Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 49 (9181 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: joebialek123
Post Volume: Total: 918,275 Year: 5,532/9,624 Month: 557/323 Week: 54/143 Day: 16/11 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consequtive Consecution Sequel
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 107 of 302 (303134)
04-11-2006 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by wj
04-11-2006 6:17 AM


Re: Lying
This is fascinating. The current moderator sensitivity to name calling is due to the past battles of participants concerning breeches of Rule #10:
Always treat other members with respect. Argue the position, not the person. Avoid abusive, harassing and invasive behavior. Avoid needling, hectoring and goading tactics.
Before it seemed that moderator intervention came after tempers flared and discussion spiraled. It is very difficult dealing with posters who are venting all over the place (we aren't counselors) and oozing into other threads. When it reaches this level suspension is our virtual bucket of water.
So we decided to try and catch things before they escalate. In this case a 24 hour Timeout is appropriate. (Not sure what timeframe was issued for nwr)
Now when I read Message 86 by ThingsChange I saw the sparks starting.
ThingsChange writes:
Nwr, nice attempt at spin.
I thought about saying something, but I didn't think nwr would go the next step, unfortunately he did. As you notice the discussion now starts to become personal and not really about the subject anymore.
quote:
I suggest participants and moderators all grow thicker skins and some mature tolerance.
It isn't so much about growing thicker skin or tolerance, but how to deal with the frustration with those who mutilate what their opponents are saying. People get upset about being misquoted, taken out of context, etc., and frustration can lead to name calling. Then the battle begins.
So do we give a Timeout to the spark and the flame?
Not sure if misquoting is in breech of Rule #8 or not.
Avoid any form of misrepresentation.
Bottomline: We won't be able to please everyone.

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

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 118 of 302 (303712)
04-12-2006 9:36 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Faith
04-12-2006 9:11 PM


Re: Misplaced thread?
The "Morality and Subjectivity" topic was placed in the science fora because it isn't looking at religious basis for morals. It is supposedly looking at logical grounds concerning morals.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Faith, posted 04-12-2006 9:11 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Faith, posted 04-12-2006 9:45 PM AdminPD has replied

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 120 of 302 (303724)
04-12-2006 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Faith
04-12-2006 9:45 PM


Re: Misplaced thread?
Robin's the originator. Discuss it with him. He hasn't complained about where it was placed. If he wishes to have it moved, I will move it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Faith, posted 04-12-2006 9:45 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by robinrohan, posted 04-13-2006 8:17 AM AdminPD has not replied

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 125 of 302 (303886)
04-13-2006 11:28 AM


Christian State Response to Crash
quote:
Critical to answering that question, though, is an analysis of the relationship of Christianity and the state in times past. Isn't it?
There is a difference between analyzing the relationship of Christianity and the state in history and trying to correct Faith's view of history.
I understand using history to support your view of a Christian State today, but I don't want the thread to melt into a debate with Faith on whose history is right.
See the difference?

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 04-13-2006 11:51 AM AdminPD has not replied

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 150 of 302 (304157)
04-14-2006 6:33 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by nator
04-13-2006 11:46 PM


Re: since when do we censor/remove posts?
Hey Schraf,
The posts are not removed and weren't being censored. They were simply made invisible for a short duration to deter that line of off topic discussion.
A warning was given in Message 19 of that thread.
I explained what I did in Message 37 and I explained that visibility would be restored after the discussion had moved forward.
I will be restoring visibility today and each post will be marked as off topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by nator, posted 04-13-2006 11:46 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by nator, posted 04-14-2006 10:09 AM AdminPD has replied

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 152 of 302 (304200)
04-14-2006 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by nator
04-14-2006 10:09 AM


Re: since when do we censor/remove posts?
With a warning, I think it is a good way to break tunnel vision.
quote:
Perhaps if you are going to do this sort of thing in the future, including a note that if one wants to view the post, all they have to do is "peek"?
If I had planned on leaving them permanently invisible, I would; but I will keep that in mind if I need to follow through with the threat again.
Maybe in the explanation post I could mention the peek option with a warning not to respond.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by nator, posted 04-14-2006 10:09 AM nator has not replied

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 171 of 302 (305525)
04-20-2006 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by Trixie
04-20-2006 5:26 PM


Re: Clarification please
Unfortunately as a Hoosier, the terms Ranger and Celt and the colors used by iano don't mean anything to me in a postive or negative sense.
In the original analogy I read it as an attempt to make the parable more real for you with something you are familiar with.
iano writes:
You might be a Ranger or a Celt. Your a Celt for now.
Given two sides, I read it as he made you a Celt for the purpose of the story, not calling you one personally. He seemed to be trying to connect the relationship between the Jews and the Samaritans with something you apparently are familiar with today.
iano writes:
Well that was the relationship between a Jew and a Samaritan in those days.
His analogy doesn't mean anything to me because I obviously don't understand the relationship between Rangers and Celts.
I'm sorry you were offended by his words and that I don't have the knowledge to deal with it appropriately. But if the terms were used as a negative tactic, they should not be used as such in the future.
An admin with more knowledge of the Rangers and Celts would be more suited to decide if action is required concerning the posts in question. (Message 81 and Message 86)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Trixie, posted 04-20-2006 5:26 PM Trixie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by CK, posted 04-20-2006 6:56 PM AdminPD has replied
 Message 177 by iano, posted 04-20-2006 8:26 PM AdminPD has replied

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 174 of 302 (305540)
04-20-2006 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by CK
04-20-2006 6:56 PM


Re: Clarification please
I've already apologized to Trixie for my lack of knowledge which prevents me from understanding how this belittles Trixie.
Another admin will have to decide if action is required.
Sorry.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by CK, posted 04-20-2006 6:56 PM CK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by CK, posted 04-20-2006 7:28 PM AdminPD has replied

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 176 of 302 (305545)
04-20-2006 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by CK
04-20-2006 7:28 PM


Re: Clarification please
I've commited no wrong against you, so I suggest you not take out your frustration with iano on me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by CK, posted 04-20-2006 7:28 PM CK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by CK, posted 04-21-2006 4:47 AM AdminPD has replied

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 178 of 302 (305554)
04-20-2006 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by iano
04-20-2006 8:26 PM


Re: Iano clarifies
You're welcome.
Now you know what types of characters to avoid in your analogies.
I'm sure you noticed that offense was also taken with your characterization of the Orthodox Jews.
You should also avoid those types of characterizations in the future.
Thanks for your cooperation.
This situation is now concluded and not open to any more discussion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by iano, posted 04-20-2006 8:26 PM iano has not replied

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 180 of 302 (305623)
04-21-2006 7:39 AM
Reply to: Message 179 by CK
04-21-2006 4:47 AM


Discussion Closed
This situation is now concluded and not open to any more discussion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by CK, posted 04-21-2006 4:47 AM CK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by CK, posted 04-21-2006 7:45 AM AdminPD has replied

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 182 of 302 (305632)
04-21-2006 8:35 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by CK
04-21-2006 7:45 AM


Re: Discussion Closed
quote:
What sort of answer is that?
It is an answer designed to tell you that this situation which concerned actual participants of the thread is now concluded and not open to any more discussion.
But since you can't seem to let sleeping dogs lie, here it is.
I consider this thread to be for those within a thread to address moderator actions within that thread or to bring attention to problems within that thread.
I don't feel it is a thread for the general membership to give their opinions on complaints or moderation procedures in threads they are not participating in unless outside input is requested.
Since you aren't a participant in the thread in question and no moderation action was taken against you by me (no wrong committed against you), your insults to me were unjustified. Whatever your reasons for jumping into the dispute, I did not deserve your rude response.
I addressed your racist concern in Message 178 to iano in which I also stated that
This situation is now concluded and not open to any more discussion.
In conclusion:
This situation is now concluded and not open to any more discussion.
Do Not Respond To This Message

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by CK, posted 04-21-2006 7:45 AM CK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by CK, posted 04-21-2006 8:47 AM AdminPD has not replied

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 189 of 302 (306312)
04-24-2006 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by macaroniandcheese
04-24-2006 1:42 PM


Interest Noted
It looks like it would be an interesting discussion.
Hopefully the originator does continue to participate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by macaroniandcheese, posted 04-24-2006 1:42 PM macaroniandcheese has not replied

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 190 of 302 (307872)
04-30-2006 8:34 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by macaroniandcheese
04-24-2006 1:42 PM


Human Babies
Brennakimi,
Are you still interested in this topic being promoted whether the originator returns to participate in the thread or not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by macaroniandcheese, posted 04-24-2006 1:42 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by macaroniandcheese, posted 04-30-2006 11:32 AM AdminPD has not replied

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 253 of 302 (315894)
05-29-2006 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 251 by Trixie
05-27-2006 9:14 PM


Re: Relevance, please
There is no relevance Trixie,
As you can see we've had trouble keeping what should be an academic discussion, on track.
Unfortunately the Admin actions take up posts also.
Common courtesy would include not posting if one truly doesn't wish to discuss in the spirit the originator intended and to backoff when requested to stay on topic by the thread originator or an Admin.
All we can do is request that people discuss or debate in the spirit intended and not go on crusades.
Hopefully that thread can continue in an academic style discussion without further waste.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Trixie, posted 05-27-2006 9:14 PM Trixie 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