JAK wrote:More important than number of posts is full disclosure of who is a “moderator.”
That information should appear every time a moderator posts in any thread so all understand who has the power to delete, move, move back, or whatever a moderator subjectively can do. We only know who is a moderator by accident of discovery. Pictures and labels may be cute, but they are irrelevant to the power to terminate discussion if a “moderator” or a committee of moderators caucus to entirely “derail” a discussion by termination
There is a moderator link on every forum here that lists the moderators.
Go to the Forum Index and scan down each forum heading. You'll see that a moderator link is available on each one.
It says moderators. Clicking on "moderators" give nothing. I am open to be shown just how that works.
In any case, the moderator are not clearly revealed if you have to hunt them up.
+++
I have found the little word at the top. I accept your point that one can find moderators. It's not made obvious.
JAK
It's a link that appears when you view the Forum Index as well as each forum when you open it. What would you suggest in the way of improvement?
I suggest that right below the number of posts or in that location, a person who is a moderator should be identified as moderator.
A person who has few posts to this forum would not know who can take him/her out in a flash.
I also think any post which is a personal attack by name, by name calling, by insult should be removed in its entirety.
JAK
Shades,
Can we do that? I'm assuming that if it can be done, admin has to do it.
Jersey Girl
If this forum can automate the number of posts and when someone joined, if can have pictures for posters, if it can give posters rank such as “God,” it can automate the word moderator.
There is no reason you or any other moderator should have to type that in every post.
liz3564 wrote:I was actually able to add it to my Profile under Location.
Good suggestion, JAK!
If that's it, it doesn't make it clear that you're a mod. Let me give it a whirl too and see how it goes.
Edit: I'll leave it that way for a bit. It doesn't show up well.
Liz, I see that you tried to bold it. I assume we can't color code it either. I bet Shades or Keene can do something with it. Maybe add another line under the "location" where it would say "Moderator" in green (as the front page is coded) or red (as we indicated mod comments in our posts).
Last edited by Google Feedfetcher on Fri Apr 04, 2008 3:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
They discuss NO issue, no topic, and are quite irrelevant to the stated topic at the beginning of this thread.
It is precisely this kind of post which should be deleted.
If these posts stand in the “Celestial” group as do many other such posts which are personal attack by name entirely off topic of discussion on board management or a possible new kind of thread, moderation is a farce.
liz3564 wrote:I was actually able to add it to my Profile under Location.
Good suggestion, JAK!
If that's it, it doesn't make it clear that you're a mod. Let me give it a whirl too and see how it goes.
Edit: I'll leave it that way for a bit. It doesn't show up well.
Liz, I see that you tried to bold it. I assume we can't color code it either. I bet Shades or Keene can do something with it. Maybe add another line under the "location" where it would say "Moderator" in green (as the front page is coded) or red (as we indicated mod comments in our posts).
It shows up fine, but the word “Location” before it should be Status or nothing.
They discuss NO issue, no topic, and are quite irrelevant to the stated topic at the beginning of this thread.
It is precisely this kind of post which should be deleted.
If these posts stand in the “Celestial” group as do many other such posts which are personal attack by name entirely off topic of discussion on board management or a possible new kind of thread, moderation is a farce.
JAK
Yes, I would characterize them as personal attack.
They discuss NO issue, no topic, and are quite irrelevant to the stated topic at the beginning of this thread.
It is precisely this kind of post which should be deleted.
If these posts stand in the “Celestial” group as do many other such posts which are personal attack by name entirely off topic of discussion on board management or a possible new kind of thread, moderation is a farce.
JAK
Yes, I would characterize them as personal attack.
We know they are personal attacks. But should they be allowed to stay in the Celestial in your opinion? Is it possible to have a zero tolerance for personal attack posts in a particular level of forum and remove just the post (containing attacks)in its entirety from the thread. If this is possible do you think it is not worthwhile to implement or is worthwhile?
JAK has recently lied about me on two occassions and has been proved wrong on both counts. He has done this in the celestial forum of all places. It is not "ad hominem" to draw everyone's attention to this. When asked to retract or apologize, he tucks his tail firmly between his legs and then heads for the hills, only to return a few days later with the same stock posts about how religion ruins the world, yaddie yaddie ya. He knows no other tune to sing. I bring these incidents up because he should not be allowed to lie like he does. He should not be allowed to invade the celestial forum with lies and misrepresentation, but he does anyway.
Nobody seems to be willing to make sure these kinds of things are not in celestial. It isn't a "subjective judgment" in saying he lied. It is a proved fact. When someone blatantly tells lies unrepentantly, then their method, reputation and even their character should be in question and they should not be given the benefit of the doubt until they retract or apologize.
The reason he is complaining now is because he knows that if this rule is going to have an effect on anyone, it will be him. He lives off the threads of others, constantly invading them and littering them with the same anti-religion posts. He knows that his fun will be over.
Further, marg defines so many things as ad hominems when they are simply observations about JAK's misrepresentations, his disreputable sources and his fallacious method. These observations are important because he wastes so much of our time with long-winded nonsensical diatribes that he cuts and pastes from these silly websites. Oftentimes his posts consist of nothing more than a list of hyperlinks to every kind of anti-Bible or anti-religion website you can imagine. That isn't discussion.... is it?
I don't see anything wrong with me calling JAK to the carpet if what I say is true. If it isn't true, then let's discuss it and find out. If it turns out I am wrong, then reprimand me if I do not retract and apologize. JAK and marg both know what I say is true, which is why they want all comments to that effect "deleted" by claiming they are ad hominems. But I did the same thing at MAD when I called LDS scholars to the carpet. Funny how I didn't get accused of "ad hominem" from anyone here until I start doing it here.
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein
They discuss NO issue, no topic, and are quite irrelevant to the stated topic at the beginning of this thread.
It is precisely this kind of post which should be deleted.
If these posts stand in the “Celestial” group as do many other such posts which are personal attack by name entirely off topic of discussion on board management or a possible new kind of thread, moderation is a farce.
JAK
Yes, I would characterize them as personal attack.
We know they are personal attacks. But should they be allowed to stay in the Celestial in your opinion? Is it possible to have a zero tolerance for personal attack posts in a particular level of forum and remove just the post (containing attacks)in its entirety from the thread. If this is possible do you think it is not worthwhile to implement or is worthwhile?
Should those two specific posts stay in the Celestial? No, I would "move" them not "delete" them. The problem with other posts, as we discussed at length previously, is when personal attack is embedded in a topical post and making the call.
Having thought about this though (and discussed it) at length I, personally, would now jettison them all out of the thread put a moderator comment on them and call it a day.
Yes, I think it's both do-able and worthwhile.
I also think that posters need to be reporting instances of personal attack to moderators via PM's and not just identifying them on the thread.