Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Should administrators be neutral?
CanadianSteve
Member (Idle past 6473 days)
Posts: 756
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 1 of 23 (233876)
08-16-2005 10:17 PM


In asking whether administrators of any one forum should be neutral, i don't actually mean they shouldn't post their own opinions. But they should be neutral in the sense that they respect all opinions, especially those that conflcit with their own. That is, they should not take advantage of their position to cast aspersions and maintain biases. While there was at least one other example on a forum i suggested, Does Islam need a reformation?, which just closed, the final comment of the admin is another. Here it is:
"Witching Hour
Allah be praised. Closing this sucker down."
The Admin made it clear in an earlier post that he never thought this forum should have been accepted and that he considered it innately racist. His final comment should be understood in that context. Interestingly, his opinion never changed, despite that the work of many respected Muslim writers and scholars was referenced and quoted.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Faith, posted 08-16-2005 10:22 PM CanadianSteve has not replied
 Message 3 by AdminJar, posted 08-16-2005 10:24 PM CanadianSteve has replied
 Message 6 by Monk, posted 08-16-2005 10:41 PM CanadianSteve has not replied
 Message 15 by wj, posted 08-17-2005 2:26 AM CanadianSteve has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 2 of 23 (233878)
08-16-2005 10:22 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by CanadianSteve
08-16-2005 10:17 PM


I could quote others by the same admin. There's really only one admin offender along these lines.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by CanadianSteve, posted 08-16-2005 10:17 PM CanadianSteve has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by deerbreh, posted 08-24-2005 12:13 PM Faith has replied

  
AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 23 (233880)
08-16-2005 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by CanadianSteve
08-16-2005 10:17 PM


Witching hour
The thread was closed because it reached the 300 post mark. It had nothing to do with the content. You were given complete freedom to post your assertions. The closure was standard procedure and had nothing to do with the content of the thread.

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
Message 1
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by CanadianSteve, posted 08-16-2005 10:17 PM CanadianSteve has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by CanadianSteve, posted 08-16-2005 10:27 PM AdminJar has replied

  
CanadianSteve
Member (Idle past 6473 days)
Posts: 756
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 4 of 23 (233884)
08-16-2005 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by AdminJar
08-16-2005 10:24 PM


Re: Witching hour
In no way was i suggesting that the forum was closed because of bias. I was only referencing what i consider to be innapropriate behaviour on the part of an administrator.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by AdminJar, posted 08-16-2005 10:24 PM AdminJar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by AdminJar, posted 08-16-2005 10:29 PM CanadianSteve has not replied

  
AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 23 (233885)
08-16-2005 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by CanadianSteve
08-16-2005 10:27 PM


Re: Witching hour
Okay.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by CanadianSteve, posted 08-16-2005 10:27 PM CanadianSteve has not replied

  
Monk
Member (Idle past 3924 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 6 of 23 (233887)
08-16-2005 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by CanadianSteve
08-16-2005 10:17 PM


I agree. I never like it when admins post bias or sarcasm while operating in admin mode. Admins should be neutral and limit snide remarks to their non Admin persona.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by CanadianSteve, posted 08-16-2005 10:17 PM CanadianSteve has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by jar, posted 08-16-2005 10:47 PM Monk has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 7 of 23 (233888)
08-16-2005 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Monk
08-16-2005 10:41 PM


I'm just curious. What do you find biased, snide or sarcasm? If I had said Thank God, how would that have been different?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Monk, posted 08-16-2005 10:41 PM Monk has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by CanadianSteve, posted 08-16-2005 10:55 PM jar has replied

  
CanadianSteve
Member (Idle past 6473 days)
Posts: 756
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 8 of 23 (233889)
08-16-2005 10:55 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by jar
08-16-2005 10:47 PM


It indicated pleasure and relief that a forum you disliked had reached 300 posts and would be closed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by jar, posted 08-16-2005 10:47 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by jar, posted 08-16-2005 11:04 PM CanadianSteve has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 9 of 23 (233891)
08-16-2005 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by CanadianSteve
08-16-2005 10:55 PM


And you base that on exactly what? That I said "Witching Hour Allah be praised. Closing this sucker down."? Boy, if that ruffles your feathers, I apologize. I thought it was a rather nice way to end a discussion on Islam.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by CanadianSteve, posted 08-16-2005 10:55 PM CanadianSteve has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by CanadianSteve, posted 08-16-2005 11:10 PM jar has not replied
 Message 11 by Faith, posted 08-16-2005 11:12 PM jar has not replied

  
CanadianSteve
Member (Idle past 6473 days)
Posts: 756
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 10 of 23 (233893)
08-16-2005 11:10 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by jar
08-16-2005 11:04 PM


If I misread your intent, i apologize. But, in light of your initial rejection of this topic, in light of your opposition to it being accepted anyhow, and in light of a post or two of yours expressing disdain for it and any information I presented and opinions i expressed (i could look it up for the specifics, if necessary), I'm not convinced I misread you. But I'll leave that door ajar (no pun intended).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by jar, posted 08-16-2005 11:04 PM jar has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 11 of 23 (233894)
08-16-2005 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by jar
08-16-2005 11:04 PM


You are being disingenuous again, typically evasive. You fought that thread like nothing I've ever seen here before. You often let threads go some way past 300 but there you were ready to pounce at 299, making your own sarcastic post #300. You recently posted an admin warning note to Eltonian James on another thread in which you pronounced his post factually wrong. Well, that's the very matter that was under debate. You can't rightfully just pronounce him wrong in admin mode. You also closed a thread I had posted on with a sarcastic put down of my beliefs along the lines you'd normally express in nonadmin mode. YOu get away with this a lot here. I'm glad Canadian Steve is bringing it up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by jar, posted 08-16-2005 11:04 PM jar has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 12 of 23 (233898)
08-16-2005 11:28 PM


I'm a big fan of yours, Jar, and I respect you a lot and am proud to number you among science's defenders, but I gotta side with CS and Faith on this one. (With no reluctance on my part; when someone is right, they're right and there should be no shame in pointing that out.)
Consider it, perhaps, part of the principle that we have to hold the evolution side to higher standards because of the shortcomings of creationism. It's unfortunate but we're big enough, right enough, to deal with it. (And hey, we all want creationists here to debate with, so we let them get away with a little more to accomplish that. Unfortunate but necessary.)
It's not just you, I think CS and Faith are wrong to single you out in this regard, but I too would like to see a lot more detachment from the moderators. I think it's bad enough when admins post as both moderator and participant in the same thread; sometimes one post right after another. And the occasional "oops didn't mean to post that as a mod" doesn't help either.
The humorous fiction that a person's role as mod and participant constitute separate "personas", and that's somehow a guarantee against abuse, strikes me as glib and insulting to the intellect of someone who might very well have a legitimate complaint of bias or abuse. It started out as a joke, I believe, but it's increasingly bandied about as though it's a legitimate response to an accusation of mod power abuse.
Mods posting as their regular usernames already enjoy an increased level of cachet and authority bestowed on their posts and positions. Even more so when they appear, no matter how subtlely, to favor one position over another in offical moderator posts.
I don't believe that any mod is abusing their power and position on purpose. But I call for mods to hold themselves to a very high standard of conduct and not be lax about drawing the line between participation in a debate and as a referee of conduct. And I say this as someone who has been, and absolutely supports having been, singled out and made an example of in an effort to hold evolutionists to tighter standards. It's bad enough that we allow the same person to be both referee and player in the same "game". Admins shouldn't be making it look even worse by allowing even the suggestion of favoritism to creep into their posts.

  
AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 2303 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 13 of 23 (233900)
08-16-2005 11:43 PM


As a moderator I think that I try very hard to be fair and unbiased. I admit that it is difficult at times to keep my personal thoughts out of my moderation posts.
The mods here do not hide their personal feelings and the views of the mods have been discussed on various threads over the years.
I suggest that anyone wondering about the moderation here go to the Members button above and do a search by "username" with Admin as the search criteria. Here you will find the 19 members that have ever held a mod position here (AdminMike was a joke that backfired on a member, and the last name was a troll thinking he was a big shot).
Now, please look at the number of posts listed for each of these mods. What do you think can be said about the majority of mods with less than 40 posts?
Now comes the commercial.
I strongly suggest that members* who have a problem with the moderation on this site step up to the plate.

Want to be a mod?
Think you can do better then the current crop?
Send me an email at asgara@gmail.com.
Tell me in no more than 3 paragraphs why you think you should be considered for the job.

All applicants will be considered equally. Any belief system encouraged to apply.
*edited to change the word creationist to member. The original sentence was heading in a different direction and the word member better fits where I ended up going with that particular sentence - the Queen
This message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 08-16-2005 10:47 PM

AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe

http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by CanadianSteve, posted 08-17-2005 12:29 AM AdminAsgara has not replied

  
CanadianSteve
Member (Idle past 6473 days)
Posts: 756
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 14 of 23 (233915)
08-17-2005 12:29 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by AdminAsgara
08-16-2005 11:43 PM


Actually, I think it's good that mods state their opinions, and clearly at that. As you or, maybe, Crashfrog implied, biases are inevitable and a pretense of objectivity is kind of deceiptful, and purposeless anyhow. The important thing is not to control the thread with those opinions. Authority should only be exercised to ensure decorum and that forum rules are abided.
Incidentally, and as an aside - to help other understand me - I believe in evolution, for sure. Debates on the subject are not of interest to me, though, so i don't participate in them. Faith and I, obviously, share conservative philosophies, a conservative outlook, a great respect for Judaism and Christianity, and a perspective on the evolution (couldn't resist) of western civilization. We share concerns about blatant sexuality lowering the tenor of society, and emotionally and psychologically injuring children developmentally (well, given my career as a child therapist, maybe the latter is more mine). And we share a concern that our civilization, in an effort to be fair and nice and tolerant, is losing a sense of itself, a sense of boundaries, a sense of what is innately meaningful.
But, we have very different attitudes about faith and its practise, something about which we've debated in disagreement at another forum, several times - and which we don't discuss in our occassional private email dialogue..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by AdminAsgara, posted 08-16-2005 11:43 PM AdminAsgara has not replied

  
wj
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 23 (233921)
08-17-2005 2:26 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by CanadianSteve
08-16-2005 10:17 PM


Give us a break. Can't a moderator have a little fun? A humourous comment being made at the end of a thread is some sort of bias? Get real. That action did not prevent a continuation of the thread being proposed by anyone interested in continuing the topic further. There was no complaint of the moderator censoring a participant or those of a particular view. If you want to experience bias and unethical moderation, go to any number of creationist administered boards.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by CanadianSteve, posted 08-16-2005 10:17 PM CanadianSteve has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by AdminNosy, posted 08-17-2005 2:38 AM wj has not replied
 Message 18 by CanadianSteve, posted 08-17-2005 10:07 AM wj has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024