Before I joined this site I have always been a lurker that fell in love with how posters here provided valuable data on African history and African bio-anthropology. However, we can all agree that the lack of moderating here has left this site especially this section of Egyptology in a decaying state. Punos_Rey has made me mod of the Egyptology section because he alone can not tackle all of Egyptsearch and will need help. I never envisioned myself being mod of this site but here we are. But anyways enough of me rambling on.
My goal for the Egyptology section is to make it great again. My ultimate goal with getting it out of its decaying state and on the level that it can rival other bio-anthropological forums. I want it to be a section where serious African(or non-African) history and bio-anthropology discussions are discussed and only that. I know some of you maybe hesitant to support me as a new mod being that I am a recent member and not a vet. And I completely understand that. But I want to say(like I said before) that I am a mod on another, but also compared to the other mods I am the most less strict and friendly mod on that site(sometimes TOO much). So I want to ease whatever skepticism anyone has about my modship.
Moving on and I want to address this because it is IMPORTANT. As mod I promise that there will be NO repeat NO personal vendattas against other members by me. I know I have gotten into some heated debates against some of you but that is where it ends. Again there will be no personal targets. And if that does occur please report me to Punos Rey. I don't care if you are a moderate, Afrocentric, Eurocentric, Asiancentric or Aliencentric there will be no personal attacks.
1. Like I said this section is only for serious African/non-African History and Bio-Anthropological discussions only! Any discussions that do not fit this bill will be moved to the other section. What I mean by "serious" is no off-topic, pseudo-historic/scientific, alternative history, political, trolling,etc,etc topics.
So before you guys create a topic please at least make it fit the theme of this section.
2. I know discussions can get heated, but I prefer there to be civil discussions with no insults. I'm very laid back(even on the other site) and will allow many to get away with it. However, if it gets out of control to the point of the topic going nowhere then I will be forced to lock the thread. Which I do not want to do.
3. If you have any problems, wanna report something, etc then please PM me. I will make sure that my PM box is not always full. Also, I want to say that if you guys hardly see me on here do not get worked up or hesitate to PM me... It just means I am busy with work or college but that does not mean I won't be lurking this forum. More importantly when you send me a PM here I also get the PM through my Gmail account which I ALWAYS check. So again do not be hesitant to PM me if you see my activity here has gotten low.
4. But going to back to point 3 and I wanna make this rule CLEAR. Reporting members due to personal vendettas will NOT repeat will NOT be tolerated
5. Images that are large to the point of making topics inactive will be changed to link form. Please try not to post incredibly images that make the topic hard for people to read and post.
6. People I see spamming threads(large images/large texts) for the purpose of ruining said thread, I will make SURE that same person gets banned and quickly. This is a rule that I will enforce thoroughly. This is because I view Egyptsearch as a library and many people even lurkers like reading through the discussions here. And I know many people who say they are lurkers and just like the read the threads here. People who spam threads to ruin them take that quality charm about Egyptsearch away. So you all may want to read this rule, because it is my strictest one yet.
7. After reviewing this rule with posters who vouched for it, I am finally adding rule #7. This rule is not only to get discussions/debates circulating more, but more importantly to flush out the trolling and spamming. If you are posting any content/material please at commentary of some sort especially if you are replying to someone. Otherwise, it will be seen as trolling/spamming. As for making threads, this is also important. Don't just make a thread with no commentary we want to know YOUR THOUGHTS on it, otherwise the thread will go nowhere and it will just be taking up space.
Anyways, those are the rules for now. And if you guys have any suggestions then please let me know. I hope we all can change this forum around.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
coup-de-tait(sp). No thesaurus close by
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: coup-de-tait(sp). No thesaurus close by
Please list any negatives you may have against me as mod.
Admin Note: xyyman can contact me directly if he has issues with your modship, not your personality.
[ 02. June 2017, 04:20 PM: Message edited by: Punos_Rey ]
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
Props...BBH, The Forum is in good hands!
BTW, could we get moderation on racist content, both anti-Black and Anti-White racism. People calling white folks devils and albinos should get the same treatment as those calling blacks primitive etc.
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Props...BBH, The Forum is in good hands!
BTW, could we get moderation on racist content, both anti-Black and Anti-White racism. People calling white folks devils and albinos should get the same treatment as those calling blacks primitive etc.
Thanks. And yeah, while I did say that ALL views are accepted(Afrocentricism, Eurocentricism,etc), however that does not mean racial slurs are tolerated.
Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
Piggy backing off of BBH's post...I will be posting a pinned list of forum rules across the different sections. He's covered a lot of ground though. I won't be interfering with his moderation unless actual issues related to his modship arise.
Carry on
Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
Congrats to you Punos Rey, though I havent gotten to know you as well I see the forum in Good hands with you as well...
Admin: Thanks, Jari
[ 02. June 2017, 10:25 PM: Message edited by: Punos_Rey ]
Posted by HabariTess (Member # 19629) on :
As a lurker who just enjoys reading the serious discussions on this site, thank you! I think Egyptsearch can not only gain back their glory days, but become even better than before.
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
quote:Originally posted by HabariTess: As a lurker who just enjoys reading the serious discussions on this site, thank you! I think Egyptsearch can not only gain back their glory days, but become even better than before.
I hope for that.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
I'm not really in a position to comment on this site's internal affairs as I'm posting here merely as a 'guest'. (Can't exactly say I'm like minded).
But I wish you guy good luck with taking this site where you (and the members) want to take it.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: (Can't exactly say I'm like minded).
please explain
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
See the three recent Abusir mummy threads. Especially the last one was very informative. I can't say I'm like minded with most people here. But this thread is not about me so let's keep it about BBH and his new status as mod.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: See the three recent Abusir mummy threads. Especially the last one was very informative. I can't say I'm like minded with most people here. But this thread is not about me so let's keep it about BBH and his new status as mod.
I would hope that the forum is not about shaping it toward a particular viewpoint but instead a diversity opinion, all "centrics" and others permitted as long as they don't get derogatory with the slurs etc Obviously a certain amount of debate generates interest
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
I hope this is not a new version of you we're getting now that you're a mod. Just because you're a mod, you don't have to be kumbaya and pretend that all opinions are equally valid as long as they're friendly.
BTW, did you read BBH's rule 1 of this subforum? I see nothing about "all viewpoints are equally valid as long as they're friendly".
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: I hope this is not a new version of you we're getting now that you're a mod. Just because you're a mod, you don't have to be kumbaya and pretend that all opinions are equally valid as long as they're friendly.
BTW, did you read BBH's rule 1 of this subforum? I see nothing about "all viewpoints are equally valid as long as they're friendly".
I have always believed in a forum all viewpoints should be allowed including valid or invalid ones. Debate is good and the members can debate about what is valid or invalid. But it has to be done without slurs and personal attacks. I think the rules here should be just Punos_Rey's rules but with an additional rule that Egyptology forum should be generally pertaining to Egyptology, ancient studies in Egypt and nearby regions and genetics ( a little more broadly) with a little leeway to occasional semi- off topic. But it's BBH's moderation so we will see what he says. So far I don't any deletion of your posts. After the elimination the derogatory and insults it doesn't then magically transform the content. So expectations should be realistic, my opinion. Please wait for BBH's remarks
Admin: I left BBH's rules thread up as they reflect his personal style of moderation and the goals he has for Egyptology sub-forum in general. Nothing he has posted has conflicted with my rules that are site-wide. I would also request you pm BBH if you have any questions about his moderation style from another mod's viewpoint.
[ 04. June 2017, 12:12 PM: Message edited by: Punos_Rey ]
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
Thanks Swenet. Appreciate it.
But lets all keep this thread on topic please. Like Punos_Rey the rules I have just reflect my personal style of moderation. This thread is for any suggestions the community of the Egyptology section has that can improve this section.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Ok I understand you better now. You're simply trying to get most potential out of this site (discussions that spark interest regardless of right or wrong). That is one use I can see this site having. Any other uses that you can think of, lioness?
quote:After the elimination the derogatory and insults it doesn't then magically transform the content. So expectations should be realistic, my opinion. Please wait for BBH's remarks
Thanks for your honesty. There are deeper issues that cannot be addressed with moderation. Glad the old lioness is still in there (somewhere).
If BBH and Punos can attract new membership that matches some of the better posters who can balance things out, that would go a long way. Capra is an example of a new and capable poster, in my view.
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
I elaborated on rule #1 to be more clear.
But more importantly the rules I have now are placeholders and can be modified in the future(nothing too serious).
For now I'm going to see how they play out. Really hope rule #1 takes off.
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
@Swenet
As for new posters I HOPE Sam opens up registrations OR Punos_Rey himself can accept new members.
I hope PP talked to Sam about this. I mean Sam can make more $$$$$ this way. Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
May I suggest changing the description on
To reflect this forum is for mainstream Egyptology Africana Etc?
@ tL What about your forum? Description fit your vision? Could it use your updating?
Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
BBH:
Registration has been made easier..for now. Some checks are still in place.
We'll see how it goes.
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
@Tukuler
I apologize if I am not reading you correctly but you want me to change the description on this forum being for mainstream Egyptology/Africana?
@Puno_Reys
That sounds GOOD! More quality posters like Capra are needed. And since we have mods we don't have to worry about a dangerous flood if trolls.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
@BBH
One thing I've always noticed is that membership count keeps going up even though few members come forward. So are they spambots?
quote: Recent New Members
tific - Member # 22768, 03. June 2017 Suliman - Member # 22767, 02. June 2017 dagonghydraulichose - Member # 22766, 01. June 2017 EgyWolf - Member # 22765, 31. May 2017 Raziocinante - Member # 22764, 30. May 2017
Do they have the same IP?
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Sorry. Didn't mean to infringe.
Just thought population genetics being the number one topic, and having it in the forum description might draw surfers in.
Hey! youze guyz made way for newbies to come on board, Frickin genius move!!
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: @Tukuler
I apologize if I am not reading you correctly but you want me to change the description on this forum being for mainstream Egyptology/Africana?
@Puno_Reys
That sounds GOOD! More quality posters like Capra are needed. And since we have mods we don't have to worry about a dangerous flood if trolls.
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
@Tukuler
You're NOY infringing. This thread is for ALL suggestions. Anyways, your idea is a GOOD idea and I been thinking about that. I don't think we sgould change the entire description but add in genetics. OR we can rename the Egyptology section?
Thoughts? We should ask Punos_Rey as he has the most power. Also we should close down all forums(or rename them) besides the Egyptology forum and Ancient one as they have been dead and useless. This site should get a sort revamp. The Ancient Egyptian section should too be renamed.
@Swenet
You should ask Punos_Rey about that. He can most likely tell who is a real account or spam bot.
Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
There is a reason all those numbers went up.Swenet/Tukuler/BBH check your inboxes.
I have also updated forum descriptions.
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
@Punos_Rey
Not trying to bug your but how is the custom avi thing working out? I know you said you wanted to implement that. Like that you made a new introduction section for members.
Like I said the other sections should be either deleted or renamed as they no longer serve any purpose and the theme of this site has drastically changed since those sections were created. Just my suggestion.
Just wanna reboot this forum the best way we can.
Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
I'm still working on custom avis. I was able to institute one for admins/mods, but when I try and change my avi I get an error message, so tinkering around with things.
Also members should be able to make custom titles and signatures that will show in future posts. I haven't added the custom titles function for mods and admins who will stay with their actual title.
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
^^Yeah I asked because I not only seen you with a custom one(which looks nice) but I notice that I can add a custom one via link. However its not letting me.
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
It WORKED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I can have a custom avi! Finally!
Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
Good, the problem though is I'm not able to change mine once I set it, thats the bug I'm still trying to work out.
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
Added rule 6 and I think we can ALL agree with this one. No one should have any negatives for rule #6 unless you are a troll.
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
Can we disable the filter for profanity? We are all adults here, furthermore is blocking at the H0m0 in Homosapien and the Sh!t in Cushitic etc.
Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
Beyoku, give me 2 mins and it'll be done. Yeah i saw the problems with the filter earlier smh
Filter has been disabled.
Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
Good start you guys, better late than never, heck under new conditions I prolly return to posting in earnest.
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
Would prefer more historical discussions like the old days. NOT forcing yall but just saying. I have plans to post some interesting historical stuff in the future.
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
Just letting yall now I'm still around. Just lurking for the time being.
Posted by sam p (Member # 11774) on :
OK.
So where do we discuss everything else related to the pyramids, their builders, and Egyptology?
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
quote:Originally posted by sam p: OK.
So where do we discuss everything else related to the pyramids, their builders, and Egyptology?
What do you mean? You discuses then here...
Posted by sam p (Member # 11774) on :
Oh, I see.
I misunderstood.
Posted by Elite Diasporan (Member # 22000) on :
Just letting you guys know I changed my name.
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
cockaroach or rooster I'll tell one like I tell the other...
I'm not monitoring feelings. Not deleting/editing posts because someone used badwords. Banter and aggressive posts have always been apart of this forum... that won't change with me. If a post respects the OP or flow of discussion chances are I wont take action.
No tit for tat... If one legitimately feels like they're being harassedaka another persons actions calls for a ban... feel free to report.
I'm no referee... I'm no literary device... don't publicly drag me into personal qualms. Don't dish out what you can't eat yourselves. You don't have to respect each other but respect the board, threads and topics.
Posted by Elite Diasporan (Member # 22000) on :
I'm officially ending this. Certain posts have been removed. Any further derailment will again have posts removed.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Elite Diasporan can you make a rule prohibiting cut and paste posts that don't make their intention clear?
I'm not talking about the post el Maestro made of course. I'm talking about cut and paste posts that sometimes reek of a provocation, bias and/or bait, but which are disguised it as "purely informational".
If someone takes a position in an ongoing conversation or debate, they should state it clearly in their own words, especially when the topic is polarizing. IMO it shouldn't be allowed to hide behind information and pretend one is not taking a stance on something when sometimes it's clear that they are.
Posted by Elite Diasporan (Member # 22000) on :
Are you talking about a rule similar to FBD? If so I kinda agree but I'll look into this more when I get a computer.
Posted by Elite Diasporan (Member # 22000) on :
Are you talking about a rule similar to FBD? If so I kinda agree but I'll look into this more when I get a computer.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Not sure which rule you mean.
What I'm talking about is posts that match the following description:
*A quote is dropped in the middle of nowhere with no commentary. *There is no way to understand what the poster is trying to say with the information. *The post seems to respond to what someone else is saying but doesn't make it clear how the post relates to anything in the conversation (sometimes deliberately to not have to defend the position the person is taking). *Alternatively, the quote with no commentary may not respond to what someone is saying, but it may just be intended say something controversial in a roundabout way. And in a way that allows them to deny that is what they're doing when backtracking suits them.
I have no problem with just dropping information to inform, with no further commentary. I don't want people to think that is my beef. I have a problem when people are not upfront with an agenda they may have, and when they're using quotes to be able to push information they can't defend or even articulate in their own words. The problem with posting information you can't defend is how can you possibly push information adamantly over many years when you don't even understand it? These posts with no commentary are used to give dated, misleading or false information a platform.
Notice also that most people on this forum state clearly what their positions are. You can compare most people's views here with new information because they're upfront about their predictions (at least initially). They don't hide behind quotes or big name researchers while tacitly pushing false information year in year out. That is how it should be for everyone, no exceptions.
A rule would make it clear to any habitual offenders that what they're doing is trolling.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
C'mon. The man's talking about passive-aggressive trolling and we all know it. And we know why it's allowed and won't be handled properly as it should.
Passive-aggressive trolling goes hand in hand with refusing to answer a question no matter how many times asked but instead proceeding to ask more questions and personally baiting those who are questioned or whimsically deleting certain posts.
Pretending not to see this is going on is merely a front to condone the actions of the sole perpetrator.
Time to open a poll if MGMT cares about rank&file members, ie., the ones who make this forum intelligent (not that chat posts aren't also informative).
*There is no way to understand what the poster is trying to say with the information.
*The post seems to respond to what someone else is saying but doesn't make it clear how the post relates to anything in the conversation (sometimes deliberately to not have to defend the position the person is taking).
*Alternatively, the quote with no commentary may not respond to what someone is saying, but it may just be intended say something controversial in a roundabout way. And in a way that allows them to deny that is what they're doing when backtracking suits them.
I have no problem with just dropping information to inform, with no further commentary.
These posts with no commentary are used to give dated, misleading or false information a platform.
.
I propose a ban on posting walls of text of more than 3 concise to the point paragraphs, unless logically hi-lited and connected to a reasoned argument in its ongoing thread.
Opening posts could present a wall of text without hi-liting or objectives because OP's start discussion and call for interpretations leading to debates, what we're here for.
An as is wall of text is OK if broached in an ongoing thread as tangential news not intruding on a debate in progress.
Otherwise, unimproved walls of text would get replaced with a title or a few lines of intro and a link to source where those interested can go read it if they want to.
I come here to see what the variety of ESers have in mind. I can search and read whole articles and other internet offerings on my own.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Posted by Elite Diasporan (Member # 22000) on :
@Swenet
Sorry for the late reply. Computer is broking. Anyways this is exactly like the Forumbiodiversity rule before I thought it was stupid and Elias trying to abuse his mod power but it makes sense.
I also been thinking about adding this for threads too. I told Doug M to NOT just a wall of quote with no commentary but to ADD commentary on what there thoughts are.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
@Tukuler I agree. My only problem with this rule is that it can be too hard on some sincere posters like Ish Gebor whose posting style is that they like to inform people. IMO trollish intent should be a guideline so that people like Ish (who are not trolling) are not confused with people who do this.
@Elite Diasporan My beef is specifically with trollish intent, not with the act of posting no commentary in itself. Although I can understand that rules requiring reading of intent are more difficult to enforce. To avoid misreading intent mods can encourage posters to add info on how a quote or graph with no commentary relates to their own positions and the thread it's posted in.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: ^^ Look at this recent Elmaestro post. It's pure copy and paste. He's got something highlighted in the Abstract, what is that for? What's the agenda behind that highlighting? We can't have people just posting information. What was his agenda in seeking out and showcasing this particular article? He needs to tell us in the post, in his own words what his agenda was in posting this is.
No more just posting an article. You need to say what caused you to do it. There has to be something behind it. Some kind of mentality that we can see. The enemy can't be hiding behind text they need to show their colors. You're either on one side or the other [/qb]
Maybe. But elMaestro is upfront about his positions. On the other hand, some posters (who shall remain nameless) don't state their positions on anything, but you can tell their deliberately unstated positions are driving their behaviour in threads. For instance, some people who don't like to state their views keep posting backmigration papers that misrepresent African diversity. They're not upfront about their positions and pretend it's "purely informational". They also like to put the burden of proof on people without ever clarifying what they themselves think. This is what I like to see addressed with a new rule. Some people's lack of transparency in the ongoing conversations that keep taking place, and how that goes hand in hand with hiding behind quotes.
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
I have no problem with just dropping information to inform, with no further commentary. I don't want people to think that is my beef. I have a problem when people are not upfront with an agenda they may have
. ^^ Look at this recent Elmaestro post. It's pure copy and paste. He's got something highlighted in the Abstract, what is that for? What's the agenda behind that highlighting? We can't have people just posting information. What was his agenda in seeking out and showcasing this particular article? He needs to tell us in the post, in his own words what his agenda was in posting this is.
No more just posting an article. You need to say what caused you to do it. There has to be something behind it. Some kind of mentality that we can see. The enemy can't be hiding behind text they need to show their colors. You're either on one side or the other
I'm the OP & The Article is extremely new... I haven't had time to sit down and express my thoughts yet. but that's neither here nor there. You're afraid to fight your own battles and have an affinity for provocation and instigation... While I enjoy your style of trolling I must admit that your references without clear context mid thread are momentum killers.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Lioness is never afraid to fight battles, I have point out the flagrant hypocrisy and double standards when I see it. That is one of the lioness fighting techniques. People trying to shut down other points of view an censor for the wrong reason, set tripping. It's ridiculous to suggest that someone would posting information from the very same article is "trolling", that that "killed momentum' and anybody could say I haven't commented yet on this information, just posting raw info because it's "extremely new.... I haven't had the chance to comment yet..." When can one person use that but another person can't, that's the double standard
If there was any strong momentum to be had it would have happened. If you post raw information from the article being discussed or other information on the topic and that "kills the momentum" this hypothetical assumption that some kind of momentum would have occurred otherwise means that if that type of momentum was built on weak flimsy ass fantasy.
To complain about ANY information posted from an article that is the topic article is ridiculous and should not have the power to stop any commentary. If it does it means that commentary was about to have been built on a foundation of bullshit.
That's why I'm needed. I expose the cherry picks and spin attempts. if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.
A moderator has to distinguish what is legitimate compliant from people trying to get revenge for L acquirement
-------------------------------------------------- lioness productions till the casket drop Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
An OP reporting a NEW study =/= re-posting old and previously discussed articles with no commentary.
Do you need me to breakdown how that's a false equivalency?
for example Why was this Mid Topic Copy and paste segment needed.... that article was reported and discussed already. We have to guess your intention for posting that where and when you did. That is a mental burden for readers. Also pay attention to what happened to the thread after you started doing this.
Your excuse for this is lazy... "that article was reference in the article" so you posted the entire article and say nothing about it? bruh? and you call that reporting data? the "report" is already in the OP. a DISCUSSION should follow.
Stop acting new to this.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
The idea that additional information on topic current data is stopping anything is absurd. If you have something to post you just post it.
And it was incredibly obvious why I posted this information. It adds details as to what haplogroups were discussed and gives details as to the profile of a Neolithic Anatolian that YOU highlighted and didn't say why ) and the other article was referenced in the topic article) The topic article did not have that same detail on Neolithic Anatolians
It is ridiculous and completely political for people to try to make a new rule out of this type of very on-topic posts. Clyde is not trying to play those games as if there was some invisible force field he simply posted.
This sort of thing is intellectually weak and click-minded
If you want to pursue these political games and make new rules it will have to be applied fairly across the board, to people like Ish Gebor and Doug
I am one of those people that goes to the trouble of hosting images and fleshing out the cherry picked snippets and innuendo highlighting. Also posting source articles rather than articles about the articles. People need to stop being afraid of information.
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
Look cheif, I'm only here cause you attempted to drag me into the heat because your actions have you on the hot seat. You can spin and flip this however you like.
My two cents was just that copy pasta of previously discussed pieces with no novel insight slows down discussions.
...I dont even care for a rule change or bans just offered my perspective on the matter... That's all from me.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Vision. What's that?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: May I suggest changing the description on
To reflect this forum is for mainstream Egyptology Africana Etc?
@ tL What about your forum? Description fit your vision? Could it use your updating?
A public forum is a public forum. It's not supposed to be one person or group having a vision.
It is a supposed to be an organic thing where whoever happens to be posting at a given moment takes it where they want to as long as it's not insulting each other. It's supposed to be Egyptology related.
Visions are for one person who has a blog
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
why is a thread on the Caucus in Egyptology?
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
That's a perfect expression of your vision: isfet over maat.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: May I suggest changing the description on
To reflect this forum is for mainstream Egyptology Africana Etc?
@ tL What about your forum? Description fit your vision? Could it use your updating?
A public forum is a public forum. It's not supposed to be one person or group having a vision.
It is a supposed to be an organic thing where whoever happens to be posting at a given moment takes it where they want to as long as it's not insulting each other. It's supposed to be Egyptology related.
Visions are for one person who has a blog
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
MY GOALS FOR EGYPTOLOGY FORUM by Elite Diasporan - admin
The very title of this thread assumes vision. So ok how are goals related to vision?
Goals: An Overview. A goal is a specific target to achieve something. It includes the strategies and tactics you use to move toward your vision. You should set and achieve goals only that promote and are in line with your vision.
Goals outside of a vision can diminish. Set and achieve goals only that promote and are in line with your vision. This is why, if you don't have a vision, goals alone can be defeating (i.e., without a vision, each goal is just something you've completed without a larger “why” in mind). Posted by Elite Diasporan (Member # 22000) on :
Sorry for the late reply @Swenet
Again, my personal computer is currently not working. Anyways noted.
However, I'm going to finally add that ANY content whether in a post or OP of a thread MUST contain commentary of SOME SORT. And also spamming quotes/images are not allowed.
I'm going to get PR's opinion later. But for now this is only a personal rule of mines.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
I missed your update in this thread. Thanks for considering my request. I just hope people with no bad intentions will get their post deleted because they happen to have no commentary.
My problem is only with posts like the one below, where someone is taking a position while hiding behind data when they're really pushing an antagonistic narrative. These people refuse to say what they really mean and when you ask them they're evasive.
They refuse to be upfront about what they're really saying, yet at the same time they keep injecting suggestive or misleading information (e.g. a picture of an Egyptian said to have curly hair) in conversation from the safety of someone else's words. It's these innuendos that I have a problem with and I hope the rule that is being worked out right now addresses primarily these innuendos.
If people are trying to be antagonizing they should say what they really mean. IMO it shouldn't be allowed to participate in discussions for almost a decade, yet consistently refuse to say what you mean. IMO it's trolling if you participate in discussions only to antagonize and state your positions by innuendo and proxy. Here is another example:
Notice how the poster is not sticking their neck out and stating what their own position is. They're just hiding behind quotes to push a narrative they've already made up their mind about. (In this case, the poster is trying to argue that dark skin in Arabia is divorced from African ancestry. But the poster is using innuendo, pictures and quotes). The OP has already made up their mind about an anti-African position and keeps making threads from that agenda. Yet none of these threads admit to their anti-African bias, and none of these threads say what the OP's pre-conceived position is.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Don't change your no-commentary posts now, please. You're trying to make t look like I'm lying on you?
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Everything being done is mgmt approved and supported. Licenced to ill.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
