently but just the same. A lot of it goes by because most of us agree with them.
A permanent ban is too severe. Excommunication seems like a failure. OK for the spammers but otherwise leave it to the Catholics.
My two cents anyway.

Replies to this message:
 Message 564 by Admin, posted 06-08-2012 5:04 AM Dogmafood has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 564 of 1049 (665108)
06-08-2012 5:04 AM
Reply to: Message 563 by Dogmafood
06-07-2012 9:01 PM


Re: Bad Call
Dogmafood writes:
...but there are others here who routinely show an equivalent lack of respect for the rules, perhaps more eloquently but just the same. A lot of it goes by because most of us agree with them.
I agree. I wish we did a better job of moderating those we agree with. That's why we keep trying to recruit creationist moderators, mostly unsuccessfully.
I chose a permanent suspension for AE because I wasn't aware of any indications of recent interest in discussion of creation/evolution. He seemed to have dropped completely into troll mode. If I'm wrong about that I can shorten the suspension.
This is as good a place as any to mention that I plan to remove the ability of suspended and/or inactive members to vote for messages, and I'll be removing all votes by AE and FEY at the same time.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 563 by Dogmafood, posted 06-07-2012 9:01 PM Dogmafood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 566 by Dogmafood, posted 06-08-2012 7:56 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied
 Message 567 by Bolder-dash, posted 06-08-2012 7:58 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied
 Message 569 by NoNukes, posted 06-08-2012 8:40 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3706 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 565 of 1049 (665109)
06-08-2012 5:44 AM


An apology
It seems that I let my "dark side" out when I replied to foreveryoung by being rather sarcastic. While I had a valid point to make (IMHO), I didn't need to make it in such a sarcastic manner. For that I apologise to Admin, the board and foreveryoung.
Is it possible that foreveryoung's suspension can be shortened in light of the provocation from me? I'm going to "suspend" myself for 24 hours (other than replying to this thread) for the part I played in this debacle.
Once again, humble apologies to all.

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 349 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 566 of 1049 (665110)
06-08-2012 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 564 by Admin
06-08-2012 5:04 AM


Re: Bad Call
I chose a permanent suspension for AE because I wasn't aware of any indications of recent interest in discussion of creation/evolution.
I would point to anglagard's Message 556.
I thought that AE had taken some of the criticism to heart and was changing his attitude. I don't think that his latest transgression was anywhere near FEY's vulgar outburst and I don't think that FEY should be permanently banned either.
It is just that I find censorship to be more offensive than just about anything someone could say.
Again, you have a thankless task and you do it well so I will say no more about it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 564 by Admin, posted 06-08-2012 5:04 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


(1)
Message 567 of 1049 (665111)
06-08-2012 7:58 AM
Reply to: Message 564 by Admin
06-08-2012 5:04 AM


Wanted-New moderators, apply within
I am so glad to hear that you are actively seeking new creationist moderators to apply some badly needed balance on this site. It seems you really are genuine about wanting to turn over a new leaf, and make this site about actual, honest debate.
As such, as a contribution to your earnest efforts to rein in the wild imbalance here, I volunteer to handle some of the moderation duties as a service towards this new found goal of fairness. I can start whenever you need me.
I am sure this is not just an empty promise, so I am waiting to hear from you asap.
Of course, if it is just a joke about you really wanting to establish some fairness here, you will come up with numerous excuses about why I and other creationists are not qualified. But, I am sure that won't happen.
THIS time I believe you truly you want to create a debate site, and not just the same old propaganda postings that this site has steadfastly been in the past. What a fresh new beginning it will be.
I anxiously await your reply.
Sincerely...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 564 by Admin, posted 06-08-2012 5:04 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 568 by Dogmafood, posted 06-08-2012 8:31 AM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 585 by Larni, posted 07-08-2012 1:15 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 349 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 568 of 1049 (665112)
06-08-2012 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 567 by Bolder-dash
06-08-2012 7:58 AM


Re: Wanted-New moderators, apply within
Your assessment of the moderating here is way off. This site is one of the most even handed that I have encountered. Sure, it can be improved but you should not confuse simply being wrong with being suppressed.
The one quality that a moderator requires above all others is objectivity and you have demonstrated very little. Having said that, I would support your appointment as moderator. I am sure that it would be very entertaining.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 567 by Bolder-dash, posted 06-08-2012 7:58 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 571 by Bolder-dash, posted 06-08-2012 10:29 AM Dogmafood has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 569 of 1049 (665113)
06-08-2012 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 564 by Admin
06-08-2012 5:04 AM


Re: Bad Call
I chose a permanent suspension for AE because I wasn't aware of any indications of recent interest in discussion of creation/evolution. He seemed to have dropped completely into troll mode. If I'm wrong about that I can shorten the suspension.
Please consider reinstating Artemis. Artemis had made a number of excellent, on topic posts in the last week or so, and his relapse to insult mode was a little disappointing.
Despite the fact that I personally garnered a lot of jeers from foreveryoung, I think it would be best to let any jeers that AE and FEY issued while they were still in good standing to remain on the books.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison

This message is a reply to:
 Message 564 by Admin, posted 06-08-2012 5:04 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


(5)
Message 570 of 1049 (665114)
06-08-2012 10:08 AM


Considering Reinstatement of Artemis Entreri
When Artemis Entreri sees a position he doesn't like he makes it his business to make discussion as difficult as he can, for example:
He escaped moderator attention because the behavior was primarily in Coffee House threads, but I did notice some of it and posted moderator requests and warnings, and it appeared to me that they were ignored. Unaware of AE's constructive participation in religious threads, when he exhibited the same behavior in a science thread my course was clear and I permanently suspended him.
Members must understand that ignoring moderation is not without consequence. EvC Forum is not here so that those who feel like it can launch into extended fits of pique.
But if Artemis Etreri wants to reach out to me through PM and can succeed in assuring me that he will no longer be a nuisance but will instead, within the limits of reason and human nature, be a constructive force for informed discussion then I will reverse his suspension immediately.
May as well mention ForEverYoung, too. Independent of whether or not the 1 month suspension was deserved, I think he needed the break, so I'm not going to shorten it.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Replies to this message:
 Message 575 by Trixie, posted 06-08-2012 12:49 PM Admin has seen this message but not replied
 Message 578 by Admin, posted 06-09-2012 6:26 AM Admin has seen this message but 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