I wonder if in the history of Sciforum a moderator ever acknowledged that he/she was at fault and for God's sake even apologized?

I assume it never happened...But if it did, I would like to know the details... :rolleyes:

Why on earth should they, has a moderator ever been wrong?

I wonder if in the history of Sciforum a moderator ever acknowledged that he/she was at fault and for God's sake even apologized?

I assume it never happened...But if it did, I would like to know the details... :rolleyes:

i have known one to say sorry but some of the others wouldn't lower themselves to even think the word sorry let alone say it

No mod has ever aplologised to me, and I never even asked them to, which proves that they are aware and on the case.

I'm sorry that I haven't banned the more intolerable posters sooner, unfortunately my personal preferences aren't in alignment with the nature of the forum otherwise I would of dialed Mr Wolf.

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/15.01/images/PL_66_screen8_t.gif

On a serious note, have any posters ever apologised to moderators for being out of line in the first place?

I would of dialed Mr Wolf.

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/15.01/images/PL_66_screen8_t.gif



Presumably, to clean up the mess.

Presumably, to clean up the mess.

Indeed :)

I've seen it. superstring I think.
But I think if a mod apologizes for a ban/thread change, it would be in the site gvmt section. And honestly, that's a lot of whining to read through.

On a serious note, have any posters ever apologised to moderators for being out of line in the first place?

I have the tendency to do so, of course it takes a man.

But let me point out the problem of your analogy: Moderators have more powers than normal members, and as we know since Superman, with greater priviledges come greater responsibilities.

Or using another analogy, the members of police are punished harsher for the same crime, because....but you got it by now...

Well I do admit it's now registered to me why people on this forum get so damn crazy in regards to moderation in general. It's because they jump to conclusions over why their posts were deleted, they aren't told about why something was deleted so can't amend it and the only time they truly learn what it is they are doing wrong they find themselves getting banned.

This means the poster automatically assumes the moderators are out to get them, but in reality the moderator usually writes a note as to why something is deleted and it's been probably assumed that the poster who's had a post deleted would be able to see the reason.

It obviously means a change in the way things are done to be fair to posters, obviously now if I delete someone's post I will mention to the poster why it was deleted and given them the chance to amend it.

However it's not a function by the standard software package for this forum and will be more time consuming for both posters and moderators, however the potential outcome is that peoples posts don't mysterious disappear, they have the chance to amend things, they learn of what they are doing wrong (So they don't repeat what they have been doing) and the anti-moderation lobbiest's will have to find something better to do with their time.

Yes, I have.

Well I do admit it's now registered to me why people on this forum get so damn crazy in regards to moderation in general. It's because they jump to conclusions over why their posts were deleted, they aren't told about why something was deleted so can't amend it and the only time they truly learn what it is they are doing wrong they find themselves getting banned.

BINGO!

Now, might I ask how long have you been here??? Because it seems it took a while... ;)

Also about threadclosing I will have a thread in the Ethics Forum under Collective punishment. Mods don't realize (oh boy, I have to spell out everything, obviously) but when they close a thread, they punish ALL participants, not just the offending poster(s). Assuming there was actually an offense in the first place...

Sorry if I sound a little too hars, but all these were just common sense and I am surprised you guys needed like 8 years to figure it out...

BINGO!

Now, might I ask how long have you been here??? Because it seems it took a while... ;)

Actually you'd be better off asking how long I've been a moderator here, it's far longer than just a normal member. Back in the day the software was far different, there were far less moderators but things were far different in regards to how things operated. Knowing whether people could read comments or not wasn't something that concerned me, after all nobody complained they didn't know why things were being deleted, instead they would just generate complaint threads expressing all manner of paranoid reasoning's which usually resulted in them being seen as a Drama-queen.

I guess you can say it's merely a miscommunication thanks to certain areas of the software being inadequate in coping.

Also about threadclosing I will have a thread in the Ethics Forum under Collective punishment. Mods don't realize (oh boy, I have to spell out everything, obviously) but when they close a thread, they punish ALL participants, not just the offending poster(s). Assuming there was actually an offense in the first place...

Some threads have a very valid reason for being closed, perhaps their content is a breach of policy. The reason for closing them down is usually to stop them progressing any further and to generate closure. While some people might feel "punished" by losing their ability to add posts to such a thread, the reality is that perhaps the thread shouldn't of existed in the first place. However this is based on the assumption that a moderator is attempting to "Moderate" as opposed to being a fascist dictator hell bent on singling out any individual poster for their own vendetta driven campaign.

Sorry if I sound a little too hars, but all these were just common sense and I am surprised you guys needed like 8 years to figure it out...

It's only recently come to our attention, it now means of course either creating some sort of protocol for a workaround due to the software limitations, or yours truly will have to find some time to write a patch. (Believe me, hacking already established software isn't fun for me, writing it from scratch is far easier because you get to control how things work. hacking established software means trying to deal with the constrictive limitations applied by it's precoding and lack of informative documentation.)

Part of the reason we haven't noticed is that, even in fora where I'm not a moderator, I see deletion notes.

http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/9026/deletionnotessr5.jpg (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=77332&page=3)

I hadn't realized those notes were not available to the general membership. I don't recall ever having this specific problem. For instance, supermods and admins have deleted posts in EM&J before, and I cannot remember anyone ever thinking I did it.

So, just to be clear, the general membership doesn't see those notes?

Those yellow and red notes beside the "Report" button? Or the notes on how the post was deleted (moderator name included)?

Anyway, I cannot see either of those from my user account.

On a serious note, have any posters ever apologised to moderators for being out of line in the first place?

Yes, certainly. Going back a few months now but I definitely apologised to Tiassa and also to Bells. I also thanked them for pointing out where the boundary is.

p.s I have got away with some outrageous slurs in the last few days and I'm inclined to believe the mods are giving me space for a couple of reasons; First, the direction of my abuses have been fairly worthy of such and I think I might be inclined to get a bit of the old " Oh! it's only Spud being a dickhead again, surely no-one takes him too seriously anyway" type of treatment.

p.p.s I've also applaude the mods on more than one occasion for doing a tough job well.

I've apologized twice. Once for giving an infraction to some chick about four months ago for pissing me off and once to another mod.

It happens.

~String

I've apologised on a number of occasions where I have made mistakes.

So have I. We all make mistakes and I would imagine all of us would apologise if it is brought to our attention.

And the prize for best answer goes to....

String!! because he provided examples and that's what I asked for in the original post.

Congratulation! He is also one of my fav, as a level headed person.

As I want to be productive and give constructive criticism, I would alter the software:

1. Mod can easily highlight the problematic part of the post and that highlighted part would be sent to the poster, thus he/she knows what caused deletion. The important part is that the poster gets a NOTIFICATION, so he/she can correct the post and learn.

2. There would be a 3-4 choices quick button for moderators that would leave a message in the thread:
Post deleted because offtopic/offensive language/attack on other poster/etc.

3. Mods should censor more and delete less. If I write a rather long post and there were 2 offensive words in it, I would rather let those removed then the whole post. The above mentioned higlighting method could be used for fast censorship...

Well, #1 and #2 takes a rather small altering of the software, #1 would be the more important.

So have I. We all make mistakes and I would imagine all of us would apologise if it is brought to our attention.

In a perfect world yes, but we don't live in a perfect world. First you need sufficient intelligence to actually recognize you made a mistake, and then comes the even harder part (psychology) of acknowledging it publicly and correcting it...

As I want to be productive and give constructive criticism, I would alter the software:

1. Mod can easily highlight the problematic part of the post and that highlighted part would be sent to the poster, thus he/she knows what caused deletion. The important part is that the poster gets a NOTIFICATION, so he/she can correct the post and learn.

2. There would be a 3-4 choices quick button for moderators that would leave a message in the thread:
Post deleted because offtopic/offensive language/attack on other poster/etc.

3. Mods should censor more and delete less. If I write a rather long post and there were 2 offensive words in it, I would rather let those removed then the whole post. The above mentioned higlighting method could be used for fast censorship...

Well, #1 and #2 takes a rather small altering of the software, #1 would be the more important.

It would be better if the software could generate a form of Moderation queue, where posts that require editing are stored *but* the initial poster still has access to their post for editing until it's moderator approved however it's not a simple fix. I'll have to hunt around and see if I can find pre-made working modules or look at writing one from scratch.

Syzygys:

As I want to be productive and give constructive criticism, I would alter the software:

1. Mod can easily highlight the problematic part of the post and that highlighted part would be sent to the poster, thus he/she knows what caused deletion. The important part is that the poster gets a NOTIFICATION, so he/she can correct the post and learn.

We had that system before. A moderator would give an infraction to a member. When that was done, an automatic PM would be sent to the member, with an explanation by the moderator for why the post in question was objectionable.

The majority of the membership decided that they did not like that system. So, here we are.

We had that system before. A moderator would give an infraction to a member.

That is actually NOT the same system. let's say if the offensive is just mild, there iss no reason to give infraction but still the deletion could be justified. As in case of very offtopic material...

The majority of the membership decided that they did not like that system. So, here we are.

This site has over twenty-thousand members. Are you saying there was a poll in which over ten thousand members voted against that system? (Or a preponderance of the membership when it was conducted).

On a serious note, have any posters ever apologised to moderators for being out of line in the first place?
I have as well. To JamesR, Skinwalker and Plazma. I got warnings/infractions from them for getting in a flamewar in a thread with Spurious and some other member. I was arguing just to argue and I should not have been. The infractions were warranted and I told them it wouldn't happen again. So far, so good.
While no mod has apologized to me(none have had a reason to), certain ones have taken the time to explain to me why something goes down here the way it does sometimes. I appreciate that as well.

This site has over twenty-thousand members. Are you saying there was a poll in which over ten thousand members voted against that system? (Or a preponderance of the membership when it was conducted).

Work it out.

So, just to be clear, the general membership doesn't see those notes?

No.

One just comes back the next day and sees even whole conversations are gone, as if they had never taken place.

Well I do admit it's now registered to me why people on this forum get so damn crazy in regards to moderation in general. It's because they jump to conclusions over why their posts were deleted, they aren't told about why something was deleted so can't amend it and the only time they truly learn what it is they are doing wrong they find themselves getting banned.

This means the poster automatically assumes the moderators are out to get them, but in reality the moderator usually writes a note as to why something is deleted and it's been probably assumed that the poster who's had a post deleted would be able to see the reason.

I think it takes some time and some happenings for one to start assuming the moderators are out to get one.

I had my posts deleted, with no explanations given as to why. And those posts weren't off topic, or breaching forum policy. They were just deleted.

Perhaps I should have said something, perhaps I should have complained. At the time, I thought this would be petty, so I didn't.

However, as such small grievances collect over time, one can really start to think that the mods are out to get one, or that there is some personal vendetta going on, or that something is foul. There is only so much good will one has to go on at any given time.

But enduring continual small grievances breeds bad faith, one becomes careless, indifferent, upset, delivers one's point poorly. No wonder forum communication becomes inefficient. Which leads to further grievances.

That is actually NOT the same system. let's say if the offensive is just mild, there iss no reason to give infraction but still the deletion could be justified. As in case of very offtopic material.

We had that as well. It was called a warning. Infractions were denoted by "red cards", small icons that appeared near your name in an offensive post. These carried a point value that expired after a period. If that point value exceeded a certain limit, you were issued a temporary ban of varying length, depending on how many times you'd been banned before. Warnings, "yellow cards", carried no point value.

If you click on your name beside a post, you should be able to view your infraction history in your user profile. You might remember these. SkinWalker issued you an infraction last May for a "profane insult". That carried a value of five points. The insult was removed while the rest of the post remained with a note from the moderator. I issued you a warning in December for flaming. You got upset about that and tried flaming some more. I banned you for a day because of that. The post remains, with a moderator note.

Had people not whined and demanded the abolition of the infraction system, an infraction would have been issued, the post left with a note, and you would not have been sent on a one-day vacation. In fact, when you persisted with your flaming after you got back from that trip? Had we been issuing infractions, you would not have been banned for three days. You simply would have received another infraction. That would have put you about halfway to a one-day ban.

A couple of notes:
• The poll regarding the infraction system ran November 1-8, 2007 (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=73283). Your post record shows thirteen posts during that period (concentrated 'twixt Nov. 3-7). Apparently, you were too busy running on about porn (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=73567), why you hate teenagers (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=25344&page=21), whether to assassinate a dictator or Einstein (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1616227#post1616227), defending the priority of your frivolous leisure over emergency communications (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1616207&postcount=39), asking a fellow poster to fuck off while rehashing an argument about an airplane (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=73486), and posting more crap about why you don't like teenagers while trying to discuss linguistics (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1615390&postcount=64) to pop in and vote to preserve a system that would notify you directly of moderator action.

• By the way, that system was abolished by ... one vote.

• • •


I had my posts deleted, with no explanations given as to why. And those posts weren't off topic, or breaching forum policy. They were just deleted.

Can you name for us a topic where that occurred (do you recall)? There should still be a record of that. We can ask one of my colleagues to look it up.

But enduring continual small grievances breeds bad faith, one becomes careless, indifferent, upset, delivers one's point poorly. No wonder forum communication becomes inefficient. Which leads to further grievances.

So other people are responsible for decisions you might make in bad faith?

You do realize we would often get responses from moderated members accusing us of being imperious bastards for sending them messages about their conduct?

Nobody's saying the system is perfect. I don't think anyone would be stupid enough to say that. But bad faith is your own choice, especially if you choose to approach the situation fallaciously extrapolating a narrow and inflexible perspective over the range of personalities and behaviors in this or any other internet community.

Now, perhaps you act in good faith. We've no reason to doubt it. Although it does make curious your choice to raise objections on behalf of people who conduct themselves in bad faith (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1765612&postcount=83).

Can you name for us a topic where that occurred (do you recall)? There should still be a record of that. We can ask one of my colleagues to look it up.

I replied to that via PM.


But enduring continual small grievances breeds bad faith, one becomes careless, indifferent, upset, delivers one's point poorly. No wonder forum communication becomes inefficient. Which leads to further grievances.

So other people are responsible for decisions you might make in bad faith?

No, I am not saying that other people are responsible for decisions I might make in bad faith.

I'm just stating a common fact of how human communication often turns.
I'm just stating that people have effect on eachother, good effect, as well as bad effect.
What can or should be done about these effects is a matter of an individual's ethics, as well as a matter of the community's ethics.
- And if the community's ethics is "Who cares what a poster says?! It's just the internets!!" then it's often difficult to stay upbeat and goodwilled.


You do realize we would often get responses from moderated members accusing us of being imperious bastards for sending them messages about their conduct?

Given the function and power that moderators have (to say nothing of supermoderators and administrators), it is sometimes difficult to see them as human beings.

In groups, the dynamics between those in position of authority and those subject to this authority is often tense. It tends to show in the way they communicate with each other. I think this general social trend shows in online forums as well.


Now, perhaps you act in good faith. We've no reason to doubt it. Although it does make curious your choice to raise objections on behalf of people who conduct themselves in bad faith.

Everyone has enough at some point.

I had my posts deleted, with no explanations given as to why. And those posts weren't off topic, or breaching forum policy. They were just deleted.

Occasionally posts can find themselves deleted because actual off-topic posts are removed and then the threads content becomes disjointed. I've not done that in a while however some moderators do use that technique to try and recover the threads in question.

It's possible that your post just became the unwitting victim of a thread trimming thanks to another poster playing up in a thread.

On a serious note, have any posters ever apologised to moderators for being out of line in the first place?

Yes they have :D lol