Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,129 Year: 5,386/9,624 Month: 411/323 Week: 51/204 Day: 27/24 Hour: 4/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consequtive Consecution Sequel
Admin
Director
Posts: 13084
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 13 of 302 (291839)
03-03-2006 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by FliesOnly
03-03-2006 1:34 PM


Re: Unfair to Crashfrog?
I haven't even looked in on the thread (you provided no link), so this is uninformed feedback.
Crash's posts range from the trivial, the off-topic and the inappriately acerbic to the brilliant. My guess is that he's paying for past sins. There's a style of posting that when occasional often goes unnoticed, but when a habit can't be ignored.
I don't know how often Tal questions people's honesty and integrity - I've never engaged in discussion with him, nor have I read any of his posts since his Greetings from the Sandbox. thread on New Year's day of 2005. I'm guessing he doesn't often participate in science discussions. Moderators are not all of one mind on honesty and integrity issues. While I consider questioning someone's honesty and integrity as a serious violation of the "respect for others" guideline, not all moderators agree.
There's also the other issue that, for whatever reason, the creationist and conservative Christianity participants (speaking of them generally as a group and not saying this applies to every individual) take a much more liberal and, shall we say, free-spirited interpretation of the Forum Guidelines, and behavioral improvements do not seem to follow from any moderator requests or from moderator actions such as restrictions, suspensions and bannings. Enforcing the Forum Guidelines fairly and equally for both evolutionists and creationists quickly diminishes the ranks of creationists, which puts a crimp on discussion. And so there's a strong tendency on the part of moderators to give the creationists freer rein.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by FliesOnly, posted 03-03-2006 1:34 PM FliesOnly has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Dan Carroll, posted 03-03-2006 2:50 PM Admin has replied
 Message 16 by crashfrog, posted 03-05-2006 10:06 AM Admin has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 13084
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 15 of 302 (292068)
03-04-2006 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Dan Carroll
03-03-2006 2:50 PM


Re: Unfair to Crashfrog?
Hi Dan,
I've looked at the two Tal posts you provided links for, and I looked at Crash's post.
To me, Tal seems to be exhibiting a common human failing, an inability to comprehend how someone could examine the same data yet reach a different conclusion. We often see the same thing on the evolution side when someone says, for example, "While rank and file creationists can't be faulted for believing that evolution violates the laws of thermodynamics, leading creationists like Duane Gish and others, know better and are lying." We can't understand how anyone with a university education and a PhD and technical papers to his credit could misunderstand something so simple (for science-minded people), so they must be lying or dishonest.
Everyone draws the line between the obvious and the non-obvious at different points, so there will often be disagreement about which matters are ambiguous. But we each experience it very personally when someone crosses our own line, and it feels like someone is treating us with a serious amount of disrespect. I think Tal truly can't comprehend how someone informed and knowledgable could disagree with something that seems so obvious to him, and so he believes that they're not honestly evaluating the evidence. His posts do violate the guidelines, but I can't equate his careless jaywalking to Crash's purposeful three car pileup.
Speaking of Crash, I interpreted his post as one of his normal "Okay, so I get suspended for a day, so what" posts.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Dan Carroll, posted 03-03-2006 2:50 PM Dan Carroll has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 13084
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 28 of 302 (298434)
03-26-2006 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by robinrohan
03-26-2006 8:39 PM


Hi Robinrohan,
Are you trying to clarify a misunderstanding, or have you encountered a problem with moderation procedures?
If the former, then I see no misunderstanding serious enough to warrant further attention in untangling.
If the latter, please describe the problem.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by robinrohan, posted 03-26-2006 8:39 PM robinrohan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by AdminAsgara, posted 03-26-2006 9:01 PM Admin has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 13084
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 34 of 302 (299605)
03-30-2006 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Faith
03-30-2006 2:29 PM


Re: Time to call jar on his nonsense
Hi Faith,
If you feel open issues remain from that now-closed thread, my suggestion is to propose a new thread so that the discussion can continue.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Faith, posted 03-30-2006 2:29 PM Faith has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 13084
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 47 of 302 (299897)
03-31-2006 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by kjsimons
03-31-2006 4:37 PM


Re: Randman rises again!
To be fair to AdminChristian, in the private forum I suggested that if she believed he should be let back in that she should go ahead and do that. She has indicated that she wants to study the thread that got him suspended in greater detail, and I encourage her to do that.
I encourage moderators to run their own show here, and permanent suspension does seem a bit extreme. With both evolutionist and creationist moderators on board it is important to seek consensus, and it is clear that we can't have moderators who believe they can act with impunity.
The new version of the board that will be released soon includes an automatic unsuspend feature. When a moderator suspends a member he selects the length of the suspension, which can be anywhere from one hour to indefinite. The default is one day. A list of suspended members can be listed on the Members page. Moderators can always unsuspend a member early, which is a good thing if a member's been suspended indefinitely.
Also coming is an "inactive" feature. Members may deactivate their accounts (so can moderators). Their names will be still be included with their messages, but no profile information will be available, and inactive members will not appear in member lists. Inactive accounts can be reactivated at any time.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by kjsimons, posted 03-31-2006 4:37 PM kjsimons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by kjsimons, posted 03-31-2006 5:34 PM Admin has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 13084
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 53 of 302 (300021)
04-01-2006 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by arachnophilia
04-01-2006 7:42 AM


Re: Randman rises again!
arachnophilia writes:
i'll look over it again, but from my quick scan through i didn't see anything out of the ordinary.
Saving you some time, this is from the Is talkorigins.org a propoganda site? thread and was already extracted for discussion in the admin forum:
Randman in Message 235 writes:
At this point, I have to question your integrity Modulous and PaulK...
Randman in Message 236 writes:
You owe me an apology, but I don't expect one from considering your belief system.
Randman in Message 241 writes:
You and PaulK did not do that, but have repeatedly chose to dissemble and deny what I have written, posting all sorts of lies and garbage...
Randman in Message 242 writes:
Own up to your mistake, or show a lack of integrity. it's up to you.
Randman in Message 243 writes:
Own up to your mistakes guys, or show you have no integrity.
Randman in Message 245 writes:
Either come clean, or admit you have no integrity in this debate.
Randman in Message 247 writes:
Another baldfaced lie on your part, modulous.
...
But once again, you refuse to engage my points, the substance of the debate, and imo, are spouting baldfaced lies here.
...
That's baldfaced deception and propaganda on their part.
Randman in Message 251 writes:
I consider that both a lie and a deliberate smear on your part.
Randman in Message 252 writes:
I question your integrity...
I think you're correct to imply it is unfortunately not out of the ordinary.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by arachnophilia, posted 04-01-2006 7:42 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by arachnophilia, posted 04-02-2006 8:47 PM Admin has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 13084
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 67 of 302 (300235)
04-02-2006 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by randman
04-01-2006 8:53 PM


Re: Blind Spot
Hi Randman,
It is my opinion that you are poison for any community because of your strong tendency to interpret disagreement as lying and criticism as insult. I have no illusions that you're going to understand and even less that you'll accept this argument, but I'll go ahead anyway. Here's your quote from Omni:
Omni writes:
Speaking of which, surely you understand that this portion of your quote is (to put it kindly) inaccurate? Either the fellow is remarkably ignorant of history or deliberately repeating a lie:
If someone came up to me in real life, say at town meeting where something close to this happens on a regular basis, and said, "Either the fellow who just spoke is remarkably ignorant of history or he's deliberately repeating a lie," even if I strongly disagreed with that assessment and even if the person he was talking about was a friend, I would not be insulted. But if someone came up to me after I had spoken at town meeting and said, "You're a liar," I would be very insulted. Probably angry.
If you can't see the difference then I don't think you'll last here very long.
In case it isn't obvious to you, though I can't understand why it isn't obvious to anyone out of kindergarten, the reason we don't allow the debate to become personal here is because when people get angry the quality of debate suffers.
I don't know if you've ever seen my traffic law analogy, but it might help you to give it a read (Message 36 in an old thread). You're in essence arguing that because everyone else is doing 70 that it's okay for you to do 90.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by randman, posted 04-01-2006 8:53 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by randman, posted 04-02-2006 4:07 PM Admin has replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 13084
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 72 of 302 (300335)
04-02-2006 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by randman
04-02-2006 4:07 PM


Re: Blind Spot
randman writes:
I guess you could have fooled me with that one, considering the voluminous personal attacks and charges, even whole threads, directed at me...all making it personal, and yes, not just at my views, but at me personally, my character, etc,....
You're like the criminal who after being arrested complains that the police used means that would have been illegal if had he done it himself.
Much of the criticism that has been directed at you has come from moderators who are entrusted with the task, if they think it possible, of trying to coach members back to behavior that conforms to the Forum Guidelines. We could, I suppose, just suspend people without providing any feedback about why we're suspending them, but that would be unfair.
It is clear to me that you're not getting it and will just continue to be a headache for moderators, so I'm suspending you again.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by randman, posted 04-02-2006 4:07 PM randman has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 13084
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 80 of 302 (300520)
04-03-2006 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Faith
04-03-2006 2:41 AM


Re: Admin responsibility to suspendees
Hi Faith,
There are new features coming in dBoard 2.0, and one of them indicates if someone would be unable to reply.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Faith, posted 04-03-2006 2:41 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Faith, posted 04-03-2006 9:29 AM Admin has replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 13084
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 82 of 302 (300547)
04-03-2006 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Faith
04-03-2006 9:29 AM


Re: Admin responsibility to suspendees
Faith writes:
Just curious. Do you feel it was right of you to suspend me from my own thread...
Unfortunately we do not at this time have the ability to suspend members from individual threads. The finest gradation we have is forum suspensions, and so you're currently suspended from the [forum=-14] forum. When that thread closes (hopefully soon) I'll restore your privileges there. dBoard 3.0 should have the ability to suspend members from individual threads.
...for doing nothing but defending the point the thread was about, and allowing jar, who is an admin, free rein, whose illogic is what the thread was challenging?
I was actually focused on something else - you posted this in Message 162:
Faith in Message 162 writes:
A brand new conundrum has been established by EvC. When a tree falls in the sight of all assembled, it still didn't happen and the very few who say it happened are called wrong. Weird. Happens over and over. Emperor's new clothes. Nice to have proved to myself that this is what is happening at least.
This is minor, but as I've said elsewhere, moderators do not approach their job with amnesia. You have a history here, and I didn't want you to turn the thread into yet another general criticism of the site. It isn't that you can't critisize the site. You most certainly can. But threads have topics, and you can't keep resorting to complaints of "This site's not fair" in every thread where you feel the need.
So I asked you to focus on the topic and your next post after that (Message 165) called everyone idiots.
Fixed message number. --Admin
This message has been edited by Admin, 04-04-2006 09:22 AM

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Faith, posted 04-03-2006 9:29 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Faith, posted 04-03-2006 8:02 PM Admin has replied
 Message 86 by Faith, posted 04-03-2006 8:11 PM Admin has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 13084
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 87 of 302 (300821)
04-04-2006 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Faith
04-03-2006 8:02 PM


Re: Admin responsibility to suspendees
Faith writes:
Percy, I don't want to make a big moderator deal out of this, but post #151 which you link as supposedly my post is in fact your own post, not mine, and the one you quote of me isn't even the one that #151 was responding to, which was my #132 which says nothing about an evc conundrum but is answering nwr:
Oh geez, you're right, I'm sorry. Usually I check these things. As you apparently later discovered, it was your Message 162. I edited my post to have the correct message number, but that's no help now.
When someone references the wrong message you can often very easily find the correct one by searching for a few words in the excerpt. In this case, searching for "conundrum" would probably have done the job.
In Message 86 you say:
Now, jar regularly announces without getting any admin notice that others' arguments have been refuted by himself, although they have not (and in fact I was answering just such an assertion from him), but if I make that announcement about how he has been refuted, which I devoutly believe he has, and then embellish it with a comment about how the refutation goes unrecognized, somehow I've committed some great crime.
Going off-topic is not a great crime, but if you're feeling like I've singled you out lately then there's good reason for it: I have. If you have insights that will help the evolutionists see the beam in their own eye then I think it would be great if you would share them with us, but it communicates to us nothing but frustration by frequently resorting to, "There's that beam in your eye again that you evolutionists won't admit is there, but it is there, and that's why this site is unfair, and that's why I can't get my arguments across, and you people are just infuriating." Keep in mind that the sliver in the creationists eye might actually be a beam, too. It is best to just stay focused on the topic.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Faith, posted 04-03-2006 8:02 PM Faith has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 13084
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 92 of 302 (302943)
04-10-2006 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Faith
04-10-2006 1:07 PM


Re: my suspension
Your permissions appear fine for [forum=-32].

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Faith, posted 04-10-2006 1:07 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Faith, posted 04-10-2006 2:34 PM Admin has replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 13084
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 94 of 302 (302974)
04-10-2006 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Faith
04-10-2006 2:34 PM


Re: my suspension
Faith writes:
I am unable to reply in the Rise of Faith Schools thread in that forum and I don't see any Admin messages to me there.
That's because it's in the [forum=-4] forum, which used to be in the science forums, but I guess that was a while back now. I'll restore your permissions there.
This message has been edited by Admin, 04-10-2006 03:06 PM

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Faith, posted 04-10-2006 2:34 PM Faith has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 13084
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 109 of 302 (303144)
04-11-2006 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by wj
04-11-2006 6:17 AM


Re: Lying
wj writes:
I suggest participants and moderators all grow thicker skins and some mature tolerance.
I agree with you in principle, but not in practice. The problem is that you can never tell which brush fires are going to erupt into full fledged forest fires, so because it's too hard to battle forest fires you instead put out every brush fire. It's sort of like an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by wj, posted 04-11-2006 6:17 AM wj has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 13084
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 123 of 302 (303818)
04-13-2006 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by RAZD
04-12-2006 10:29 PM


Re: invalidation.
Hi RAZD,
It has taken a little work to keep the thread on topic. You might recall the earlier diversion between Crash and John about credentials and income. It is my view that your messages have the potential to again draw defensive responses having nothing to do with the topic. "Your arguments are weak,"..."No, your arguments are weak," and so forth. Here are some comments on excerpts from your Message 225:
RAZD writes:
Thus taking advantage of this one line to dodge all the rebuttals of your previous weak (if not non-existent) arguments...
You address no specific arguments and accuse John of dodging rebuttals. Please focus on the topic and keep accusations of less than honest behavior to yourself.
RAZD writes:
I know you can't properly answer them without having to acknowledge the massive errors in the logic you employed, so I will take this as a concession that your previous arguments were invalid.
That's only fair eh? That you don't substantiate your arguments or answer when they are shown to be invalid must mean that you agree they are invalid, yes?
This is gratuituous patting of your own back having nothing to do with the topic, and statements about assuming he concedes his arguments are invalid is inflammatory, which of course includes the potential for drawing intemperate responses that draw the thread further off-topic.
The rest of your message primarily addressed the topic and was much better.
Advice to everyone: You can't force someone to understand something he doesn't want to or isn't capable of. All you can do is lay out the arguments and evidence as best you can. Personal criticisms usually only have the effect of causing people to dig in their heels, and it makes one look petty and uncharitable.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by RAZD, posted 04-12-2006 10:29 PM RAZD 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