Backgrounds in moderation

Bells:

No? I draw your attention to the fact that there have been, over the past few days, at least 3 separate threads in which I have been doing little else but answer on this matter.

More generally, you and I both know that you do me a great disservice with this particular accusation, as I regularly make it a point to respond in detail to objections and queries regarding my moderation actions, both in the public forums and in the Moderators forum.

I thought you were better than this.

I don't control the other moderators. We're all individuals, Bells, like you keep insisting to other people. Why do you conveniently forget that now?

Please don't start telling lies, Bells. You know that I have never made any claim about a "host of criminals" on sciforums.

For the benefit of general readers, I note that I used the term "the dark side" in a tongue-in-cheek comment in the moderators' forum. Obviously, somebody didn't get the joke.

As for the "angry mob", what is this miscellaneous conglomeration of yourself, Tiassa, Gustav, Varda, chimpkin and one or two others, if not an angry mob? Ok, maybe you have a point. 5 or 6 people is not a mob. But when you're expected to reply to 5 or 6 people instantly as they bombard you with accusations and insults, it can sure feel like it.

I understand, of course, that the vast majority of sciforums members either don't give a damn about this little spat, or else are neutral observers, or silent supporters. I even know one or two who have expressed some private support for me but won't do so publically for fear of being targetted themselves.

Yeah, I remember. Do you?

Hang on a minute! You just resigned because you just couldn't stand my terrible treatment of poor defenseless Gustav any more, right? Tell me you're not angry with me, Bells. Because it sure seems to me like you are.

No? We've had Tiassa publically calling for my resignation/demotion as admin. We've had Varda saying I should go. We've had Gustav saying I should go. We've had quadraphonics saying I should go. There's probably a few more I've missed.

I guess they were all just being friendly.

Again with the lies? I have never called you a "silly little girl", so don't put that in quote marks like I wrote it.

Regarding your enquiry about the first ban, you're right. I can't find where I responded about that, so presumably I didn't respond at the time. Nothing further was heard about that until I banned Gustav the second time.

By the way, that first ban was prompted by a report I received from a member. The text of that report was as follows:

At the time, I considered that this was a fair call, and I deleted the material that Gustav had posted.

If it had been posted by a new member, or somebody with no active infraction points, I would have accompanied the deletion with a warning. Because it was Gustav, sitting on 3 infraction points, I decided that a ban was appropriate. Not because it was Gustav, you understand, but because of the 3 infraction points and because a long-standing member ought to know better than to post that kind of thing.

I stand by my decision to delete the material at the present time. I am currently discussing this matter with the other moderators in the Moderators' forum. It may turn out that we come up with a consensus position that says I should have let it go instead of deleting it, which is fine with me. It's an issue that needs to be discussed properly and without mixing it all in with the personal bullshit about Gustav, spuriousmonkey and whatever other chips people are carrying on their shoulders.

Yes, Bells. I do. I regard myself as a highly moral person. Not perfect by any means. Not infallible. But highly principled. My posting record on this forum, quite apart from my posts in my role as moderator/administrator, bear that out quite clearly. All you need to do is to look.

It seems to me that you are, at this point, far too interested in attacking me personally to remain objective. That saddens me. That you, like Tiassa, choose to do this stuff publically, also greatly disappoints me. Once again, I thought you were better than this.

You're right. A complete oversight on my part, for which I have no immediate explanation. Ordinarily, I am quite careful to document these things. As you know, from time to time, all moderators have slipped up on various matters like this.

I could have sworn that there was some moderator discussion of the matter, but looking at the record I can't for the life of me find any. Perhaps I subconsciously registered your query and mistakenly assumed we had discussed it.

Another possibility occurs to me. I was under the impression that the original report of Gustav's post was actually made by a moderator. That also turns out not to have been the case (I checked).

So, mea culpa on this point.

I wasn't previously aware that you were in favour of airing dirty moderator laundry in public, Bells. I thought that you would support the general principle that the Moderators' forum is there so that moderators can have full, frank and private discussion. I guess I was wrong about that.

On your other point, don't you think it is a bit stupid for a member to repost exactly the same material that previously got you banned? No? Ok then.

One correction: I never called Gustav stupid. I said that the act of reposting moderated material was stupid, given that it had resulting in a ban the first time around. That wasn't intended as an attack, but a comment. (Yeah yeah, splitting hairs etc. Never mind. Just the facts, Ma'am.)

That's up for debate. It's a debate that I welcome, but it's a hard debate to have while I'm under seige in my metaphorical castle.

See above, and several other places where the matter has been discussed. The matter of general policy remains an open question at this point.

Aren't you holding me to account right here? Isn't Tiassa? Isn't Gustav? Isn't Varda and chimpkin and the others? Or is this just character assassination for the heck of it?

See above. Also, I noted last night that I had no time. Pardon me, but I have a "real" life to lead, Bells. You know enough about me to appreciate that I have certain demands on my time apart from this place.

Yes. In particular, everybody who has never had an infraction is entitled to at least one "free" warning as far as I'm concerned. It seems only fair. On the other hand, when you're on 3 points and have been here for years, there a prima facie presumption that you know what you're doing when you post.

No. How about a link?

No. When moderators resign, sooner or later it becomes desirable to replace them with new ones. It's a matter of spreading the workload as well as having a diversity of views and expertise.

Never fear. I make no claim to victim status.

 

Gustav:

How interesting, coming from you. After all, you recently lied about spuriousmonkey asking you to act as a go-between to negotiate his return to sciforums, did you not?

If you're willing to lie about that, what other underhanded tactics are you up to, I wonder?

I have no problem at all with other moderators expressing their opinions about you or anybody else, especially with regard to moderation matters. That's their job. I'm also very happy to rectify any missteps to the best of my ability. Take, for instance, the time when I reversed 2 or 3 infraction points that had been wrongly awarded to you, completely on my own initiative.

Every ban I hand out is explained. This usually happens in the thread where the offending post appears. In addition, an official message is sent by private messaging to the person banned, explaining why they received the infraction.

You mean in threads like this, that I allow to remain open despite the proliferation of personal insults and counter-productive criticisms? Just think about that for a moment.

I think you'll find that my reversing of your second ban came as a complete surprise to all concerned, probably not least of all yourself. (How is this "force" supposed to work, exactly?)

I also find it interesting to see you arguing that I can be shamed into action on the one hand, but then in the next breath that I have no shame in my Nazi-like behaviour.

Another random thought: like Varda, you really need to look into what a Nazi is and what the Nazis did. I'm not even close to the ballpark of being a Nazi.

I claim no victim status. I'm not asking for sympathy.

I am magnificiently magnanimous, though, I admit. Look it up. Res ipsa loquitur.

Yet here I am on a discussion forum. Go figure.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I'm sure they can speak for themselves on that matter, if they give a damn about your silly accusations. I certainly won't blame them if they stay far away from this fracas.

I leave that for others to judge.

Tell me. Who do you think you're fooling, Gustav, with your infamous attempts to undermine the administrators and moderators here to the best of your ability?

I'll let you know the outcome of the current discussion of the matter in the Moderators' forum. In the meantime, if you have any questions to me about the particular wording of the poster, please PM me. Obviously, you won't be posting the material on the public forums for a third time - at least not until there's a policy change, which will depend on the aforementioned discussion.

See my reply to Bells, above.

Thankyou for your kind words about my donation of donkeys.

I assure you that I am doing my best to earn the respect of sciforums members.

How do you think you're doing on that score?

I considered it and rejected the idea of merely issuing a warning.

Yeah. I think you wanted exactly this.

I reversed your second ban as a courtesy to a number of supporters of yours in this matter. At no time did I admit error. At best, this was a judgment call that proved to be unpopular. It may lead to a new policy on such matters, or maybe not.

 

Really?

Only when challenged James. Two weeks and I'm still waiting...

Oh, don't worry. I say the same for you.

Oh, I haven't forgotten that.

But the whole 'we don't agree with it but we'll stand by it because James did it' routine wears thin.

Ah yes, sorry. The words were "to host advice to criminals" that we at sciforums are hosting said advice to?..
I asked that as well...

Remember?

No, I wasn't amused. After all, I had been admonished and told off for daring to break ranks in public, which I hadn't really done at that point with the exception of a "^ This".. My questions were posed to you in the mod forum and I was accused of breaking ranks for asking it and soundly advised that you apparently should not be held to explain to lil old me or anyone else..

They think you are above being accountable James. Your perfect team.

Ah yes, the angry mob..

Anyone who disagrees with you and calls you out on what you do is the "angry mob".

Noted..

I didn't want your head James. I just wanted an explanation. But as I was told by a former colleague, I should not dare even ask you that.. Because you are the administrator.

Then of course being told by another that I was pretty much put in place on the mod team as the 'feminine voice' and then accused of being a little girl. I notice you remain silent over the sexist and misogynistic tone there as well. Talk about angry mob.. Yes James. I am disappointed and yes, I was angry. I guess you'll have to find another woman to fill it to make sure you reach your affirmative action quota.

But your silence towards those attitudes in the mod forum is noted and was noted before with the last time that kind of comment was made to me.

Yes, I've had a gutfull. I am tired of having to explain or guess the reasoning behind your actions and then be abused and accused for it. Enough was enough.

Well good for you and for them.

And really, members here are free to support whatever and whomever they wish. Hey, one of them could replace me. Since that is what is wanted now.. blind support and mouth shut with no expectations of you.

Very much so.

Even more so now.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

No James.

I resigned because of the expectation that we had to always come to a consensus with you, even when we disagreed. I resigned because I was told by a colleague that you are not expected to have to answer to your actions and that I was somehow being insolent and divisive for expecting you to be held accountable and for daring to ask you a question.

In short James, I resigned because I refuse to offer blind support even when I totally disagree with something you have done and I resigned because being expected to do so and then being accused of abusing you in public, when I had barely said boo about this in public originally, was frankly, stomach turning by that point.

I resigned because the atmosphere there is one of rank and file.

I understand how you could scoff at anyone could resign over Gustav. I mean perish the thought.. Crappy reason, right James? But it's a matter of principles and morals James. I understand that may escape you, because hey, it's Gustav.. But yes, that is what it came down to. That was the tipping point. Enough was enough.

No James.

They are just being honest.

They have been here for a long time. So have I. And yes, I agree with them. You should either go or yes, be held accountable for any dodgy decision you make and actually apologise when you get things wrong. Unfortunately, that won't happen.

I never said you did James. I am quoting it from another source, as you well know.

Right..

Well have fun with that. I am sure the general consensus will be from those who will support you no matter what, even if they disagree with you.. well.. just as you expect it and want it to be. Or you'll just say it and they will support you, no matter what.

With one less voice (my own) to offer a dissent. Will make it much better and easier for you now.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I guess one could say my hand was forced. I was actually doing it in private in the mod forum when I was soundly accused of trying to 'break up the team' so to speak for asking you those questions and then accused of abusing you in public, when I actually had not done, when all I wanted was for you to answer the questions I had posed.

Isn't your standard that if it takes too long for you to answer, to post it in public anyway?

Rest assured James, I am only speaking about what is already on public record.

I know you have low expectations of the "mob" and all..

Uh huh..

You might want to post your latest permanent ban up as well..

Funny that, eh?

And the privacy of that forum not been displayed. Then again, I am living up to the accusation and expectations told to me by my former colleagues. Would you have preferred I go silently into the night and still not hold you accountable for your actions, regardless of what others may think?

Not at all. He was asking what exactly was criminal about it and why YOU had banned him for it in the first place.

Is that what you said huh?

How stupid can you get James?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Poor you. Having to take time to answer questions you apparently should not have to answer according to some.

How many times did you accuse me of lying in this post alone James?

Speaking of character assassination...

Hmmmm..

So he should not have posted something from the riots in a thread about the riots..

Noted..

Best warn people that if they post anything that any criminal reading this thread could read and get ideas, they will face the same thing. Even if it is something generally quoted in the media...

I think you left that out of the new set of rules by the way.

Check the mod away thread. I had not noticed him post while I was online that day. I assumed he was away. I could very well be incorrect. I apologise if I am mistaken. Also, the fact that you failed to document it anywhere, so again, even if he was here, unless he was staring at the ban list or reading that thread, he would not have known about it.

Well in keeping with this thread's topic, I was apparently not qualified enough for the post. And according to a former colleague, I was brought in to add my 'feminine' touch to the place.. you know, to pretty it up and all. Affirmative action it seems..

I'm sure you'll be able to find someone who remains silent no matter what, will never question your motives or actions and who is qualified enough to suit all your tastes.

Of course you don't.. That's what the angry mob accusation is not about, eh?

 

Tiassa:

Somebody else recently told you that maybe the time has come for you to resign because you've become increasingly unhappy about your role here, and also convinced that the changes you desire will never happen. Good advice, I'd say, especially if, as you claim, Plazma "doesn't give a fuck" what I do to this forum.

Plazma can speak for himself. Personally, I'm quite sure he does "give a fuck". But why stop when you're on a roll handing out insults?

You ought to get some perspective. How could I, as one person among hundreds, singlehandedly wreck the sciforums community? You give the community far too little credit for its own maintenance and strength.

But it's all just vague rhetoric anyway, isn't it? What, exactly, is supposed to be wrecking the community? My "Nazi" moderation? My "censorship" of contrary views on stuff in general (Exhibit A: the current thread remains open and uncensored, along with the other 3 or so threads currently running in which people are critical of me.) My banning of "people we miss", like the great contributors mentioned in the thread of that name? Or what? Maybe it's my posts about physics that are wrecking the forum.

For the third time in as many posts, I claim no victim status. I'm not looking for anybody's sympathy. (Expressions of support are welcome, however.)

Ah yes. My years of dishonesty. All those thousands of lies. Lie upon lie upon lie. My word, I am an evil bastard. Just click on my profile and search my posts. See the years of lies and deception! I'm just a bad egg. Society made me do it. I ought to be locked up.

You have solutions? Great! Do tell. That way, when I go, you can get straight down to business.

This thread is very much in the public view, is it not?

Regarding your reproduction and references to material in the Moderators forum, you still don't get it. The Moderators forum is not visible to the general membership for reason. The reason is so that moderators have a place where they can have full, frank, honest and private discussions as a group. If you're really not clear why such a thing is desirable, tell me and I'll go into further detail for you.

When you bring stuff from there into the public space, as you have done here and as you have done in the past, you breach the trust of the moderator group of which you are a member. You also present material to the general membership that can't be checked for accuracy by that membership. You ask them to accept what you say on no basis other than your say-so. So, if you mischaracterise the material you post, or flat-out lie, there's no way anybody but another moderator can pull you up on it, and even then the general membership can only choose who they want to trust (if anybody).

Bringing stuff from there into the public forums is also akin to publishing private messages you receive from people without their permission. We now actually have a rule about that because, like you, some other people in the past apparently didn't know how to respect appropriate boundaries of privacy and so need to be told explicitly.

Yet another reason to avoid publishing private moderator discussions is that such discussions often involve frank and sometimes potentially hurtful assessments of members who are not privy to those discussions, or information that was communicated in confidence by members to moderators, or information that may just be embarassing or that members (which includes moderators) may not want out there. The moderators write there for what they assume is an audience of moderators. When you move their words into the public space, that can have unintended repercussions.

The fact that I have to spell all this out for you speaks volumes about your suitability to be in the position you're currently in.

This is a good example of those unverifiable claims I referred to above. How is the general membership supposed to judge this paragraph of yours? Take it at face value? Wonder if there's another side to the story? Speculate on which parts are truth, which are lies and which are half-truths?

On the average day, I probably read about 10-20 reports of posts and follow them up. In addition, I probably respond on average to 2-3 PMs a day regarding matters of moderation, and also scan the new posts to the forum and take proactive action off my own bat to deal with any breaches of the site policies that I notice (which may result in another 4-5 moderator actions on my part on an average day).

So, let's say I act in my capacity as a moderator about 10 times a day - a reasonably conservative estimate. I'll wager that if you asked most members to estimate how many such actions I'd take in a day, their estimate would be far less than that. Mostly, my actions as a moderator are practically invisible as far as the average member is concerned. Spammers disappear and their posts are deleted. One or two members get a yellow card in their Inbox. In one thread out of 100, a small note appears documenting that I have taken some action or other. In the Moderators' forum, the documentation is more concentrated in a few threads that exist explicitly for that purpose, but even there not all actions are notified. If I catch a "live" spammer, often he or she won't be here long enough to make it onto the "permanent ban" list in the moderators forum.

If I really had a consistent history of fucking things up, don't you think it would be just a bit more ... obvious?

Ah yes. SAM and Gustav. Pure as the driven snow, both of them. As pure in deed as in motive.

(I'm sure SAM will thank you for bringing her into this.)

If I suspended people just for annoying me, there'd be about 20 people on the temp-ban list rather than 3.

Oh dear. Another buyer into the fashionable view that all politicians are evil and corrupt. Most politicians are, in fact, hard working and have the interests of their constituents firmly in mind.

This flimsy self-justification surely doesn't fly even with yourself, does it? I can tell you right now, nobody else is going to be fooled by this.

Remind me who it is who is playing personality politics again.

Practically. Let bygones be bygones, I say.

It might have been a big moment for you. I'm not sure you speak for everybody else.

Ah yes. Those brave and principled souls: the noble Gustav, the righteous Tiassa, the valiant Varda, the querulous quadraphonics, the cheerful chimpkin, the bold Brian Foley! I can feel the love and affection for the community from here. It warms the cockles of one's heart.

Hey! Here's an idea: why don't we all discuss Science, or politics, or Art and Culture instead of meta-discussing how science, politics and art and culture ought to be discussed?