Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9174 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,616 Year: 4,873/9,624 Month: 221/427 Week: 31/103 Day: 0/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consequtive Consecution Sequel
iano
Member (Idle past 2024 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 286 of 302 (319519)
06-09-2006 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 285 by Legend
06-09-2006 11:09 AM


Re: reply to admin comments
I'd say leave it. It serves to highlight (as my message up a bit points out) some of the motivations which lie behind Potms. In a recent thread on the subject of Potms, the various reasons given for nominating Potms did not include the notion that the potm was a highlight in a debate involving two skilled opponants (the most noble of all reasons to nominate I would have imagined. And the most satisfying thing to be nominated for - I also imagine)
{Added by Adminnemooseus - I also say "leave it". It serves to hightlight something, which may or may not be what Iano is saying. Also, it is the source point for this moderation issue discussion.}
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by Legend, posted 06-09-2006 11:09 AM Legend has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by Legend, posted 06-09-2006 11:34 AM iano has not replied

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


Message 287 of 302 (319521)
06-09-2006 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 281 by AdminNWR
06-08-2006 2:03 PM


Re: reply to admin comments (This all is about a POTM nomination)
AdminNWR writes:
The problem was with using "a classic example of a blind, unfaltering, dogmatic mindset" in that nomination message. If, instead, it had said "a clear expression of a creationist viewpoint" there would have been no criticism.
While that would have made the situation stand out less, I don't think it is really a significant change.
I don't think (and of course this means IMO) the nominated material is of POTM quality. I would have never thought "Post of the Month" (POTM) when seeing it. The nomination pretty much seems to be a pot shot at Iano; Like I said before, close to if not a forum rule violation.
Perhaps the nominating message would have been better as just a reply at the topic itself, rather than ending up in the POTM topic.
The most important reason for my commenting on it is that I thought it, at best, a dubious example of what a POTM nomination should be. If it went uncommented on by an admin, it probably would have led to even more dubious POTM nominations (that "more dubious" is intended as referring to quantity, although it could also be interpreted as referring to quality).
People - If you feel the urge to make a POTM nonination of that nature, think about it carefully. It may well not really be a good idea.
Also, remember that the a POTM topic is not only not a place to debate the nominated message/topic itself, it is also not a place to debate the merets of the POTM nominations. Even if you think such, let it pass.
Adminnemooseus
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Added the "(This all is about a POTM nomination)", which actually gives some meaning and vulue to the subtitle.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Replaced "It pretty..." with "The nomination pretty..." to make clear I was referring to the nomination message and not the nominated message.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by AdminNWR, posted 06-08-2006 2:03 PM AdminNWR has not replied

Legend
Member (Idle past 5089 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 288 of 302 (319524)
06-09-2006 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 286 by iano
06-09-2006 11:19 AM


Re: reply to admin comments
up to you ( and the admins).

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by iano, posted 06-09-2006 11:19 AM iano has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1427 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 289 of 302 (319526)
06-09-2006 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 284 by AdminNWR
06-09-2006 10:44 AM


Re: reply to admin comments
The phrasing is part of the act itself. A POTM nomination is supposed to be a positive statement about a post, so negative comments don't belong in the nomination.
ok, i think i understand what you're saying then.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by AdminNWR, posted 06-09-2006 10:44 AM AdminNWR has not replied

iano
Member (Idle past 2024 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 290 of 302 (320237)
06-10-2006 8:48 PM


PEH closed
Thread closed - and unusually - the closer remains anonymous. As does the reason for closure
Any explanation?

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by iano, posted 06-10-2006 9:00 PM iano has not replied

iano
Member (Idle past 2024 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 291 of 302 (320245)
06-10-2006 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by iano
06-10-2006 8:48 PM


Re: PEH closed
There may be something going on here in an area to which I am not privy. If so, there is no need for urgency in responding to my enquiry. If some greater goal is served then let it lie for now.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by iano, posted 06-10-2006 8:48 PM iano has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by AdminJar, posted 06-10-2006 9:04 PM iano has replied

AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 292 of 302 (320249)
06-10-2006 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 291 by iano
06-10-2006 9:00 PM


Re: PEH closed
See Message 15

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures
  • Thread Reopen Requests
  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
    New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
  • "Post of the Month" Forum
  • "Columnist's Corner" Forum
    See also Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], and [thread=-17,-45]


  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 291 by iano, posted 06-10-2006 9:00 PM iano has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 293 by iano, posted 06-11-2006 4:42 AM AdminJar has replied

    iano
    Member (Idle past 2024 days)
    Posts: 6165
    From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
    Joined: 07-27-2005


    Message 293 of 302 (320425)
    06-11-2006 4:42 AM
    Reply to: Message 292 by AdminJar
    06-10-2006 9:04 PM


    Re: PEH closed
    I missed your post sorry.
    In your reasoning for closing the thread you mentioned that the thread was pointless whereas a point was most certainly given. Could you comment on how a thread with an express point can be labelled pointless?
    In the thread I mentioned that I was open to suggestion as to improvements for a time saving standard letter. This can obviously no longer occur.
    You also suggest that people are free to take up my suggestion for petitioning messrs Dembski and Dawkins to challenge John A. Davisons position here at EvC. However, having closed the thread almost instantly, it will fall to the bottom and off peoples viewing pane - denying them exposure to the idea. Thus ensuring that they are unlikely to be free to take up my suggestion.
    Comments?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 292 by AdminJar, posted 06-10-2006 9:04 PM AdminJar has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 297 by AdminJar, posted 06-11-2006 1:29 PM iano has replied

    arachnophilia
    Member (Idle past 1427 days)
    Posts: 9069
    From: god's waiting room
    Joined: 05-21-2004


    Message 294 of 302 (320465)
    06-11-2006 10:59 AM


    gen 1 + 2
    adminpd writes:
    This is not a continuation of reconciling Genesis 1 and 2.
    actually, it is. from the op:
    quote:
    There was a thread recently, and I have been told that they are common, about Genesis 1 and 2. Sadly, even those who may agree with me on this topic, were short coming with their explinations on why, if taken literally, they are not in contradiction with each other. I am here to clear up this errant thinking that Genesis 1 and 2 are contradictory as far as man being created after the beasts in Genesis 1, and then being "created" again, before the beasts, in Genesis 2.
    the goal of the op is to reconcile genesis 1 and 2, and provide an argument not provided in the other recent thread. the op has since been refuted, and has deserted the thread (note that there are no replies to my message 25). adding additional evidence for why the stories are contradictory and of different origins provides further back up for the points against.
    we can't actually be expected to sit around debate the meanings of two english words for 300 posts, can we?


    Replies to this message:
     Message 295 by AdminPD, posted 06-11-2006 12:12 PM arachnophilia has replied

    AdminPD
    Inactive Administrator


    Message 295 of 302 (320485)
    06-11-2006 12:12 PM
    Reply to: Message 294 by arachnophilia
    06-11-2006 10:59 AM


    Re: gen 1 + 2
    quote:
    There was a thread recently, and I have been told that they are common, about Genesis 1 and 2. Sadly, even those who may agree with me on this topic, were short coming with their explinations on why, if taken literally, they are not in contradiction with each other. I am here to clear up this errant thinking that Genesis 1 and 2 are contradictory as far as man being created after the beasts in Genesis 1, and then being "created" again, before the beasts, in Genesis 2.
    It is still referring to a very specific portion.
    I am here to clear up this errant thinking that Genesis 1 and 2 are contradictory as far as man being created after the beasts in Genesis 1, and then being "created" again, before the beasts, in Genesis 2.
    The original topic Truthlover asked: Has anyone heard any better reconciliations of those two chapters?
    Teets Creationist is arguing his specific reconciliation concerning when man was created in relation to the beasts.
    Since he's new to EvC, I'd like him to have a chance to discuss his position and not have his thread turned into a rehash of the old thread.
    You, jar, Faith, Randman, and ramoss have hashed this out several times. Give TC time to come back and participate in his thread.
    I will revise my warning and have removed the off topic tags, but I do ask that veteran members not run off with the thread beyond the scope of the OP.
    Is that a reasonable request?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 294 by arachnophilia, posted 06-11-2006 10:59 AM arachnophilia has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 296 by arachnophilia, posted 06-11-2006 12:29 PM AdminPD has replied

    arachnophilia
    Member (Idle past 1427 days)
    Posts: 9069
    From: god's waiting room
    Joined: 05-21-2004


    Message 296 of 302 (320492)
    06-11-2006 12:29 PM
    Reply to: Message 295 by AdminPD
    06-11-2006 12:12 PM


    Re: gen 1 + 2
    Is that a reasonable request?
    i suppose.
    however:
    It is still referring to a very specific portion.
    I am here to clear up this errant thinking that Genesis 1 and 2 are contradictory as far as man being created after the beasts in Genesis 1, and then being "created" again, before the beasts, in Genesis 2.
    yes, and that portion i specifically addressed in one of my "off topic" posts, refering to the previous thread where i established that the causal relationships dictated order.
    Since he's new to EvC, I'd like him to have a chance to discuss his position and not have his thread turned into a rehash of the old thread.
    You, jar, Faith, Randman, and ramoss have hashed this out several times. Give TC time to come back and participate in his thread.
    may i suggest you modify the warning to temporarily put a halt on the thread until teets can come back and address, specifically, my post in reply to his op, or others that ask the similar question: "what does a created, but formless man look like?"
    but I do ask that veteran members not run off with the thread beyond the scope of the OP.
    in my opinion, the scope is a little TOO limited. we can't discuss other renderings (i've never seen kjv-onlyism enforced by moderators), i can't discuss the hebrew and the connotations therein, and we can't provide additional evidence that the stories are in fact different.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 295 by AdminPD, posted 06-11-2006 12:12 PM AdminPD has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 298 by AdminPD, posted 06-11-2006 1:32 PM arachnophilia has not replied

    AdminJar
    Inactive Member


    Message 297 of 302 (320513)
    06-11-2006 1:29 PM
    Reply to: Message 293 by iano
    06-11-2006 4:42 AM


    Re: PEH closed
    In your reasoning for closing the thread you mentioned that the thread was pointless whereas a point was most certainly given. Could you comment on how a thread with an express point can be labelled pointless?
    While there might have been some merit in your intial message, the thread rapidly degenerated into folk telling you why they thought it was not a great idea and your response noting their absence from somewhaere. There may have been merit in the OP but the thread was as pointless as any I have ever seen.
    And yes, it will quickly fall off the first page. The fact that you missed my message was yet another indicator of why the thread was going nowhere. The balance of the thread is folk saying that it is a bad idea and you responding with your message of absence. They were coming so fast that my closing message got passed like it was standing still.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 293 by iano, posted 06-11-2006 4:42 AM iano has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 299 by iano, posted 06-11-2006 2:09 PM AdminJar has not replied

    AdminPD
    Inactive Administrator


    Message 298 of 302 (320514)
    06-11-2006 1:32 PM
    Reply to: Message 296 by arachnophilia
    06-11-2006 12:29 PM


    Re: gen 1 + 2
    The off topic tags have been removed.
    quote:
    in my opinion, the scope is a little TOO limited. we can't discuss other renderings (i've never seen kjv-onlyism enforced by moderators), i can't discuss the hebrew and the connotations therein, and we can't provide additional evidence that the stories are in fact different.
    Sure you can.
    Before the first warning people weren't making a case using other translations, they were just complaining about the KJV translation and what would be better. Like I said in the warning: This is not a discussion about what translation is best or if a translation influenced others.
    Our English words developed out of foreign languages, so make your case from the Hebrew standpoint. Show him the progression from Hebrew to Greek, to Latin, to English. I didn't say we had to stick with KJV, but address TC's argument.
    There have been discussions that request only outside resources be used or only the Bible be used, etc. TC didn't say to only use the KJV, but he did want to discuss the English words and he uses the KJV, so I feel that whatever participants argue needs to address that.
    Yes this topic is narrow, but TC is also a new member. This topic is about what TC wants to discuss not what you want to discuss.
    If and when TC returns, the discussion may broaden, but I feel that should be his choice.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 296 by arachnophilia, posted 06-11-2006 12:29 PM arachnophilia has not replied

    iano
    Member (Idle past 2024 days)
    Posts: 6165
    From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
    Joined: 07-27-2005


    Message 299 of 302 (320527)
    06-11-2006 2:09 PM
    Reply to: Message 297 by AdminJar
    06-11-2006 1:29 PM


    Re: PEH closed
    Rapidly? It didn't even get of the ground to go anywhere rapidly. My comment: "your absence from the relevant thread" dealt with the objection that 3 posters made which simply denigrated John an/or his argument. That their comments are hollow is made manifest from their unwillingness to put their convictions to the test. Did one of them even attempt to gain entry to the Showcase PEH thread?
    Wounded King didn't get that response for obvious reasons - but the thread was closed before I could respond to him.
    Your proper role would have been to warn those posters that their comments were off topic. The OP didn't say anything about debating the wisdom of the suggestion and that is all the posters were doing. Why didn't you warn them off instead of closing the thread?
    And yes, it will quickly fall off the first page. The fact that you missed my message was yet another indicator of why the thread was going nowhere. The balance of the thread is folk saying that it is a bad idea and you responding with your message of absence. They were coming so fast that my closing message got passed like it was standing still.
    Dear oh dear....
    Forget it Jar, I'll ask Percy to comment.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 297 by AdminJar, posted 06-11-2006 1:29 PM AdminJar has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 301 by crashfrog, posted 06-11-2006 2:21 PM iano has not replied

    iano
    Member (Idle past 2024 days)
    Posts: 6165
    From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
    Joined: 07-27-2005


    Message 300 of 302 (320529)
    06-11-2006 2:12 PM


    Calling Percy: PEH petition thread closed:
    Percy,
    Could you comment on the closing of the "Lets get this PEH show on the road"?
    iano

    Replies to this message:
     Message 302 by Adminnemooseus, posted 06-11-2006 2:38 PM iano 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