RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >   
  Topic: Comment on Moderation, (temporary topic)< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2006,05:42   

Lots of comments here--sometimes whole threads--are on the borderline between permissible and impermissible. 99% of the time, I'm letting them ride. But I need community input if I'm to make good decisions. I'd like everyone to email me their thoughts on moderation. Do we need more, or not, what needs to be moderated, what hurts the community here, etc. If it doesn't show up below in the little blue button, my email address is stevestory@gmail.com.

In a few days I'll delete this topic.

Thanks in advance.

   
argystokes



Posts: 766
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2006,06:21   

comment redacted.  I'll read the instructions next time.

--------------
"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2006,06:46   

SteveStory

If you would, send me an email if you got my message. I'm not sure it went through.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2006,07:17   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Aug. 29 2006,12:46)
SteveStory

If you would, send me an email if you got my message. I'm not sure it went through.

check your email.

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2006,07:23   

As long as Thordaddy's gone, I'm happy with things the way they are. I've long thought that the main purpose of ATBC was to have a place where the latitude of what was 'off topic' was much much more lenient than Panda's Thumb. This place is kind of the more relaxed PT, where one can loosen one's tie and just hold forth. Many of the most entertaining topics here are total tangents.

I think if any of the people starting threads here think their topics are going too far afield, It'd be best if the moderator merely suggested that people drift back on topic. But frankly, I think it'd be a drag if there was even much of that.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1773
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2006,07:39   

I think you are hitting a good balance as is, see no reason to change anything.

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2006,08:16   

I'm happy with the way it is also.  I like the fact that it is pretty lax.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2006,08:50   

I know I don't get out much these days, but I missed the promotion of Steve to moderator. Congratulations. No moderation is the best moderation, but I suppose there have to be limits. I have made a few stupid posts in my short blogging career and the best rebuke that worked for me was a deafening silence.

(waits for deafening silence)

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2006,09:06   

You could let me moderate once in a while for fun. I'd do a bunch of neat stuff. Then you wouldn't have to take the heat but you could let your devils out for a jog now and then.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2006,09:16   

Quote (Alan Fox @ Aug. 29 2006,13:50)
I know I don't get out much these days, but I missed the promotion of Steve to moderator.

Um, so did I. Is this actually real and official? I.e., is Wes no longer moderator?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2006,09:21   

1) thanks to the five people who noticed that I asked these comments to be emailed to me.

2) Wes is still Ubermoderator.

   
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2006,10:04   

Quote
1) thanks to the five people who noticed that I asked these comments to be emailed to me.

2) Wes is still Ubermoderator.


Which means God is the Ubermoderator. So show some respect, punks.

Steve - I checked. I guess it didn't go through. I'll try again......

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2006,00:24   

Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 29 2006,14:21)
1) thanks to the five people who noticed that I asked these comments to be emailed to me.

Sorry bro, but I didn't see any reason to email.  I don't have any concerns or any reason not to just say my opinion here in public.

Edit:  I.E. I thought you wanted them on email simply for privacy sake.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2006,02:27   

No, it was because of Wesley's Board Rules.

Quote
Moderation messages not entered by the moderator are NOT appropriate on the board. Responses to moderation messages will be made via email, not on the board. Violators may be deemed "excessively annoying" at the moderators' discretion.

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2006,04:41   

If you open up a thread titled, "Comment on Moderation", I think that you've implicitly suspended that rule. Besides which, you say that the whole thread will shortly vanish. You might as well collect what feedback you can here.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2006,04:44   

Ah, I just noticed that people could read 'comment' as a verb. In my head I was using it as a noun.

   
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2006,11:50   


.
MOD'RATORS?!?! We don' need no esteenkin' mod'rators!! :)

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2006,12:06   

LOL

   
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2006,14:01   

Stevestory is just demonstrating the principle of Naskh for the lurker's benefit.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
truth machine



Posts: 33
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2006,13:01   

Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 30 2006,07:27)
No, it was because of Wesley's Board Rules.

 
Quote
Moderation messages not entered by the moderator are NOT appropriate on the board. Responses to moderation messages will be made via email, not on the board. Violators may be deemed "excessively annoying" at the moderators' discretion.

I think you misunderstand the meaning; it seems to refer to critiques of actual instances of moderation, not a discussion of moderation policy solicited by the moderator in a thread for that purpose.

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2006,13:11   

Quote
Stevestory is just demonstrating the principle of Naskh for the lurker's benefit.


huh?

do you mean that in the technical sense of "abrogation", or the more philosophical/historical sense.

if the latter, how do you figure it applies here?

or would the answer be better placed within your thread on muslim integration?

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2006,04:41   

Quote (Ichthyic @ Aug. 31 2006,18:11)
Quote
Stevestory is just demonstrating the principle of Naskh for the lurker's benefit.


huh?

do you mean that in the technical sense of "abrogation", or the more philosophical/historical sense.

if the latter, how do you figure it applies here?

or would the answer be better placed within your thread on muslim integration?

Paley just wants to show off some Arabic words he learned at Little Green Footballs. Supposed to make him look very educated and everything.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2006,07:55   

One thing I just noticed is, AtBC is a much more pleasant place these days than the comment sections of PT. Here, the people who like to tear AFDave apart do so in their own thread. The people who like to have a good laugh at Uncommonly Dense hang out in a thread. Paley has a few threads where he's given up on the science and makes loopy political claims. Jason Spaceman pops by occasionally and links to a news story. All-in-all, it's a little mean at times, but mostly pleasant. Over on PT, though, a topic about a specific item will get totally sidetracked on a shrill "You Suck" "No, You Suck" fight. Not to name any names, but there are a few people who I consistently see in these long boring fights. I can see why some PT contributors see little value in the comments there.

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2006,09:01   

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 01 2006,12:55)
One thing I just noticed is, AtBC is a much more pleasant place these days than the comment sections of PT. Here, the people who like to tear AFDave apart do so in their own thread. The people who like to have a good laugh at Uncommonly Dense hang out in a thread. Paley has a few threads where he's given up on the science and makes loopy political claims. Jason Spaceman pops by occasionally and links to a news story. All-in-all, it's a little mean at times, but mostly pleasant. Over on PT, though, a topic about a specific item will get totally sidetracked on a shrill "You Suck" "No, You Suck" fight. Not to name any names, but there are a few people who I consistently see in these long boring fights. I can see why some PT contributors see little value in the comments there.

Well put. This is basically why even tho I discovered ATBC via PT, I no longer spend much time at PT. It's no fun anymore -- there are about 2-3 alpha male types there who dominate everything and set the tone for every thread. It's booooorrrrrrrriiiiiiinnnnngggggggg...

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2006,20:36   

I thought it was just me. I just read through a thread at PT with Pim and Poppers Ghost, which illustrates Arden's and Steve's points. Not to harp on but I think it's post-Dover malaise. Some people need to realise ID is dead as a scientific argument and move on.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2006,06:31   

Quote (Alan Fox @ Sep. 02 2006,01:36)
I thought it was just me. I just read through a thread at PT with Pim and Poppers Ghost, which illustrates Arden's and Steve's points. Not to harp on but I think it's post-Dover malaise. Some people need to realise ID is dead as a scientific argument and move on.

Norm Doering is another. Between them, their chest thumping seems to drive out almost everyone except the trolls. Let's hope they don't discover ATBC anytime soon.

Speaking of whom, it would also help if they were a bit more diligent in blocking out 'Emanuel Goldstein's' dozen or so sockpuppets.

But then I suppose it would be nothing except Popper's Ghost and NormDoering bellowing at the moderators.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2006,18:17   

Quote (Alan Fox @ Sep. 02 2006,02:36)
I thought it was just me. I just read through a thread at PT with Pim and Poppers Ghost, which illustrates Arden's and Steve's points. Not to harp on but I think it's post-Dover malaise. Some people need to realise ID is dead as a scientific argument and move on.

I really have barely glanced at that long, tedious argument. But what little of it I've seen, it looks like Pim is under attack for saying that a few core pieces of ID are scientific statements, just very wrong ones. Popper seems to be saying it's entirely unscientific. Popper might be interested to know that a lot of philosophers of science don't believe pseudoscience exists. Rather, they think it is just really, really bad science which produces nothing.  In their view, it is trivially easy to make a statement scientific. It can be done with anything. Astrology. "The angle of Jupiter relative to Mars influences the buying habits of Capricorns." That's a scientific statement, they would say, because it can be tested, it can be falsified. Astrology isn't unscientific because of some demarcation criterion, it's just really really awful science because it doesn't produce anything.

I can't say I entirely agree with them, I find the designation 'pseudoscience' very useful. Even if there's no clear, perfect philisophical distinction between science and pseudoscience, for practical purposes there is.

Anyway, that aside, the discussions on PT are very often unproductive and cluttered, and it would be nice if we could think up a solution.

   
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2006,10:17   

I had to tell Poppers ghost that he had a hole in his head and his brains were leaking out. He sincerely took offence.

The first time I had even looked at PT in months and I tried to make a little point but was slightly inebriated and missed my mark some. I would have been happy to go back some but he jumped up and made an ass of himself so I had to have just a wee bit of fun at his expense.
link to thread

Unfortunately Matt Young had to stop comments over it.

I agree, civility has a place at AtBC.

Any comments on my comments at PT are welcome.
I would be tickled if someone else thought he had a hole in his head and his brains are leaking out too.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2006,11:24   

Quote (BWE @ Sep. 03 2006,15:17)
Any comments on my comments at PT are welcome.
I would be tickled if someone else thought he had a hole in his head and his brains are leaking out too.

Actually, on that particular thread I was more impressed with Norm's assholery rather than Popper's. But YMMV.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2006,12:06   

Norm did a good job too. But it was PG that really rose to the occasion for me.
Quote
Meditation and reflection are not elements of the scientific method. Let us know when you figure out what are.

Quote
Give it up, Norm; the layers of intellectual dishonesty are too thick to penetrate.
referring to folks who were not in agreement rather than folks who were being ID (intellectually dishonest)
Then, in response to my mention of the Tao of Physics:
Quote
In response to the nonsense about “The Tao of Physics”, I offer this statement from Murray Gell-mann:

Followed by a quote mine that was substance-less.

Then the doosie.
Quote
   
Quote
(BWE) Well, if that’s what they really think, then I have to agree that they are probably wrong.


Why? Can you prove it? Can you prove that I’m not the reincarnation of Marie Antoinette? I remember the terror of having the blade fall, but it was such a shock to my psyche that everything that preceded that is rather hazy. I was then reincarnated as Karl Popper, who died, and I am now his disembodied spirit, occupying the body of some poor geek and making him type these messages. Can you prove otherwise?

Catholicism too is willing to change if science (or rather, the empirical observation that science makes possible) proves it wrong. The Bible is truly the word of God, but only “symbolically”; it was written by real men inspired by God. The Eucharist is really and truly the body and blood of Christ, despite lacking his DNA. Mary was immaculately conceived, though she had flesh-and-blood parents, and then gave birth to Jesus without the involvement of a biological father – hey, science can’t prove otherwise. Jesus died, then was resurrected – hey, science can’t prove otherwise. Despite a fairly strong historical case that no such person as Jesus existed, it’s not a proof. If it were possible to build a machine that could view the past, it would at first be resisted, perhaps by arguing that it viewed an alternate universe, but if all the observations exactly coincided with historical records, yet there were no observations of Jesus, he would likely be recast the Catholic church – or perhaps the New Modern Catholic Church – as allegorical: the ideal human that God wants us to aspire to.

Science can’t prove that humans never rode on the backs of dinosaurs, and it can’t prove that the flagellum evolved. But science isn’t in the business of proof, only inference to the best explanation. Religion, including Buddhism with its dharma, are based on a different epistemological principle – authoritative assertion, aka dogma, aka “revealed truth”. But everyone, of any religion or no religion, uses the same epistemological principle as that of science – though less rigorously – in everyday life to determine whether it’s true, say, that their spouse is cheating on them, that the pedestrian is going to step off the curb into their path, that they have time to run a quick errand before the kids get home, etc. I think everyone knows down deep that authoritative assertion is not a reliable source of truth.


once again, missing the point or even possibly getting the point but being assholish about replying.

So I replied with my next 2 posts:
Quote
Wow, blood in the water? I make too many assumptions. Ha, If you only knew. You might even be shocked and offended.

Main Entry: prob·a·bly
Pronunciation: ‘prä-b&-blE, ‘prä(b)-blE
Function: adverb
: insofar as seems reasonably true, factual, or to be expected : without much doubt is probably happy> it will probably rain>

What school did you say you were just starting at?

I know one thing for absolute certain fact but it’s a secret that I only tell my friends.

You also have a hole in your head that your brains are leaking out of.

Cheerio!
-------------------------------------------------
Comment #124947

Posted by BWE on September 1, 2006 12:55 AM (e)

STJ,
Hmmm. To me it seems like scientifically testing for “Happy”. I was being exceptionally general and it was a misstatment. I tried to clarify but, as I noted above, I failed. Well, no harm there I hope. I may be simply off my nut. That’s OK with me. I am in many other ways too. ID makes claims of fact. As far as I know, zen does not. Admitted, I am a bit hedonistic to be a monk or even to make a claim to be really living the whole practice, but things being what they are is pretty much ok with me.

In the interest of my deep caring for Norm and popper’s immortal souls, I do feel that I should use the whole quote rather than just the tail end.

  <quote> Er… Since I am grossly oversimplifying anyway, buddism uses the scientific method to explore consciousness through meditation and reflection. More to the point, the 2 are on the same path.</quote>

And then went on unsuccessfully to try to explain myself in that it is an open minded process that other’s who understand it can analyze your experience. It is not scientific. It was an abjectly failed analogy.

I am glad that you all are so gracious in helping me walk the straight and narrow.


to which pg replied:
Quote
Comment #124950

Posted by Popper's ghost on September 1, 2006 12:59 AM (e)

BWE, I can’t make much sense of your drivel, but it seems personnally directed and offensive. That you give me a definition of “probable” suggests that you didn’t read my post or didn’t comprehend what I wrote about inference to the best explanation.
To which I replied "Seems?"
And the rest of the thread excersized the SLoT.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2006,14:48   

Quote
Popper might be interested to know that a lot of philosophers of science don't believe pseudoscience exists. Rather, they think it is just really, really bad science which produces nothing.
You get the problems then of things like string theory and evolutionary psychology.

Quote
Even if there's no clear, perfect philisophical distinction between science and pseudoscience, for practical purposes there is.
I agree, whats also useful I find is the distinction between pseudoscience and protoscience. If the only exposure to ID I had was Telic Thoughts for example, I would consider classifying it as protoscience. Their claim seems to be that ID is not yet science, and it is they who need to come up with theories, test predictions etc. When I have suggested this over at UD I have been told that it is bollocks (their word not mine), and ID has infact been scientifically proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, and only the atheist conspiracy says otherwise. When confronted with this you tend to classify it as a pseudoscience, so i think the label is useful and means something other than just makes unproven claims.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2006,17:51   

There may never be a clearcut demarcation criterion to tell when what you are considering is science.

However, any attempt that puts "ID" as it has been pitched so far by the DI (and that means the whole ensemble of what they've said, not picking and choosing what bits to push and which to ignore) into the "science" bin is clearly hosed and should be discarded.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
  31 replies since Aug. 29 2006,05:42 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]