Perceptions of sciforums moderation

Discussion in 'SF Open Government' started by James R, Apr 13, 2009.

?

Compared to other online forums, the moderation of sciforums is (tick all that apply)

Poll closed Apr 27, 2009.
  1. not strict enough

    20.9%
  2. less strict

    41.9%
  3. equally as strict

    14.0%
  4. more strict

    11.6%
  5. too strict

    2.3%
  6. much less affected by the personal biases of moderators

    9.3%
  7. a little less affected by the personal biases of moderators

    11.6%
  8. about the same in terms of moderator bias

    23.3%
  9. a little more affected by the personal biases of moderators

    16.3%
  10. hopelessly affected by the personal biases of moderators

    9.3%
  11. applied arbitrarily by moderators without any clear guidelines

    16.3%
  12. applied somewhat more arbitrarily

    20.9%
  13. applied with about the same moderator discretion

    16.3%
  14. more strictly in accordance with the published rules

    2.3%
  15. always rigidly applied according to the rules

    4.7%
  16. hopelessly below par, even for unpaid volunteers

    11.6%
  17. somewhat less competent

    9.3%
  18. about the same in terms of moderator competence

    20.9%
  19. somewhat more competent

    14.0%
  20. very good, given that moderators are unpaid volunteers

    48.8%
  21. I do not wish to participate in this poll

    7.0%
Multiple votes are allowed.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    No but the community does. You may or may not remember Wanderer, he was an intelligent member, he didn't discuss topics that upset people but the way he interacted with the community as a whole was such that he was permanently banned. Mod's and admins are thinking of the community at large not individual member needs and wishes.
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. copernicus66 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    639
    How have I contradicted myself?

    There's a rule that members can't advocate paedophilia? Yikes, that's awfully specific, but OK.

    There is no contradiction between those two statements. Weren't you a lawyer? I'd think that an ex-lawyer would have some measure of literacy comprehension!
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Because you were protesting that we do not. And then did a little backflip about how the owners set the rules and it is their site, so the only thing that matters is that the moderators adhere to the rules. And then went back to whining about how people are not allowed to express their opinions.

    I mean can you make up your mind? You either agree that the administrators own this site and can set their own rules, thus banning people from advocating certain things, or you think we should have free reign to express anything and everything. Which is it?
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Sciencelovah Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,349

    No, Copernicus66, of course not. You can as well post lots of porn pics, wet dreams, or whatever things you want to make this site becomes.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  8. copernicus66 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    639
    Do not what? Enforce the rules in a fair, unprejudiced, non-arbitrary and even-handed manner. Well, you don't, that's the thing. But that has no bearing on what we were just discussing.

    Yep.

    Adhere to those rules and enforce them equally, no exceptions.

    If the owners don't want to allow individuals to advocate pedophilia on their forums, that is their choice. I don't necessarily have to agree with their choice, but I'm not going to force my will on them, and I'm not going to break the rules either.

    Both. I repeat, neither stance is exclusive. I can believe that the administration *should* allow people to express anything and everything, but also acknowledge that it is their site and that I have no place to make demands of them based on what I feel is appropriate.

    Think of it this way. You think that hippie down the road *should* get a haircut, but you also acknowledge that it is his head of hair and that it isn't your place to tell him how to cut it.
     
  9. copernicus66 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    639
    Posting pornographic images is explicitly against the rules. I'm not sure if advocating pedophilia is explicitly against the rules though, I think Bells might be wrong on this one. I'll have to look through the CoC more carefully later.
     
  10. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    Yes, yes, very nice, that does not change the fact he gets joy out of is position of power, despite being an altruist he still rubbing his nipples while doing it, metaphorically at least. and of course we would all rather have moderators like him, but that does not change the fact of why people become internet forum moderators: for ze power.
     
  11. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    Small cartoon images of pornographic nature can circumnavigate this rule because they are art, not porn.
     
  12. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    An excellent point on the hypocracy of many people, but I'm afraid it's lost on most people here. There are other points however; first of all, I have never advocated fing children; the concept conjures very unpleasant ideas in my mind. There are important points here;
    1- How are we defining "children"?
    2- "fucking" is generally seen in a rougher way as "sex" and even that is seen different then, say, "making love".
    3- Many people don't seem to have noticed that I have always made a distinction between sex and sexual interactions. A sexual interaction can be something as simple as a kiss. Should we ban people 16+ from -kissing- minors? Then there's the whole "sexting" thing where minors are being charged for taking pictures of their own bodies. It's ludicrous.. and it's also the law. Scary stuff.


    A very good point copernicus. What's happening is that the moderators have decided what people can advocate to be legalized and what can't be. It limits discussion, but if enough sci forum members are fine with it, it can fly; it currently is actually; threads wherein someone describes the age of consent laws as not the best approach are generally closed down pretty quick these days. There is also another thing; it's one thing to advocate changing the law. It is another thing -entirely- to advocate breaking it. I have never advocated breaking it, but many people here seem to have missed this point.


    If they were to allow people to advocate breaking the law, the -site- might well get in trouble with the law. Any large site that supports people who are attracted to minors, such as Boychat or Girlchat, know this full well and make it very clear on their home page that advocating breaking the law will result in a ban of the member. They actually go further, stating to never reveal having engaged in illegal activity in forums, as this also can get people in trouble and may even result in the site having to provide email addresses and IP information to law enforcement.
     
  13. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    so what?
     
  14. Sciencelovah Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,349
    Your last post in this thread:


    Just to quote some of your post in some other thread:

    Another example:

    And God knows what else. I rest my case.
     
  15. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,105
    I guess you are basing that on your "Power trip" back when you did a flip out.

    Not every moderator is in it for the power trip, some are here trying to help the forum, much like community volunteers use to help out with Geocities or Fortunecity back in the day. I guess it's relative though, depending on who you are and what makes you tick.
     
  16. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    Of course

    Ha! you believe that? If they want to help they can do it in real life where it actually counts as help. No people come on the internets for there own entertainment, if they get joy out of modifying or deleting others post, dictating "the rules" to others and twisting other wills to their command not matter how nice they do it, they are power triping, they may rationalize to them selves that they 'just want to help people' but thats is a lie.

    Altruist in this world are rare, and are actually helping by say feeding starving children, vaccinating the poor, organizing food drives, etc, IRL stuff, any attempt of altruism on an internet forum is nothing but cover for ones own entertainment of more nefarious desires.
     
  17. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    First of all "fing children" and adult/minor sexual interactions are, I believe, quite different. I have explained my reasoning as to why in my last post. Secondly, you fail to understand the importance of the 'should be permitted' part in the second quote. It currently isn't. Where this gets rather interesting is that the term 'minor' varies depending on where you're at, so what is legal in one place is illegal in another. I think it also bears repeating that I have never advocated breaking the laws here, only of changing them.


    What I have said in the forums is all a part of record. If you don't want to find out, that's fine, but there's no need to get God involved

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    . As to parents and teachers teaching children about sexuality, they already do so. I simply believe that their education on the subject of relationships and sexual relationships could be done in a better and more in depth fashion.
     
  18. Sciencelovah Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,349
    Ok, so, let me get this straight, Scott3x. Please simply choose straightly so that it becomes clear. Which one are you:
    1. No, I am not advocating/supporting/encouraging adult-minor sexual interactions
    2. Yes, I am advocating/supporting/encouraging adult-minor sexual interactions

    1 or 2?
     
  19. draqon Banned Banned

    Messages:
    35,006
    I think scott is for 2nd choice
     
  20. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    You're not going to get a straight answer to that

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. Sciencelovah Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,349

    Let's put aside our prejudice and give the man chance to tell us where he stands. I would appreciate straight forward answer

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  22. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    He is going to say that he picks option 1 because he's not advocating any illegal activities.
    In fact, he's advocating that the legal age of consent should be lowered to fit his own sexual interests.
    So he wants to, but he can't

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  23. Mr. Hamtastic whackawhackado! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,492
    I think pedophiles make excellent decorations for one's yard, in the tradition of Vlad the Landscaper in... was it Romania?

    If you like sex with kids, please forward your address to me. I'm planning a party.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page