The past few weeks have been quite interesting on sciforums. We have seen much talk about the performance of moderators and how we behave and implement the rules of the forums.

So here is a thread to address this issue (also to help prevent flames in the policy thread which could result in infractions, bannings, etc..).

First of all, I'd like to say that moderators are also members. We were members before we became moderators and continue to be members when we post. We are only moderators of the particular forums we are meant to moderate.

So what do you expect from moderators? What do you want from moderators?

Are we meant to not participate in discussion or voice dissent in threads? Are we meant to be held to a higher standard when posting in other forums (aside from the one's we moderate)?

Please do not flame in this thread. I would also appreciate it if all moderators could be addressed as a whole instead of individually when you tell us what you want and expect from us. This is not a thread to attack moderators on an individual basis. It is not one to attack us as a whole either. All I would like is for everyone to tell us what it is you want and expect from us as members and most importantly, as moderators.

Thank you.:)

I have no conflict with the moderators here. Stickied threads, such as those in the Politics forum, are slightly annoying, but I normally just browse the newest posts. Multiple threads with identical topics should be merged, such as the subject of "your favorite song" for example. Other than that, censorship here is more lenient than many forums I've visited, which I enjoy. If someone wants to tell me explicitly to bugger off, I think they should be able to. Like I said before, I've had no personal conflict with any moderator before, so I don't have a strong opinion for or against moderators.

the moderators were bullied in school, they have bad breath and are all hunch-backs,


peace.

the moderators were bullied in school, they have bad breath and are all hunch-backs
It's an exclusive club :)

the moderators were bullied in school, they have bad breath and are all hunch-backs,


peace.

So what's the answer to the question? What do you expect from the moderators?

Occasional hand relief.

1. professional demeanor toward other members when dealing with issues that are obviously a problem on the site (in their home subforum and out).

2. moderating based on subforum rules, and a quotation of a broken rule when moderation is practiced.

3. above average knowledge of the subject of their home subforum.

4. reasonable behavior at all times.



im sure ill think of more, ill be sure to let you know when i think of them.

i would like to see them crak down on people whose post are filled with bigoted language

I expect nothing from the moderators (stares @ Absane, then James R) however.... if they could find me a girlfriend then maybe I wouldn't be so grumpy (glances @ Bells)..... so yea... ummm (moves eyes towards samcdkey) ya know... (looks away, spots Jana from work)... yes..... she's fine grrr.....

Anyway.... that's what I'd like from them, lmao

The only thing that bothers me is differential treatment.

I want nothing from the sciforum moderators. I want them to be stripped of their mod hammer, for sciforums to be a mod free environment.

I have some problems with some of the moderation in the forum. Once you look at the threads in the religion, politics, and world events forums, particularly on the topics concerning Islam or Muslims there are alot of insulting, dehumanizing posts by forum members and specific moderators as well. Yet these posts are never edited by the moderators, though I have alerted these posts to them many times.

For an example go here:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1426805#post1426805

I would like consistency.

The moderators here can't give consistency.

Hence, there should be no moderation.

I would like consistency.

I agree.....

So would you like Free Thoughts and Biology to be moderated in the same way?

no free thoughts should be just that.......say whatever you want

The moderators here can't give consistency.

Hence, there should be no moderation.

Neither can any government. You think anarchy is the way to go?

no free thoughts should be just that.......say whatever you want

See... this is why I hate the name "Free Thoughts."

Call it "Thought Control"

Call it "Thought Control"

i prefer "thought correction".

Call it "Thought Control"

Ok.. really. What's being "controlled?" Examples?

Call the forum "Off Topic" or something similar.

General Discussion

General Discussion

There we go... I like that one.

Speakers Corner

General Thought Correction Zone

So what's the answer to the question? What do you expect from the moderators?

i expect fair treatment of the people who post here. it should be one rule for everyone,

either we all get punished for the same thing, or none of us get punished for it, i see people giving out bans and infractions unfairly.

but its what happens when you give anybody power in any form in this world, they begin to abuse it.

peace.

either we all get punished for the same thing, or none of us get punished for it, i see people giving out bans and infractions unfairly.

I wouldn't doubt that this happens... but can you provide me with examples that I can investigate for myself? I don't actually notice these things so it would help if I can see the problem for myself.

Absane:

Originally Posted by mountainhare
The moderators here can't give consistency.

Hence, there should be no moderation. ”

Neither can any government. You think anarchy is the way to go?


1. Sciforums isn't even close to resembling a real government, so I don't see the relevance of your analogy. Although ironically, if you attempted to draw parallels, sciforums would be an oligarchy.

2. Governments provide far more consistency than seen here on sciforums. Legislature and precedent, just off the top of my head.

I still stand by my earlier comments. Get rid of all moderators, keep someone around to manage the server, secure it against hackers/advertisers, and assist in prosecuting when a member breaks the law, and all is well.

I see people giving out bans and infractions unfairly.Hey it happens, we're only human. But we have our own private subforum and we're subject to peer review like good scientists. I don't see a lot of unfairness and I criticize it when I think I see it. If your point is that you don't agree with our collective definition of "fairness," that's a different issue. You should surely start a discussion of that issue, obviously by giving specific examples, like a good scientist.I have some problems with some of the moderation in the forum. Once you look at the threads in the religion, politics, and world events forums, particularly on the topics concerning Islam or Muslims there are alot of insulting, dehumanizing posts by forum members and specific moderators as well. Yet these posts are never edited by the moderators, though I have alerted these posts to them many times.Just speaking for myself as a new moderator with no clue as to how the others think about this... Religion is a very difficult topic to handle. I think no matter how we moderate it or don't moderate it, we're going to get complaints by advocates of one religion or another.

Many religions, particularly many sects of the Abrahamic religions, consider criticism of other religions to be not just acceptable behavior but a duty of their advocates. There are a huge number of people living on this poor planet who honestly believe that under some frighteningly broad conditions it is acceptable behavior to kill advocates of competing religions simply for that advocacy. They may not have the stomach or courage to engage in that behavior themselves but they support those who do with money, votes and public speech. Just look at recent polls in England and America and see how many hundreds of thousands of advocates of one of the Abrahamic religions have openly admitted to this alarming point of view when interviewed.

We can't very well allow people to advocate killing people here. But since we're dealing with belief systems, some of which have as a core element the mandate to eliminate competitors by means ranging from evangelism to political discrimination to violence, I think we're forced to allow their advocates to express those elements of their own faiths.

If someone levels a particularly ugly, pointless and emotional insult at your religion, it says more about his religion than about yours.

But if someone is merely commenting on what he reads in the news or history books about the glaring defects in the evangelical monotheistic religions, or at least in their followers taken collectively over the centuires... if he is describing his dissatisfaction with those defects... if he is expressing his frustration that those defects are rarely admitted, much less repaired... if he is voicing his fear that the world is about to be engulfed in yet another in the endless series of bloodbaths that many of us with cold reason attribute to the children of Abraham (taken collectively over the centuries), well then welcome to SciForums.

So what do you expect from moderators?
my list:
1. fair
2. objective
3. knowledgeable in the forum they moderate.
4. able to admit mistakes.
What do you want from moderators?
for them to be removed when they are unable or unwilling to do their jobs.

Hey it happens, we're only human. But we have our own private subforum and we're subject to peer review like good scientists.

That must be something new then. I never saw anything like that when I was a mod. If not then I seriously advice you to take a good long look at yourself because clearly you have then lost touch with reality.

Peer review means that manuscripts are scrutinized by peers and judged. And rejected if necessary. We are all quite aware that for instance (Q) has been judged to be unworthy to be a moderator by several moderators and still he is not rejected.


I don't see a lot of unfairness and I criticize it when I think I see it. If your point is that you don't agree with our collective definition of "fairness," that's a different issue. You should surely start a discussion of that issue, obviously by giving specific examples, like a good scientist.

You really are losing it. A good scientist? You know what good scientists do all day? They try to fuck over people in order to get ahead in the game. Can we drop the pedantic nonsense already of a good scientist! The majority of good scientists are class A asshole.


Just speaking for myself as a new moderator with no clue as to how the others think about this... Religion is a very difficult topic to handle. I think no matter how we moderate it or don't moderate it, we're going to get complaints by advocates of one religion or another.

Give us you judgement on your peer (Q) then. Like a good scientist.

A good scientist? You know what good scientists do all day? They try to fuck over people in order to get ahead in the game. Can we drop the pedantic nonsense already of a good scientist! The majority of good scientists are class A asshole.


Amen, I fully concur with this.

We are all quite aware that for instance (Q) has been judged to be unworthy to be a moderator by several moderators and still he is not rejected.

Give us you judgement on your peer (Q) then. Like a good scientist.

Hey pal, don't drag me into your childish tantrum.

How many real scientists, besides Spurious, with a PhD, are members here? I've always been curious about that. Well, an estimate.

How many real scientists, besides Spurious, with a PhD, are members here? I've always been curious about that. Well, an estimate.

You would think that when some members have so many posts, they should be somewhat scientific.

Quantity is not proportional to quality.

Quantity is proportional to capacity.

my list:
1. fair
2. objective
3. knowledgeable in the forum they moderate.
4. able to admit mistakes.

for them to be removed when they are unable or unwilling to do their jobs.

nearly identical to what i stated above.

You would think that when some members have so many posts, they should be somewhat scientific.Being so scientific and stuff—I myself am from a hairy sector of society—I am really impressed with their appeals for foolproof accountability, dignified manners (where warranted, of course), civil guidance from their superiors, and the almighty imperative that Sciforums-dot-com should be paramount in its renown for scientific endeavor for the scientific community by the scientifically minded.

I get such a rush of calculated cultivation when I drop in that I positively shrink in my nescience and am totally baffled as to why they have accepted me within the circles of their prominent and gifted company.

I am definitely honored, and humbled, to be a sub-member to this polyhistoric forum with a beautiful blade-saw crusading above the thermosphere as its logo.

nearly identical to what i stated above.
i didn't see your post.

nearly identical to what i stated above.

i didn't see your post.

That means you both probably have good points.

I wouldn't doubt that this happens... but can you provide me with examples that I can investigate for myself? I don't actually notice these things so it would help if I can see the problem for myself.


yeah sure, dr lou posted an image wich was a racial joke. he also posted text with religious discrimination against jews, he got perm banned for it,

now i havent seen many other people post pictures that are racial jokes i will admit. but many people have posted racial jokes in text form without punishment,

and i notice that people class slurs about jewish people as "racist" when the jewish people are not even a race. they are a religious grouping. and i have seen plenty of christian and muslim bashing on this forum, and none of the people in mention were banned,


peace.

Hi EFOC,
If you provide particular instances of people who have posted racial jokes in text form, then they will be investigated.

That means you both probably have good points.

duh, its me.

Hi EFOC,
If you provide particular instances of people who have posted racial jokes in text form, then they will be investigated.


as much as i am for fair moderation and laws in general for mankind. i just cant snitch im sorry, so i guess my argument is invalid for that reason. i just dont like to report others/


peace/

as much as i am for fair moderation and laws in general for mankind. i just cant snitch im sorry, so i guess my argument is invalid for that reason. i just dont like to report others

Hmmm....
I don't like to give infractions, delete move or edit posts, or recommend bans.
But, it's a necessary job to keep Sciforums in shape.

Reporting posts is an unpleasant job, but it's one way that you can contribute to the community.

Hmmm....
I don't like to give infractions, delete move or edit posts, or recommend bans.
But, it's a necessary job to keep Sciforums in shape.

Reporting posts is an unpleasant job, but it's one way that you can contribute to the community.

lol i see what your saying. but thats like saying i can contribute to society by calling the police because some teenagers are smoking weed on my block.

its not going to happen :)


peace.

Hmmm....
I don't like to give orders, delete lives or edit history, or recommend tyranny.
But, it's a necessary job to keep society in shape.

Reporting dissenters is an unpleasant job, but it's one way that you can contribute to the community.

Ah hA! Thee illuminarti!

.SPOO ...RE !SEGASSEM BACKWARDS RAEF



Citizens in this system are able to ignore people and report them to the overlords and they are good citizens all hail the overlords.



Bravo to "Occasional hand relief".



Start from the top of this message if you want to waste your time.

Occasional hand relief.

I'd take a backrub.

I kind of want to see Pete do a striptease.

But I'm already naked!
:eek:

Thet's enuf complainin', boa. Get them clothin's off.

Then what more could I want from SciForums?

Where's Genji when you need him?

A good scientist? You know what good scientists do all day? They try to fuck over people in order to get ahead in the game. Can we drop the pedantic nonsense already of a good scientist! The majority of good scientists are class A asshole.


Complete nonsense. :bugeye:

That’s an absurd overly pessimistic view. Yes, many research scientists are in direct competition with other scientists in the same field, but that is not the same thing as actively trying to “fuck each other over”. In science, just like in other occupations like business and industry, some people do try to get ahead in the field by “fucking over” other people. In science this generally involves unethical behaviour which frequently comes back to bite the person later. In my experience the majority of research scientists are ethical hard-working people who, whilst they actively compete against other labs to publish results first, would not dream of “fucking over” other scientists.

Hercules, the entire career set is Red Queen from start to finish. I've been backstabbed at least twice now. The system is broken. It raises up massive cohorts at each stage - secondary school, undergrad, grad, postdoc - and then abandons 95% of them to their undeserved fate. As for your karmic impression of circular justice: bullshit. As a postdoc I had to strike back at someone who stole from me, a professor in another university. He refereed an article, stole the three major points and applied them to his own research without so much as a thankyou. Meanwhile each open position is swarmed on by hundreds of applicants. The system is unbalanced, wrong and destructive. It ruins lives.

As for your karmic impression of circular justice: bullshit.


Uh huh, whatever. :rolleyes:

That sort of thing has never happened to me nor have I encountered it happening to any colleagues in my various research positions. I’m not saying it doesn’t happen; I know it does. But I am saying that it isn’t nearly as widespread as you would have us all believe. There is no doubt that science is tough. It’s as tough as any other professional field, probably the toughest.

Balls.

I know a prof, and quite a famous one, who's graduated about 4 PhD students in 20 years. The others he lets to rot, and sabotages their chances of employment. Another guy refuses to let any of his students publish. There's a couple people in his lab that have been PhD students for over five years without allowing them to publish a single thing. Others drag reviews of their student's MSs out over months and months, ruining the chances of publication and souring their theses. Several others were having affairs with postdocs or grad students. One is certifiably insane. Another sabotages articles. One of my old supervisors badmouths all her students after graduation, save her little clique of "preferreds"; never mind their actual contributions. I've been there. I know.

Never lock any threads. We are all grown ups here.

Get rid of people that use this forum to flaunt themselves, they have no intention to debate and discuss issues. They troll, never say anything meaningful and just wind people up. Examples: sandy, darksidZz, MattMarr. IAC has been banned, so how come these members are still here?

And that thing with Holocaust threads as well as threads about Jews. Why do they always end up locked?

Balls.

I know a prof, and quite a famous one, who's graduated about 4 PhD students in 20 years. The others he lets to rot, and sabotages their chances of employment. Another guy refuses to let any of his students publish. There's a couple people in his lab that have been PhD students for over five years without allowing them to publish a single thing. Others drag reviews of their student's MSs out over months and months, ruining the chances of publication and souring their theses. Several others were having affairs with postdocs or grad students. One is certifiably insane. Another sabotages articles. One of my old supervisors badmouths all her students after graduation, save her little clique of "preferreds"; never mind their actual contributions. I've been there. I know.

Ugh, me too; I've seen incredibly stupid people as "good scientists" who mainly spend all their time in power play and kissing ass. Working the system, they call it.

Agreed; it's bizarre and wrong.

The system is broken.

Its the funding loop; it sets people up for failure unless they can produce politically correct results.

Yep. Circle. And of course everybody knows everybody, so your chance of getting funded is as much your personality as everything else.

I see these ecology types just cranking away at producing people with ecology degrees so as to reap the data reward for their labs, and the nauseating thing is that there's this residual sentiment that somehow you're a "product" of that lab, a "good" or material produced by the supervisor, a credit to him or her. Meanwhile, you linger and then starve. It's deplorable. There's nothing for these guys. And all the while they sit back and congratulate themselves on what a great lab member you were. That means fuck all if I can't get a permanent job. It's like a slave owner priding himself on what a fine grave he put his property into.