Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 14.0
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2642 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 46 of 134 (447097)
01-08-2008 2:00 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by nwr
01-08-2008 12:58 AM


Re: Soliciting the opinion of other admins.
With all due respect, nwr, horse piddle.
If "intelligence"/"instinct" has no scientific currency, why, praytell, is it bandied about so?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by nwr, posted 01-08-2008 12:58 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by nwr, posted 01-08-2008 8:43 AM molbiogirl has not replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 47 of 134 (447138)
01-08-2008 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by molbiogirl
01-08-2008 2:00 AM


This is not a debate thread
Sorry, but this is the wrong place for such discussion.

Let's end the political smears

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by molbiogirl, posted 01-08-2008 2:00 AM molbiogirl has not replied

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


Message 48 of 134 (447165)
01-08-2008 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by AdminBuzsaw
01-07-2008 5:19 PM


Re: admin buz
You said
It has been determined in past discussion that member admins have a natural tendency to favor their own ideological kind. Get it?
I'm intrigued as to where I can find this discussion. AFAICR, creationist moderators were recruited so that the usual creationist claim of biased moderation by evo mods (and it was hoped that the creationist moderators would moderate creationists) would be seen to be groundless.
The last creationist mod who used his mod status to defend fellow creationists on ideological grounds alone was randman and I know of no other mod that was "sacked" for behaving in this way because none of them do.
So, will you please provide a link so that I can go and read the discussion you referred to since I cerainly didn't see it first time round.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by AdminBuzsaw, posted 01-07-2008 5:19 PM AdminBuzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by AdminBuzsaw, posted 01-08-2008 6:34 PM Trixie has replied

AdminBuzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 134 (447282)
01-08-2008 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Trixie
01-08-2008 11:16 AM


Re: admin buz
Hi Trixie. I don't know where to find it and don't have the time to do all the reading necessary to search it out. It's in the archives somewhere.
AdminPD, in the OP of this thread, has made it clear that this thread is not a discussion thread so other than what I've said I won't be engaging in any debate or further discussion on this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Trixie, posted 01-08-2008 11:16 AM Trixie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Trixie, posted 01-09-2008 4:30 AM AdminBuzsaw has not replied

obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4116 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 50 of 134 (447301)
01-08-2008 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by arachnophilia
01-06-2008 12:18 AM


Re: PD
You'd get frustrated at someone who deliberately separated specifically noted combined issues, ignored huge amounts of points, ignored your refutations and called you delusional too.
But this entire thread seems nothing more then whiner channel. So someone called you this or that, are we to sanitize everything?
Edited by obvious Child, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by arachnophilia, posted 01-06-2008 12:18 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by arachnophilia, posted 01-09-2008 1:37 AM obvious Child has not replied

AdminBuzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 134 (447348)
01-08-2008 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by macaroniandcheese
01-07-2008 7:35 PM


Re: admin buz
There has been some discussion of this dispute in PAF. So far there doesn't appear to be a difinitive consensus in PAF as to whether BS is a permissible term other than better communication would be prefered. One admin's position was that the warning was warranted while another's position was that it would not warrant a suspension but better wordage preferred.
I am moderating my position in that I will not be considering BS wordage as a guideline violation unless it is used in an obvious uncivil manner. This will be my position unless difinitive position by Admin or a consensus of admins is established.
I will not be singling you out to monitor. That was a mistake on my part and over the line. I apologize for that. I will however as do other moderators be watchful for violations of guidelines across the board.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by macaroniandcheese, posted 01-07-2008 7:35 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by macaroniandcheese, posted 01-08-2008 10:48 PM AdminBuzsaw has not replied

macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 52 of 134 (447350)
01-08-2008 10:48 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by AdminBuzsaw
01-08-2008 10:45 PM


Re: admin buz
I will not be singling you out to monitor. That was a mistake on my part and over the line. I apologize for that.
thank you for that.
unless it is used in an obvious uncivil manner.
who decides what is "obvious". considering the uses of "obvious" on this board, i'm unconvinced of the reality of the term.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by AdminBuzsaw, posted 01-08-2008 10:45 PM AdminBuzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by AdminPD, posted 01-09-2008 5:43 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

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


Message 53 of 134 (447363)
01-09-2008 1:37 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by obvious Child
01-08-2008 7:22 PM


Re: PD
But this entire thread seems nothing more then whiner channel. So someone called you this or that, are we to sanitize everything?
no, and that is not the purpose. this thread (the whining channel) is precisely what ensures that. you will find many complaints that when aired get shot down pretty quickly. you will also find that evos often defend creationists here, from inappropriate moderator action.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by obvious Child, posted 01-08-2008 7:22 PM obvious Child has not replied

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


Message 54 of 134 (447387)
01-09-2008 4:30 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by AdminBuzsaw
01-08-2008 6:34 PM


Re: admin buz
Priceless, absolutely priceless! You couldn't make this up! Here we have a thread entitled "General Discussion of Moderation Procedures 14.0" and you state
AdminPD, in the OP of this thread, has made it clear that this thread is not a discussion thread so other than what I've said I won't be engaging in any debate or further discussion on this.
If you read her OP a little more carefully you'll see that what she in fact says is
This thread is provided for the general membership to present and discuss comments or concerns dealing with moderator procedures/actions or the need for moderator action.
(bolding and italicisation mine)
Are you seriously suggesting that this thread isn't a discussion thread? It's fine that you don't want to engage in debate on this thread, but that's not what I was doing. I was trying to discuss moderation and was interested in reading the discussion you mentioned so that I could be more informed as to what was said. You obviously remember the discussion so should be able to find it. I have absolutely no recollection of it so have no idea where to begin searching. Can you give me a hint?
Thanks

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by AdminBuzsaw, posted 01-08-2008 6:34 PM AdminBuzsaw has not replied

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 55 of 134 (447395)
01-09-2008 5:43 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by macaroniandcheese
01-08-2008 10:48 PM


Re: admin buz
quote:
who decides what is "obvious". considering the uses of "obvious" on this board, i'm unconvinced of the reality of the term.
The admins.
Each admin is going to call it as they see it. That's why we have this thread to allow feedback and appeals. As you see by AdminBuz's post, we also ask for input from other admins. We are a very diverse group, but we do our best to uphold the rules as evenhandedly as humanly possible.
If you are satisfied with the results of this discussion, I ask that we consider it concluded and no more discussion is needed concerning your specific issue.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by macaroniandcheese, posted 01-08-2008 10:48 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by macaroniandcheese, posted 01-09-2008 10:06 AM AdminPD has not replied

macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 56 of 134 (447442)
01-09-2008 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by AdminPD
01-09-2008 5:43 AM


Re: admin buz
i would think that it might be neccessary to permit posting in this thread during a suspension. it should be neccessary to endure a wrongful suspension before being able to complain about it. you know, since there's nothing to be given in recompense.
and since certain admins have more obvious interpretations that others for obvious.
Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.
Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by AdminPD, posted 01-09-2008 5:43 AM AdminPD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by AdminNWR, posted 01-09-2008 10:33 AM macaroniandcheese has not replied

AdminNWR
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 134 (447451)
01-09-2008 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by macaroniandcheese
01-09-2008 10:06 AM


Re: admin buz
i would think that it might be neccessary to permit posting in this thread during a suspension.
A suspended member can send an email to an admin, asking that it be posted on their behalf. Several of the admins make their email address accessible.
Of course, the admin would use his/her judgement on whether to post the email content. But if it is a reasoned argument and not an inflammatory reaction, it would likely be posted.
Note: I am not opposed to your idea of allowing suspended members to post in this thread, but that would probably require changes to the site software, so might not be easy to implement.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by macaroniandcheese, posted 01-09-2008 10:06 AM macaroniandcheese has not replied

anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 58 of 134 (448586)
01-14-2008 4:48 AM


So What's Wrong With Sustained Irony?
I disagree with Adminnemooseus concerning the closing of the thread Message 24. Not so much because the thread was closed but rather the reasons behind such actions.
Adminnemooseus writes:
I also suggest that Jar, in general, be much more selective in his starting of new topics. I've had thoughts that his new topics permissions should be suspended.
I believe such an attack upon the person, who however mischievously promotes, sustained irony is completely unwarranted.
Jar is only acting in the great tradition of Cervantes and Jonathan Swift in using such literary methods. Did not Cervantes humiliate the false and corrupt concept of chivalry in Don Quixote? Did not Swift humiliate the abuse of the Irish in a Modest Proposal?
Then why should jar be subject to such prudish restrictions concerning the use of sustained irony in exposing political stupidity and idiotic conspiracy theories in this forum? Do you have no respect for this historic and highly reputable method of expressing dissent?
I think it is a sad day for this forum when such a time honored expression of talent is subject to censorship.
Edited by anglagard, : caps

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
The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by molbiogirl, posted 01-14-2008 5:29 AM anglagard has not replied
 Message 61 by Admin, posted 01-14-2008 8:41 AM anglagard has not replied
 Message 62 by jar, posted 01-14-2008 12:47 PM anglagard has not replied
 Message 63 by Adminnemooseus, posted 01-14-2008 6:22 PM anglagard has not replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2642 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 59 of 134 (448588)
01-14-2008 5:29 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by anglagard
01-14-2008 4:48 AM


Re: So What's Wrong With Sustained Irony?
I think it is a sad day for this forum when such a time honored expression of talent is subject to censorship.
I agree, Angla. I see no reason that thread should have been closed. And I certainly see no reason to admonish Jar like that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by anglagard, posted 01-14-2008 4:48 AM anglagard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by cavediver, posted 01-14-2008 7:49 AM molbiogirl has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 60 of 134 (448600)
01-14-2008 7:49 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by molbiogirl
01-14-2008 5:29 AM


Re: So What's Wrong With Sustained Irony?
I think it is a sad day for this forum when such a time honored expression of talent is subject to censorship.
I agree, Angla. I see no reason that thread should have been closed. And I certainly see no reason to admonish Jar like that.
Have to agree with all this - I thought it was an excellent post, that gave me a good hour's worth of thoughtful musings, not to mention the delightful first minute of - OMG, really, no way, wow, etc, etc.
Yours, gullible Limey

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by molbiogirl, posted 01-14-2008 5:29 AM molbiogirl 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