Clarifying when mods are entitled to delete posts

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I have supported Scott's position in a number of threads. I have also called him a naive, immature prat in others. Ideas should be supported or attacked as appropriate.

However, Scott, the moderation of sciforums is corrupt beyond reclamation. Accept that. You can't change it. You won't change it.

We have seen repeated statements that 'if you don't like it you can just leave'. True. While many (most) of the mods intend to do a good job - and it is valid to point out they do it for no tangible benefit to themselves - this does not give them the right conduct themselves in an analgous manner to laissez faire capitalists. Current good business practice recognises stakeholders, not just shareholders. There is no chance that will ever happen here.

So, Scott, for the second time of asking, give it a rest.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

as you can tell, she wasn't.

hey skin! we think alike! !
:roflmao:

i don't have to suppose.
i'm not interested in whose god is bigger, badder, stinkier than the rest.
i'm more interested in why there is religion at all and what effect this phenomenon has on society as a whole.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No disagreement on this one. I'll quote your response to my list:
"All of which are viewed as being "insults" and when found or reported, moderators will usually act on it." If that's not a nod, I don't know what is.

 

this is exactly why i say mods should be required to post with an alias on the board, to keep from being pigeon-holed like this.

 

Well Sam aside from the fact that atheists can talk 'gibberish' as much as a theist, I was agreeing with Stryder because he wrote this:

'if you really can't put up with the moderation...then try a different website, otherwise the soap box preaching isn't going to change anything alone.

I had to agree with him because Scott is referring to general moderation not solely the religion forum. Let us see where all this will lead, from the time there has been mods there have been complaints about moderation, what else is new. As far as Scott is concerned as long as sciforums doesn't mirror his expectations and vision he will also continue to complain. Just like Reiku did with Bentheman.

 

I think that one should differentiate between an invalid plaint and a genuine concern. If the attitude of the admins and the moderators is if you don't like it here, go somewhere else, then they should simply ban all dissent. Then stand behind their own attitude by implementing it. Then, they'll be highly successful in achieving the kind of forum they want. Full of people who will have no opinion that is contradictory to theirs.

 

Come on Sam, this is hyperbole. There has always been dissent on sciforums and I cannot see any sign that this has changed overall.

 

As I have already stated, a moderator who cannot divorce personal bias from his moderation is a poor moderator. A moderator who selectively deletes posts to promote his religious views in the religion forum, who ignores the scientific method when atheists are talking gibberish and who promotes attacks on theists because well, thats what they should get used to under his moderation, is unfit for moderation.

I do not consider that any of the above classifies as "dissent"

 

You are speaking of one mod and I am not. I am referring to sciforums in general and you are speaking of one particular forum.

 

But making broad generalised statements in response to specific valid complaints is pretty pointless. To reiterate the OP that Stryder responded to:

Here is my example:

In my case, I thanked him for what I considered his predictable response and he reversed his decision to delete the post as well as the warning.

So, should I thank him for all such future considerations? Is that the right attitude? The situation is ludicrous and platitudes from administrators are unhelpful.

 

Anyone who complains = Trouble maker, especially if they are conservative, theistic, or have an abrasive style of posting.

As an atheist, may I just say that theists shouldn't have to 'get used' to be insulted on the religion forum if the rules of the forum forbid personal attacks. Perhaps if the moderators don't like the rules they are meant to enforce, they should fuck off to another forum.

 

Well Sam the post I quoted from him was a generalized statement. Stryder's post was directed to Scott who is full of many, many complaints about the way this site is moderated in general.

 

And his [Stryder's] generalised statement was in response to a specific valid complaint.

 

Yes but as I said if Scott isn't complaining about Skin its someone or something else. Ergo the generalized response. If you cry wolf every five minutes you can't expect the whole town to come running when it actually arrives

Just out of curiosity how long has Skin been a mod?

 

Fascinating.

To be frank, I have no problem whatsoever with the rules which govern this site. If the rules specifically said "Personal attacks are fine if they are directed at people the moderating team doesn't like" I'd stop posting on this forum in a flash, since it obviously isn't the place for me.

What I object to is that the moderators have a tendency to pay these rules lip service, enforcing them only when it is convenient to do so. The most blatant example offered in this thread is with Skinwalker, who pretty much neglects to enforce the 'no personal attacks' rule on his subforum when those attacks are being directed at theists.

When the rules that the owners set out are *not* being adhered to by the moderating staff, should the onus be on members who are dissatisified to find a different forum, or should they demand that the moderators (who don't own this forum) either follow the rules the owners set out, or fuck off to a forum which better suits their needs? That's the problem here, we're being told by the owner that we're entitled to X, but then the moderators run roughshod over everyone and tell them that quite the contrary, they aren't entitled to X! The rules say no personal attacks, but god damn, the moderators tell us that it's ok to make personal attacks against a segment of the member base who they personally feel are deserving of ridicule!

And the above bullshit also introduces inconsistency. If I were to ridicule Muslims in Skinwalker's forum, I would come out of it unscathed. If I were to say the exact same thing in Tiassa's forum, I'd be banned so fast I wouldn't have time to type 'WTF?!'

In summary: Why do moderators feel themselves to be above the rules set out by the owners? The rules presented aren't guidelines, they aren't arbitrary bullshit that can just be ignored when it is convenient to do so. Quite the contrary, the no personal attacks rule is pretty unambiguous. NO PERSONAL ATTACKS. So why can a moderator condone personal attacks on particular members of this forum? Why? How the hell can a moderator get away with such a flagrant disregard of the rules without a peep from the other moderators? How can you demod S.A.M and Asguard for their indiscretions, but not Skinwalker?

I mean, I don't even care about the guy, I never post on the Religious subforum, but jesus christ, the inconsistency is so obvious it's mind boggling that nobody says anything.

 

Congratulations, copernicus. After JDawg you are only the second atheist on this board to publicly demonstrate integrity in discourse with/regarding other atheists.

 

Do you want to discuss what is considered trolling or when mods are entitled to delete a post ?