Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,628 Year: 4,885/9,624 Month: 233/427 Week: 43/103 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

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


Message 226 of 302 (313899)
05-20-2006 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by robinrohan
05-20-2006 12:55 PM


Re: robinrohan's complaint proposal
Not the place Robin. This is to discuss moderation procedures, not your shortcomings.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by robinrohan, posted 05-20-2006 12:55 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by robinrohan, posted 05-20-2006 7:06 PM AdminJar has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 227 of 302 (313979)
05-20-2006 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by AdminJar
05-20-2006 12:58 PM


Re: robinrohan's complaint proposal
In which thread do I discuss my shortcomings?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by AdminJar, posted 05-20-2006 12:58 PM AdminJar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by AdminJar, posted 05-20-2006 7:09 PM robinrohan has replied

AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 228 of 302 (313980)
05-20-2006 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by robinrohan
05-20-2006 7:06 PM


Re: robinrohan's complaint proposal
If you wish to discuss your shortcomings start a coffeehouse thread. Remember there is a 300 post limit but continuation threads are possible if you need them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by robinrohan, posted 05-20-2006 7:06 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by robinrohan, posted 05-20-2006 11:16 PM AdminJar has not replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 229 of 302 (314041)
05-20-2006 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by AdminJar
05-20-2006 7:09 PM


Re: robinrohan's complaint proposal
How very amusing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by AdminJar, posted 05-20-2006 7:09 PM AdminJar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by Adminnemooseus, posted 05-20-2006 11:36 PM robinrohan has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3977
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 230 of 302 (314050)
05-20-2006 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by robinrohan
05-20-2006 11:16 PM


Robinrohan given 1 week suspension
My judgement: What a whiner.
Please take any replies to the message to the "General..." topic, which most conveniently happens to be this very topic. So reply to this message.
Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by robinrohan, posted 05-20-2006 11:16 PM robinrohan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by Faith, posted 05-20-2006 11:55 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1529 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 231 of 302 (314054)
05-20-2006 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by Adminnemooseus
05-20-2006 11:36 PM


Re: Robinrohan given 1 week suspension
A WEEK? For a quip in response to an insult?
Overreacting a bit aren't you there, Moose? A bit hair-trigger there?
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Adminnemooseus, posted 05-20-2006 11:36 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by AdminModulous, posted 05-21-2006 12:33 PM Faith has not replied

AdminModulous
Administrator
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 232 of 302 (314147)
05-21-2006 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by Faith
05-20-2006 11:55 PM


Re: Robinrohan given 1 week suspension
I agree Faith. I've restored Robin's privelages. I've looked for any form of justification for giving him any suspension, but found nothing but 'he's a whiner'. I'm not sure suspending someone for 'whining' in the 'discussion of moderation procedures' thread is a good precedent to be setting (especially not for a week!). In a sense, that is precisely the purpose of this thread.
Maybe Moose has another (valid) reason for suspending Robin, if that is the case he can re-suspend him and provide a clear and open reason as to why.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Faith, posted 05-20-2006 11:55 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by Admin, posted 05-21-2006 5:07 PM AdminModulous has not replied
 Message 234 by iano, posted 05-21-2006 5:12 PM AdminModulous has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 13082
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 233 of 302 (314176)
05-21-2006 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by AdminModulous
05-21-2006 12:33 PM


Re: Robinrohan given 1 week suspension
I agree the offense probably didn't merit a suspension, but Robin needs to work harder to connect with the message that board moderation is trying to send him. He posted to this thread because I posted this over at Message 208:
Admin writes:
If you believe you're the victim of violations of the Forum Guidelines then please bring it to the attention of the moderators. You can post to General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consequtive Consecution Sequel, or you can email me or one of the other moderators. Please provide specific information and links to messages.
Elsewhere in the same message I said this:
I've spent just a very few minutes poking around at a few of your messages and I couldn't find anything that was a example of the problem. But just above, Cavediver makes some indirect references to comments about his area of expertise, maybe they were yours, I'm not sure, and they seem the equivalent of me in a religious discussion arguing that Easter was the day Jesus saw his shadow - in other words, pretty dumb.
Those who have the courage to argue about things they know little about must accept that uninformed ideas will be given short shrift. Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but all opinions are not entitled to respect.
In response Robin posted to this thread not about guideline violations or moderation issues, but like this in Message 225:
robinrohan writes:
Those who have the courage to argue about things they know little about must accept that uninformed ideas will be given short shrift
What is it that I know little about?
Why did he post this? Is it because though he understands this isn't the type of post for this thread he wanted to thumb his nose at board administration? Or is he unable to distinguish between guideline violations and issues versus discussion of the criticisms he's received? Is he just so clueless that he's always going to be a moderation headache?
I don't know the answer, but I tried and failed to connect with Robin. That's why I'm asking him to make a greater effort to help moderators understand his *moderation* issues. While it really isn't within the venue of board moderation to help Robin understand what he doesn't understand, if one of the moderators can help Robin get more out of his EvC experience then that would be great.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by AdminModulous, posted 05-21-2006 12:33 PM AdminModulous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by Faith, posted 05-21-2006 11:36 PM Admin has not replied

iano
Member (Idle past 2025 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 234 of 302 (314177)
05-21-2006 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by AdminModulous
05-21-2006 12:33 PM


Re: Robinrohan given 1 week suspension
Good judgement Mod. Of all the various mod activity concerning this thread, this one appears to me to be the most even-handed. Jars comment appeared not only to deny the reason for the thread (a thread originator cannot question the reason given for 'his' thread being closed?) but it was used as a cape from which behind an insult was delivered. This from a position "unquestionable authority". Very 1984 that - not to say downright ugly.
Again. Well done.
Edited by iano, : typo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by AdminModulous, posted 05-21-2006 12:33 PM AdminModulous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by Faith, posted 05-22-2006 12:43 AM iano has not replied

AdminBuzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 235 of 302 (314239)
05-21-2006 11:05 PM


For the record, I initiated the private admin forum discussion on this Robin suspension. I would have lifted the suspension then, but didn't feel comfortable with doing so without first getting some input from the other admins. I have great respect and appreciation for all the good work Admin Moose does here and didn't want to override him without getting input from Admin Percy and others. It appears AdminMod also listened to other admins before overriding Moose which imo was appropriate.
It was agreed by the ones who contributed that though Robin needs to be careful about his attitude toward mods, this suspension was not warranted. I just want to reassure Faith and others who may see the need for creo representation that though I don't do much visible admin duties, I try to attend to these things when I become aware of them. I did some back stage admin input on the behalf or Randman and Herepton also, though Herepton remained buligerant and unappreciative in spite of it. (abe: My understanding is that either of these could have returned had they agreed to meet the conditions Admin, which imo were reasonable.) Since I don't have much time to read, it does help when folks bring these problems to the open moderation forum as Faith did.
Thanks AdminMod for taking care of this since I had to leave my computer for the day shortly after I opened the private admin discussion on this.
Edited by AdminBuzsaw, : Edit to add a sentence, so designated by parenthesis.

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1529 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 236 of 302 (314241)
05-21-2006 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by Admin
05-21-2006 5:07 PM


I suspect some misunderstandings
I find it hard to understand this situation. Robin has been posting at evc a long time and never been regarded as a problem poster that I'm aware of. Recently he apparently got angry at how he was being dealt with on some threads and got pushed over some line.
Why did he bring that question about what he doesn't know to this thread? I took it that the other thread was shut down and that it had been shut down for some reason related to whatever it was he didn't know, and he didn't understand what that meant so he brought it here to find out, to the thread for that purpose. He sounded irritated on that thread so I'm not going to say there was NO challenge to admin being expressed, but I'd guess most of it was just to figure out what that closing was all about.
In retrospect it might have been a bad idea for him to title his thread "The Problem of EvC" because that suggests something wrong with the adminstration of EvC. At one point he answered that idea very specifically saying that wasn't the case, that there's nothing wrong with EvC in its concept or administration and that he appreciates Percy specifically. So it was merely about his frustration with how some members had been dealing with him about questions he regarded as important, an atmosphere here, an attitude, apparently on the science side, about his way of approaching the questions.
Maybe administration took it personally. He got irritated and testy though not anywhere near the level Percy is characterizing, and admins overreacted.
That's how I read it, but he's not here to clarify and I may be misrepresenting him.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Admin, posted 05-21-2006 5:07 PM Admin has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1529 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 237 of 302 (314242)
05-22-2006 12:43 AM
Reply to: Message 234 by iano
05-21-2006 5:12 PM


yes, definitely a misunderstanding
Jars comment appeared not only to deny the reason for the thread (a thread originator cannot question the reason given for 'his' thread being closed?) but it was used as a cape from which behind an insult was delivered. This from a position "unquestionable authority"
Now I get what you were saying. I didn't at first, but I just said it myself so now I get it.
Yes, it seems to you and me that Robin was merely questioning the reason his thread was closed, when he asked what it is he knows so little about. That question got tagged "off topic" and jar had this apparently inexplicable response to it.
From what Percy said above, that's not how he took it, and I suppose jar also read it some other way, judging from his put down about shortcomings and saying it didn't belong on this thread.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by iano, posted 05-21-2006 5:12 PM iano has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by robinrohan, posted 05-22-2006 9:03 AM Faith has not replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 238 of 302 (314288)
05-22-2006 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 237 by Faith
05-22-2006 12:43 AM


Re: yes, definitely a misunderstanding
Percy closed the thread, saying that I should expect to be treated with contempt if I have the nerve to talk about something I know little about. So I wanted to know what it was I knew little about.
If the answer is "logic," I have a problem with that. That's tantamount to saying that I am incapable of making a valid comment about any subject whatsoever.
If the answer is "science," my answer is I don't discuss science except in some very general way, such as the rudiments of TOE, which, strangely enough, I do understand.
Here's my dramatized view of the situation (from threads long past and recent):
Robin: One cannot be both an evolutionist and a
Christian.
Jar: What did you say? I am both an evolutionist and a Christian. I have a list of 4000 Bishops who say they believe in evolution. You are hereby refuted.
Robin: What I meant was that it was logically inconsistent to--
Chiroptera: You don't understand logic!
Jazzn: He shouldn't even use the word "logic." Only I and those of my superior ilk should be able to use that word.
Chiroptera: Have you studied Peano arithmetic?
Catholic scientist: Do you have a world class education? I do. You are despicable.
Jar.: QED. You lose, Charley.
Percy: What are your credentials? You have none.
Robin: My credentials?
Moose: Whiner! Suspended for a week!
revised to corrrect errors of wording. I wrote "creationist" when I meant "Christian."
Edited by robinrohan, : No reason given.
Edited by robinrohan, : No reason given.
Edited by robinrohan, : No reason given.
Edited by robinrohan, : No reason given.
Edited by robinrohan, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Faith, posted 05-22-2006 12:43 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by Admin, posted 05-22-2006 9:36 AM robinrohan has replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 13082
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 239 of 302 (314300)
05-22-2006 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 238 by robinrohan
05-22-2006 9:03 AM


Re: yes, definitely a misunderstanding
robinrohan writes:
Percy closed the thread, saying that I should expect to be treated with contempt if I have the nerve to talk about something I know little about. So I wanted to know what it was I knew little about.
One of the modes of behavior that can get one classified as clueless by the moderator team is to fail to get a point no matter how many times it is explained. I feel like I've already explained my point three times, and I don't feel like explaining it again, not because I don't think it's worth explaining, and not because I don't think you're a valuable member of our community, but because the evidence is that you will once again fail to get the point and that it would be a senseless exercise for me to try once again.
The sense that I'm getting is that a lot of people feel this way about you, that they explain and explain and explain but that there's little to no indication from you that any of it is understood. This is something that is *your* responsibility to correct, not everyone else's. If you care about being understood then start caring about making sure you understand others.
For the record, I did not say you should "expect to be treated with contempt if I have the nerve to talk about something I know little about." For the third time, I said:
Admin writes:
I've spent just a very few minutes poking around at a few of your messages and I couldn't find anything that was a example of the problem. But just above, Cavediver makes some indirect references to comments about his area of expertise, maybe they were yours, I'm not sure, and they seem the equivalent of me in a religious discussion arguing that Easter was the day Jesus saw his shadow - in other words, pretty dumb.
Those who have the courage to argue about things they know little about must accept that uninformed ideas will be given short shrift. Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but all opinions are not entitled to respect.
That's pretty circumspect. I was very careful to indicate that I hadn't read enough messages from you to reach any conclusions, and so I didn't refer to you, I spoke generally. What I was asking you to do (and here I go doing what I said I wasn't going to do, which is explain this for a fourth time) was to examine the possibility that your problems stem from jumping into discussions with ideas that are ill-informed and ill-considered while making little effort to understand the replies.
By the way, I really enjoyed this, very funny:
robinrohan writes:
Robin: One cannot be both an evolutionist and a
Christian.
Jar: What did you say? I am both an evolutionist and a Christian. I have a list of 4000 Bishops who say they believe in evolution. You are hereby refuted.
Robin: What I meant was that it was logically inconsistent to--
Chiroptera: You don't understand logic!
Jazzn: He shouldn't even use the word "logic." Only I and those of my superior ilk should be able to use that word.
Chiroptera: Have you studied Peano arithmetic?
Catholic scientist: Do you have a world class education? I do. You are despicable.
Jar.: QED. You lose, Charley.
Percy: What are your credentials? You have none.
Robin: My credentials?
Moose: Whiner! Suspended for a week!
But someone with sufficient interest and talent could compose an equally funny opposing parody.
This thread is for discussion of moderator issues and procedures. It is a primary goal of EvC Forum to keep discussions moving forward. If you have some requests or ideas for how better to accomplish this then please go ahead. Just keep in mind that members who make this goal difficult to achieve often run afoul of the moderators.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by robinrohan, posted 05-22-2006 9:03 AM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-22-2006 10:03 AM Admin has not replied
 Message 241 by robinrohan, posted 05-22-2006 10:11 AM Admin has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 240 of 302 (314308)
05-22-2006 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 239 by Admin
05-22-2006 9:36 AM


.|.. ^.^ ..|.
Admin writes:
By the way, I really enjoyed this, very funny:
robinrohan writes:
Robin: One cannot be both an evolutionist and a
Christian.
Jar: What did you say? I am both an evolutionist and a Christian. I have a list of 4000 Bishops who say they believe in evolution. You are hereby refuted.
Robin: What I meant was that it was logically inconsistent to--
Chiroptera: You don't understand logic!
Jazzn: He shouldn't even use the word "logic." Only I and those of my superior ilk should be able to use that word.
Chiroptera: Have you studied Peano arithmetic?
Catholic scientist: Do you have a world class education? I do. You are despicable.
Jar.: QED. You lose, Charley.
Percy: What are your credentials? You have none.
Robin: My credentials?
Moose: Whiner! Suspended for a week!
Funny? I found it insulting. I'd like to see a link to where I've typed anything remotely like what it says I said.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by Admin, posted 05-22-2006 9:36 AM Admin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by robinrohan, posted 05-22-2006 10:13 AM New Cat's Eye 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