Rate Sciforums Moderation.!!!

Link to the thread please, I'm bored.

:EDIT:

I think I found it.

You're all messed!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm curious how you decided Bells was the cause of it falling into an abortion thread...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It doesn't help the content when one of the better and more prolific posters is permanently banned for an offence that should have warranted a 7 day ban at most.
Yes, I mean LG.
This site isn't a very welcoming place at the moment, and I think you know why that is.
Why don't you do something about it?

As for the poll, I would give some of the moderators an 8,
but on average I must give 5.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

in my opinion(which is meaningless and irrelevant to anything), the on'es who think they are " slick " (arguers) seem to run this place.
which makes it, for me anyways, " find isn't a very welcoming place ".
they are all over every subject. and they are obvious.
but what is amusing to me is,
they lack understanding but yet some how ridicule everything and say " that's not science /true"
when in fact they have no knowledge or understand of what they claim " unscientific or untrue ".
and then,they're the ones who screams troll every second.

 

The relevance of the LG incident to this thread is that when moderators behave arbitrarily, where even the most innocuous remark can get a person permabanned and posthumously slandered, discretion would seem to be the better part of valor. Some moderators might be best avoided. (And that's pretty much this thread's definition of a '1', isn't it?)

 

It would seem that James R does not appreciate figurative sculpture.

 

I don't know.

Please clarify, James R. (Or anyone.)

Is it that moderators can suspend, but only an admin can permanently ban?




I don't even know LG.

 

Mods CAN permanently ban, but we are supposed to request approval for that from the Admins. In times when the admins are unavailable though, we have permission to act autonomously within the boundaries of the site rules.

With the exception of spam/bots, to my knowledge, all perm-bans that have taken place recently without an admins approval have been brought up to discussion among all the moderators and supermods to ensure it was a valid reason.

 

The answer is the obvious one: some SF moderation is very good, more of it good, the majority intermediate, some poor and some exceptionally poor. The object is to identify and eliminate poor moderation. It's the most effective methodology.

 

When I called LG's banning arbitrary, I wasn't talking about the moderators' secret closed-door tribunal.

My point here is that what LG actually wrote isn't something that a reasonable person would expect would receive the kind of response it did. That suggests that when a certain subset of Sciforums moderators become passionate about their own pet issues, it can be dangerous for rank-and-file participants to disagree with them in even the most innocuous ways. And that in turn suggests that threads where those particular moderators are posting might be best avoided.

 

1. History is when something is finished.
2. Bells. A tyrant. Demote her.


LG is still banned.

 

Yeah... here's the thing Captain...

It's finished, so it's history. The fact that some people are still hung up on it... doesn't change anything.
Bells is no saint, sure, but she's no more a tyrant as Morgan Freeman...

 

Morgan Freeman!

Ban her!

 

How did Morgan Freeman come into it?

 

LG has now been Banned for 125 days.
For Nothing.

 

I know you are smarter than that... surely you know what a simile is

 

Yes, it's one of these.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!