Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,133 Year: 5,390/9,624 Month: 415/323 Week: 55/204 Day: 31/24 Hour: 3/5


Thread  Details

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


Message 3 of 302 (287000)
02-15-2006 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by SuperNintendo Chalmers
02-15-2006 3:04 PM


Re: no more funny links
I added the relevant link to the previous message. I then ended up adding further comments on the matter. Perhaps these further comments should have been in this message, but instead I'll flag them via this message.
Adminnemooseus
{Edited to yet once again change ID.}
This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 02-15-2006 03:18 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 02-15-2006 3:04 PM SuperNintendo Chalmers has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Inactive Administrator


Message 45 of 302 (299880)
03-31-2006 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by kjsimons
03-31-2006 4:37 PM


Re: Randman rises again!
AdminChristian didn't mention such, but there was a fair amount of discussion on the matter, in the Private Administration Forum (PAF).
Members of the creationism side can be under a lot of pressure here at . There are a lot more of the evolution side, and they do pile on. It's understandable, if not totally excusable, that the "piled on" might sometimes react badly to it all. Especially if one or more members of the evo side is contributing their own variety of abrasiveness.
I would suggest to those of the creationist side, that they choose there battles carefully, and not try to respond to every evo challage in every topic.
The Randman perspective is part of one side of the debate. It may or may not be a quality part, but it still is part.
Moderation efforts can be tough and messy. My personal impression is that Randman deserved the suspension, but it is OK for him to come back. Probably there will be more suspensions and comeback in the future.
By the way, even now the PAF discussion on the matter continues.
Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by kjsimons, posted 03-31-2006 4:37 PM kjsimons has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Inactive Administrator


Message 161 of 302 (304533)
04-16-2006 1:44 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by crashfrog
04-16-2006 1:09 AM


The "Great Debate" indicators are pretty obvious
Re: http://EvC Forum: How do we know about natural selection? (Igor and Lithodid-Man only) -->EvC Forum: How do we know about natural selection? (Igor and Lithodid-Man only)
Topic title: How do we know about natural selection? (Igor and Lithodid-Man only)
Crashfrog's message at that topic
Isn't the "(Igor and Lithodid-Man only)" part a pretty good clue that you shouldn't be posting there, even if you somehow don't notice the "The Great Debate" at the All Topic page? Sheesh, open your eyes.
Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by crashfrog, posted 04-16-2006 1:09 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Faith, posted 04-16-2006 2:21 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied
 Message 163 by crashfrog, posted 04-16-2006 10:26 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied
 Message 166 by nwr, posted 04-18-2006 9:06 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied
 Message 168 by rgb, posted 04-19-2006 1:23 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied
 Message 169 by purpledawn, posted 04-19-2006 10:35 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Inactive Administrator


Message 193 of 302 (308486)
05-02-2006 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by RAZD
05-02-2006 7:29 AM


Re: Age Correlations Step by Step
It is not a "Coffee House" type topic.
It is a "Dates and Dating" type topic.
I say it stays where it is.
Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by RAZD, posted 05-02-2006 7:29 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by RAZD, posted 05-02-2006 1:00 PM Adminnemooseus has replied

Adminnemooseus
Inactive Administrator


Message 195 of 302 (308513)
05-02-2006 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by RAZD
05-02-2006 1:00 PM


Re: Age Correlations Step by Step
First of all, I'll point out (as being discussed in the "Private Administration Forum") that "relative" is apparently another incarnation of "simple", who is currently of "full suspension" status. Thus his very presence here is highly problimatic. Do you want to do a "Great Debate" with "simple"?
Is the topic in questions some sort of "creation with apparent age" sort of thing? If so, perhaps the topic belongs in one of the "Social and Religious Issues" forums.
Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by RAZD, posted 05-02-2006 1:00 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by RAZD, posted 05-02-2006 5:41 PM Adminnemooseus has replied
 Message 205 by RAZD, posted 05-04-2006 9:45 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Inactive Administrator


Message 197 of 302 (308584)
05-02-2006 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by RAZD
05-02-2006 5:41 PM


Re: Age Correlations Step by Step
I've just rebumped the YEC Age of Earth question (false appearance of age?) topic. That topic would seem to fit the needs.
I'll also quote something from my message 195 of this topic:
First of all, I'll point out (as being discussed in the "Private Administration Forum") that "relative" is apparently another incarnation of "simple", who is currently of "full suspension" status. Thus his very presence here is highly problimatic.
You are trying to debate something with one of 's problem members.
Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by RAZD, posted 05-02-2006 5:41 PM RAZD has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Inactive Administrator


Message 209 of 302 (309397)
05-05-2006 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by iano
05-03-2006 6:25 PM


Re: The " Intelligent Design Class to be taught at Cornell University" topic closure
My impression is that the topic is a disaster area. Certainly, the quality or lack there of, of my message 1 may be a primary cause of such.
The topic could have gone into the "In The News" forum, but I deliberately avoided such because I really don't like the existance of that forum. I was about to change my topic destination suggestion from "Intelligent Design" to "Education and Creation/Evolution", but the topic was already promoted.
As I envisioned the topic, it was one of a class happening at a (Ivy league no less) college. I guess I also envisioned it as being a topic of very limited discussion potential, but I did think the situation did meret a mention. What I didn't want, was for it to turn into a general purpose ID debate topic, which is what (IMO) happened.
Via the lack of participation in the topic by either the non-admin or admin modes, the topic got way out of hand. Thus I ended up killing it at a later than desirable stage.
Possible solutions:
1) One of the other admins can reopen the topic, if they think it is justified.
2) An importent theme can be pulled from the topic, to be used as a message 1 of a new Proposed New Topic.
3) We can just let the whole thing stop where it currently is.
Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by iano, posted 05-03-2006 6:25 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by iano, posted 05-05-2006 3:13 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Inactive Administrator


Message 213 of 302 (309694)
05-06-2006 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by DrJones*
05-06-2006 2:25 AM


Re: Simple/relative
I, at least for now, would prefer to not discuss the details of this situation, other than in the "Private Administration Forum". I suspect the other admins feel the same.
Right now, the membership should be aware that to debate with Simple/Relative is to debate with someone who has a substantial history of being a forum problem. If you now find Simple/Relative to be a problem, then just don't get involved with debating him.
Or something like that.
Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by DrJones*, posted 05-06-2006 2:25 AM DrJones* has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by RAZD, posted 05-06-2006 2:57 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Inactive Administrator


Message 221 of 302 (311082)
05-11-2006 4:39 PM


brianforbes IS NOT another incarnation of simple
There has been some discussion (here and up thread) that member brianforbes is another incarnation of member simple. After investigations by our crack "tracking simple" staff, it has been concluded that there is stong evidence to support that such is not the case.
Despite whatever posting style simularities that may exist, the conclusion is that brianforbes IS NOT simple.
This message should conclude any discussion of that matter.
Adminnemooseus

Adminnemooseus
Inactive Administrator


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

Adminnemooseus
Inactive Administrator


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

Adminnemooseus
Inactive Administrator


Message 302 of 302 (320537)
06-11-2006 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 300 by iano
06-11-2006 2:12 PM


Re: Calling Percy: PEH petition thread closed:
I'm not Percy/Admin, but I am the next longest term admin at .
I agree with AdminJar's reasons for closing the topic in question.
I also agree with Crashfrog's comments of message 301.
My impression is that you are now being nothing much more than a royal pain in the ass. Drop it and get over it. Everyone else also drop it.
This part 6 of the "General discussion of moderation procedures" has passed 300 messages and will now be closed. The new next version is General discussion of moderation procedures - Part 7.
The various admins need to update their "signatures" yet again.
Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 300 by iano, posted 06-11-2006 2:12 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
https://evcforum.net/dm.php?control=page&t=12871&mlist=on&mbrid=473&p=1
evcforum.net
CC-MAIN-2024-30
171087
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:KIBLUWOQD553M3CZ2YQL2ZB2JJI3JSDE
<urn:uuid:718a2a8f-74dc-4afe-9fa0-336338915b9c>
2024-07-16T00:44:38Z
66.148.122.44
text/html
sha1:6NT4IZJHQ6FII3IQDZNCYE5FG3HDATU7
<urn:uuid:03d54d82-159b-4295-b543-a85167d9042f>
https://evcforum.net/dm.php?control=page&t=12871&mlist=on&mbrid=473&p=1
response
<urn:uuid:95470678-1dde-4775-ad11-d8647304d1c9>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2024-30
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for July 2024
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-32
software: Apache Nutch 1.20 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.5-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: https://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/