Have you got what it takes to be a moderator?

lix
if the mods followed your logic you and half the board would have been banned long ago.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Not necessarily.
There would be real equality if they followed actual ethics and objectivity.
Unfortunately, I never take the moderation in Sciforums as fair and objective. I am not going to fool myself like the rest of the members. I already know that the mods do not know what logic, objectivity, and equality is.
That is why members do whatever they want.

The screwed up thing is that this is something I should not HAVE to explain much less debate about. All moderators should unerstand what objectivity is. What equality is. Many if not all of them do not understand that you CANNOT EVER profile people, and treat them differently. The fact that this totally simple logical minded concept has to be explained shows the bias these humans have grown up under their whole lives.

Humans grow up in an environment of labeling, generalizing, and expectations. When somebody acts in a manner opposite of what as expected, prejudice humans are shocked.
"This is not like you."
"You of all people . . ."

These are common household brainwashing phrases to get people to prejudge eachother.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

lixluke
"Just because the fool wears a crown doesn't make him king", this is a statement in regards to how "ye Olde" courts use to have Jesters fooling about, and how when they impersonated say a king it didn't make them any less the fool.

It's fair to say that every person should have equality, however the world really doesn't work to that "Idealistic" interpretation. If it did then there would be no poor or rich disparsity, no people made nomadic and being turfed from their land or made to suffer cruel treatment or harsh conditions, however it is just not the case.

Perhaps you are a buddhist at heart and this is why you post such Equality statements, however "Everybody is judged in somebodies eyes" whether you agree to that or not.

For instance somebody already mentioned the Hipocrasy that surrounded one of your previous posts, well theres hipocrasy here too. Afterall you're judging me lol.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This is the exact opposite of the attitude of an effective moderator.
I am judging mased on effective moderator.
X are the qualities of an effective moderator.

Your argument makes no point.
Basically you are saying there is no such thing as objectivity.
I just finished saying that I do not expect such objectivity.
Especially from ineffective moderators that do not hold themselves to objective standards.

It's easy to say: "Not everbody is objective. Therefore, it must be ok to not be objective."

You are arguing that the WORLD ITSELF does not have equality. Your completely unprovable views of the WORLD ITSELF have nothing to do with proper conduct of an effective moderator.

The proper conduct of an effective moderator is as I described. Whether you or any other moderator in the WORLD ITSELF abides by such standards is neither relevant or expected. As I stated, ineffective (bias and abusive) is my personal expectation of mods here.

There is no doubt that there are such thing as effective moderators as I have described, and that any moderator here could be one if they so choose. Whether they understand this simple concept or not is a different story.

 

In a sense stryder has contradicted himself.
1. When talking about a particular, none, not a single logical individual jumps on to rants regarding mass media brainwashing about how they want us to believe the world itself works. YOU do not need to be explaining to ME how the world works. Especially considering your views regarding the world itself are not based in objective truth, but skewed brainwashing.

2. The contradiction. He is basically saying that if it did work as I stated (which it doesn't), there would be no rich/poor, no disparity, etc. In other words. In order for there to be no disparity/inequality etc., it would have to work as effectively as I had described.

This goes the same for moderation on a discussion forum.

 

Lixluke,
I'm trying very hard to be objectional, however your post really doesn't make much sense.
[edit]
Do you actually use a Language interpreter to post here at sciforums?

 

It is impossible for an individual to be objective and treat every member with pure logical equality when they have the attitude that it is ok not to treat members as I described. And they use the excuse "this is how the whole world works" to justify it.
It is not OK to treat members other than equally with full objectivity.
It is not OK to profile members subjectively as such.
It is not OK to take anything into consideration other than the rules alone and whether or not something has violated the rules.
This is not effective moderation. It is abuse, and "the way the world works" is not justification for this behavior and attitude towards members.
Members must be treated all as equals regardless of any bias regarding whatever stigma they experience. "The way the world works" is not an excuse for not abiding by objective logical effective clear minded moderation.

 

Member A has a stigma of being a trouble maker.
Member B has a stigma of being a well behaved member.

These are irrelevant because in the eyes of an objective individual, the only thing seen is that Member A is a member. Member B is also a member. Logic and objectivity, ethical fairness, is completely blind to such subjective forms of labeling people accoring to stigmas. Stigmas and profiling are the root of all ignorance and illogic. Moderators cannot EVER have eyes that typecast people in such a way.

 

Let me try breaking your post down, then it might make sense:

It's impossible to be logical with the illogical. If an individual poster has in their mind sight some opinion of the way everything should fit together but lack the communicative skills to explain it, you end up with them becoming rude and harassing, with the incapability to find fault everywhere other than themselves.

My definition of the way the world is was not an "Excuse", it was mearly a statement to caste perspective upon your opinion.

I've had people claim unfair moderation in the past, however this was only after months of allowing them to go un-moderated (when I was busy IRL), did it make me single them out? no, it was something that should of been done sooner. (I'm gathering that perhaps you are one of those people)

I've never been biased about any members at sciforums, in fact I've only asked for one ban in my entire moderator lifetime for a sockpuppet of a banned user that was trying to stir up yet more trouble.

I did go through a spree of closing threads down about 6 months back, however every thread in a particular forum was becoming hijacked and suffering from continued ad-homin attacks. Closing them down didn't single out any particular posters but it did stop the childish antic's of some of the posters.

Before you state about objectivity in regards to this, please understand that those being childish had for a long time been granted if anything more flexibility than anyone else.

My statement about profiling doesn't mean that I profile users.

It was and is an attempt to make posters realise that if they act immature, people from their school, work or family from home might read it and draw conclusions about them.

Thats why it's in the best interest of the posters to not "jerk around" so much.

This should be self evident and need no real explaination.

See the first portion of your quotes. "The way the world works" is not an excuse, it's a primer on perspective.

Again self explainatory, although did "the Little boy who cried wolf" deserve to be treated equally? You might say so on being eaten but before then he was nothing but a pest.

Again stated twice, It was not an Excuse, it was a statement on perspective.

 

Stop taking my objective statements about ethics and equality personally.
I am no singling you or any particular person out other than any sentance in whcih I mention a specific person.
Other than that, I am not talking about you so stopt taking everything personally.

I am talking about the importance of being objective.
If you are out IRL, and you come back, everything is irrelevant other than whether there was a violation to rules.

In the perspective of the litte boy who cried wolf, what your saying might make more sense. I have yet to see how it applies to a discussion forum in which all members are treated as equals.

 

Moderation requires Arbitrary decision making, this is why your objective individual is nothing more than a poster, not a moderator.

Yes there are specific rules that will be more than likely drawn up and viewable to all, however no matter the complexity of the rules there will always be Grey areas. This is why Court rooms have Judges and not just Autonomous preceedures. If it was so straight forwards then there would be no Innocents in a court room and everyone would be Guilty.

I know some like to believe the "Innocent until proven guilty" statement thats usually spoonfed, however I have seen first hand this turned around to "Guilty until proven Innocent", Where I was suppose to supply evidence to prove my innocence.

"It wasn't me, it was the one armed man" or more truthly, I didn't own the television, nor rent the flat in which the television was situated, I didn't even watch that particular television yet they tried to fine me for a license for "viewing" it. How do you provide evidence to support you didn't watch something that you didn't own in a flat you didn't rent? only two of those three things are provable and neither of those things suggests innocence.

 

I posted this without reading other replies first to avoid being influenced, so if I duplicated someone else's response...

Easy. As long as their "abusive arguments" aren't actually rules violations, split the thread. Let them have their fun in a separate, more appropriate topic; let the OP have his topic as intended.

The poster's right to free speech should be encouraged. As long as the link isn't to something illegal or pornographic (or some other clear rule violation) and the poster is not simply spamming his link without actually participating in the topic's discussion, he should be allowed the link. Unless such links are clearly noted at some point in the rules as violations. On the other hand, if the posts are off topic, they should be treated like any other off topic post: spam deleted; new topics split if there's potential.

Enforce rules about "flaming" and "insults." At this point, the problem isn't so much the link as it is the responses. Often, a firm but courteous message from the moderator in thread along with a bit of clean up of insults is all that's needed to redirect the thread.

If the IP checks out to the banned member, the choice is obvious: ban the new sock puppet. If not, then appropriate warnings to the members that are violating rules is in order, both via PM and in-thread. If a post is off the OP's topic and only a flame/harassment, I see no reason why it cannot be deleted. Or portions that of posts that are on-topic kept and personal insults and flames deleted. That's not to say that ridicule and insults shouldn't be tolerated on some level... if someone starts a thread that "proves" Elvis and Bigfoot are the leaders of the Illuminati and are the real masterminds behind 9/11, shouldn't there be some bit of ridicule?

Delete/remove the posts (move them to a moderator level forum where they can be reviewed if such a thing exists) and contact an administrator/moderator with permissions to the forum where the links still exist to alert them of the problem.

Alert an administrator/super-moderator for a ban request or to fix the user's account to eliminate the exploit. Regardless of the user's intent, if its a rules violation and bannable, he should be banned. One member shouldn't be permitted to drive away many members because of behavior.

Split the thread at page three; lock pages four through 23; warn the violators. Better yet, don't let it get that far.

1) You should not decide sharing your personal opinions for fear of the side you oppose might call you a "biased moderator" when you need to enforce the rules. 2) You shouldn't be afraid to enforce the rules when the opposing opinion is apt to use the "bias moderator" argument. 3) You shouldn't fail to enforce rules when it comes to moderating comments made by members/posters on the same side of the argument as you.

At the end of the day, you are both poster and moderator. You have both opinions and a job to do.

They deserve fairness and impartiality and to have the same protection of the rules that they may have violated previously. I don't see why this is even a question. You deal with the complaint as you would any other.

 

lixluke;

You're too immoderate to be a moderator.

Just reread you're investment in the thread.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

lix
moderators are in effect judges. this implies that all posters are not equal.
for example you kill someone in a hunting accident. what should be your punishment?
you wait outside someones house so you can kill them and you carry it out. what should be your punishment?
in both instances you are guilty of murder. should these two instances be treated as equals?

 

Irrelevant.

"Always" statement. Cannot be proven. totally off world theoretical. Please stick to facts, and refrain from using annoying "there will always be" statements.

Wrong.
Your "there will always be" lack of logic is not why court rooms have judges. A court proceding that includes a judge, jury, defendant, plaintiff/procecutor has nothing to do with this. It is to determine if the defendant has violated law or contract. There is a sepcific sentance under law of every specific crime under law. Either way, American Second World law is a bad example because it is created for the benefit of the plutocracy.
1. Determine if there was a violation.
2. Carry out punishment.

This right here = total psychosis. Anybody that is running around claiming that "Innocence until proven guilt" is over rated should not be moderating anything. Should not be in any position of authority whatsoever. ALL MEMBERS ARE INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.
This is ethical moderation. Everything you are talking about goes against all ethical moderation. Moderation is NEVER arbitrary. This is abuse and corruption. It is unethical to make arbitrary decisions. All decisions must be based on the rules and rules alone. Arbitrary decisions are an abuse.

 

Look at you clowns all fighting to get a big stick, I hope you all fail

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

1:
Two older member posters are busy arguing abusively with one another causing the initial thread to divert from topic. They've posted about 20 posts since you last logged in, what should you do to the thread in your subforum?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I would post a comment to the thread assuming that no one had complained about them abusing other people stating the need to remain on topic and any further breach will result in removal of the thread completely, assuming they were the thread starters.
IF they were not the thread starters then i would simply remove their threads that appeared to be off topic and place a warning on the thread stating what had been done and why.


2:
A Poster keeps refering to their website creating an unofficial "signature", there site is neither on the topic of the thread and contains so many fictional statements and evidence inconsistancies that it's not what you'd class as a place to source evidence from.

Their continued persistancy is starting to upset other members, which in turn are biting at them and causing the threads to read like an excert from "Flamewars". What should you do?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I would lock the thread (after posting a warning to it about spam advertising of other websites) and send a pm to the poster stating their actions of advertising another web site that they were promoting was against the theme of the messageboards and would inform them that the next time it happened they would be banned for a certain legth of time.



3:
A poster has been banned by one of the supermoderators or administrator and what is seemingly a new user is complaining about the injustices of their decision and is harassing other members in regards to the part they think they played. Their rants are enducing the multiple threads they've cross-posted to to be littered with members degrading to personally attacking them. Again, what should you do?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

pm them asking what their grevence is and ask them to post a complaint to admin to be considered and Inform super mod or admin.

4:
the poster <fakehandle> has been posting advertisment about a wonder pill, with links to an associated site that loads spyware on peoples computers through a particular browser flaw (Which you don't actually have while using firefox). You've notice the post is in your subforum while also occuring in other subforums (which you don't have any control over) what do you do?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

inform admin for immediate ip block and to pass on to country officials for follow up anti spam laws and maliciouse software deployment.


5:
You've noticed a user has been using a 0-day exploit on the forums that the Administration isn't even aware of yet. You've checked out their IP and it points to the United Arab Emirates, even though the User claims to be a member of a Kuwait hacking group. Temperments are Rising in the forums in regards to the Kuwaitee's attempt at sabotaging the forum (racism etc), even though there is a potential that it's just been setup to look like they are from Kuwait. What do you do?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

inform admin and all mods and super mods, flag user name and lock out all threads and remove all links posted note and track ip

6:
You've received multiple e-mails implying that one particular thread in filled with "Ad-Homin" statements. To the most part the makeup of the whole thread has gone un-noticed due to the "Word Wall" that seems impenatrable by your powers of deduction. (Lots of words with little meaning that seem gruelsome to wade through.) The threads initial post on page 1 has long since lost since page 3, and it's now reached a staggering page 23 of flaming. What do you do?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Lock n Leave post for the agreived



7:
There is a topical thread placed into your subforum to which you have a specific point of view on. Your point of view however conflicts with most of the posts recieved on the topic, making you one of the few to have a certain view opposed to everyone else. What shouldn't you do?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Join in the discusion like anyone else would do.
To not post in it when you wanted to would be an inpingement of free speach and rights to interact, becoming a moderator should not be at the cost of interacting and carrying out your normal life in this manner.


8:
You are recieving complaints about one person in particular from a poster that you know to be a bit of a trouble maker themselves. They complain about harassing PMs (Private messages) they have recieved and quote you a few. what should you do?[/QUOTE]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Pass it on to admin so the PMs can be verafied for authenticity.
advise action is being taken.

====================================
Note i would only realy want to moderate
Human Science
Parapsychology

as far as semi technical areas are concerned as i have no desire to compete with other mods or others to be a mod.
Thus i am offering my services for these 2 dependent on discusion with goofy regarding the nature of what level of need and requirement there is.

 

may i lodge an official complaint about the lack of COLOUR in the
responses
and
the fact there is no poll attached to this thread ?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

lixluke,
You tend to miss the point that "Law" is usually written after someone "Judges" what a crime is, therefore while the laws don't exist "Judges" have to make the decisions on the finer points. This result in a court room then goes on to define laws in that area and is the reason why you'll find Lawyers quoting previous cases in regards to their own case.

Moderation is only slightly like this process, if the rule doesn't define it in black and white and the posters activity is borderline then it's down to the moderator to make the decision (although they can ask administration if it's that confusing.)

On the subject of "Free speech" only certain countries actually have this privilege and even that privilege is to this day under scrutiny because of how certain people use it.

For instance it might be the TOC here to not promote illegal activities, someone might write that they downloaded an MP3 by a torrent network by a particular music artist because they won't pay for things or another person might state how they love to smoke cannabis and everybody should.

In both instances what they are stating is an illegal activity in regards to certain countries laws, does it mean their posts should just be edit and the poster warned or Ban them due to the TOC?

(I already know the answer, it's jut a Rhetorical question)

 

It's not Christmas yet Riple, that and you do an upstanding job of color coordination.

As for a Poll, well there wasn't really anything to poll in this particular thread.