Abolish the Infraction System!

True.

The difference was like this: In the old days if people flamed or trolled each other, a mod would step in and break it up nice and lowkey, similar to a hip teacher at school breaking up a fight in the playground. And similarly, if a troll jumped over the fence the teacher would ban him because he had no right being in the playground causing grief, spamming porn etc etc, quick and to the point.

Nowadays, the hip teacher has retired and in place we have new school prefects sending their old classmates to the corner of the classroom whilst making snidy comments about them for everybody to hear. The more the kids complain about this, the more the prefects want to create conflict and show who's boss and hence more kids leave or get expelled...by the prefects. The kids resent this.

They probably wouldn't mind a private ticking off, but it's the public goading that gets on their nerves, and without going into detail (coz life's too short) I have personally seen this done by You and Q and James R and I have heard other members complaining of similar tactics by other mods.

You say we have rules to abide by, fine, but the rules are flouted every day on almost every thread by different people including mods, but it seems it's only the high profile 'mischief makers' that get picked on and even then, most of the flouting is missed. Therefore, what is the point of having moderators?

If we are the intelligent community, like it says on the box, then the members themselves are more than capable of reporting an asshole to Plazma Inferno or maybe one other super mod, without all the superfluous rules and regulations that hardly anybody adheres to in any case and the need for a clique of mods that obviously can't keep up with the demand and only further and fan the flames of conflicts.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What I do in other subforums is my freeride as any member, and I have rights to have fun as any other. If some are too sissy about it, by all means complain, but not against moderator-Avatar, but member-Avatar, because I'm moderating only one subforum and have no real power outside of it. And I can get infractions and get banned as any other one.

If you look at the subforum I'm moderating, then it's fairly clean and civilized and nobody's* making a revolution because of unfair moderation.

So no, I have no intention to bite my tongue simply because some members would wish it, and using the fact that I'm a moderator in one subforum is impaired thinking.

* Maybe except MedicineWoman, but she's got a personal vendetta against me and that's no news.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There is truth in it, but it's not 100%. From my observations the members have changed too, the whole forum culture actually.
Members are treating forums like myspace or their personal sandbox where they think they are free to shit wherever they want, and when someone restricts them, they throw their shit all around, so all place stinks.

There is an old latin saying that I like, and I'll repeat it here a bit modernised: Like people, like government, i.e., you deserve what you get, because you are that what you get.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This is absolutely visionary. I'm in awe. I can't claim to know the truth of this first-hand but the historical records support it 100%.
But I agree with this too:

And in view of that, I agree with a lot of the other things that Avatar says about a new sissy culture, the distinction between mods and members, and so on.

Plazma and his mods should work hard on ending the sissy culture - the main problem - and instilling a sense of community. So much whining has developed because the present culture has encouraged it, led, I think, as Tab, has so astutely identified, by a change in moderator attitudes. Suddenly, members are being treated like children, reacting like children, being treated more like children, and so on - it's self-reinforcing. The moves to end this must come from the moderators. The response to so many complaints - 90% - should be: "So what? You're supposed to be an adult - deal with it." Bans should be largely reserved for spammers, the terminally stupid, those whose who persistently troll without flair or imagination, etc., etc., as well as members who refuse to heed repeated, polite warnings (and need cooling-off periods). As Tab says, member self-reporting of problems should be central. Reports from a single member should be treated with suspicion (poetential whiner alert); reports from two or more taken more seriously. Rewire the whole shebang to react primarily to multiple member reports. The infraction system should be dumped. Mods should take some large steps back on rule enforcement. A more liberal atmosphere with a new emphasis on self-discipline should be encouraged. The whiners who make persistent, trivial complaints should be publicly ridiculed - ideally by Plazma himself - and encouraged to either grow up and develop some e-cojones (thanks Varda), or to move to a site that has 24 hour wetnursing facilities. Raise the entrance age to 16 if necessary (give current under-16s a chance of staying or going) and accompany it with a short IQ test. Redirect the kids and the brain-in-a-jars to MySpace. Encourage use of the Alpha rules for those who want a sober, serious discussion of something (these rules have been in place for ages and have great potential, but are hardly ever invoked). Chop the forums up into serious and more liberal chunks if necessary. Publicise the new philosophy so that no members are in any doubt about what sort of forum they're joining. Keep the advertising, bring back voluntary donations and look into alternative sources of revenue to offset any potential financial loss.

In short, bring the old culture back with a bang and force the current membership remorselessly through its sausage machine. Keep the tasty bits and send the remaining bone and cartilage elsewhere. Sorted.

 

Brilliantly put! I'll copy this post to moderator subforum, so that everyone is aware of it.

 

FYI I copied tab's post too

 

One other thing: the Ignore feature. Make it more prominent - put it on the main screen - and encourage its use. Most of the tools for effective member self-management are already in place. They just need promoting.

 

I choose to be abstain for the poll (at this moment), because:

• I haven't (so far) receive any infraction yet
• The result at the moment is 50:50 and I choose not to be determinant

  Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

• I am quite new and do not completely understand the history of the forum yet

However, I would like to offer a couple of suggestions:


* If the infraction system will not be abolished, let Plazma be the one who
directly gives infraction. As the site traffic is high, of course Plazma could not
control everything. Here let the moderators help him. If a moderator see any
abuse to forum rules, or receive any pressed report button from members, let
moderator informs Plazma, and let Plazma decides.


* Regarding ban, I am against permanent ban. The current system of temporary
ban I think is ok. However, after -for example 3 times- temporary ban, a permanent
ban can be considered. For example, behind the door moderator must create poll,
and permanent ban is given if >50%* number of moderators agree. That is, at least
9 moderators agree, because there are currently 17 moderators.


* Regarding closing or deleting of threads, a moderator should get >25%* other
moderators' approval before he/she can close or delete threads. That is, at least
5 moderators agree.


Last but not least, I would like to thanking all moderators for their time and
effort in maintaining the harmony in this site.


*) all this numbers (25%, 50%..) are just example. Main point is that perhaps
it could "reduce" individual bias.

 

blah blah blah, vote already!

 

No.

Why hurry? :shrug:

 

Regarding permanent bans. Right now the procedure is 3 day, 7 day, 15 day, 1 month; sometimes we forget and people get several 3 days or 7 days, which is fine, since it means there has been a lot of time in between.

Satyr was banned after a previous permaban (as Wanderer) and now after several warnings and two one month bans.

Permanent bans are (usually) discussed and majority decision taken; this does not apply to people who declare an intent of vandalism or go berserk (like pencil). Even then, many banned members come back under new usernames and if they keep under the radar, we let them be.


Closing or deleting a thread is under the subforum moderator. But frequently, threads are locked by supermods or admins, which I, for example, allow to continue (like the last Satyr thread). I will also reopen threads if there is a genuine request. Moderators close threads when civil discussion seems unlikely or the thread has degenerated or gone to far topic. Sometimes because its purpose is already served, like a poll, sometimes on request.

 

mmm.... :scratchin:

Thanks for this informative post, S.A.M. Bye for now.

 

tablariddim and redarmy11 thank you both for your excellent posts.

I'll first respond to your quotes, then give some conclusion.

I agree with most of this.
But, SciForums changed its dynamics and structure. Sissy culture as redarmy named it, has been adopted mostly as product of vacuum created by changing ownership. Some of those problems are inherited and later evolution took part. So things mostly turned to worse.
Forum needed leader during that transition period and I failed to achieve that. I had buddy approach accompanied with a lot of outbursts, which in general, could be described as 'sissy approach' as well.
You said 'be God Almighty' in your previous post, but I think I cannot play god, but boss... certainly.
I need helpers to fulfill that task. Moderators are of great help, that fact no one can deny. But, there is a lot of 'personal' involvement of moderators in discussions. They often know to react with an insult on insult, but that shouldn't be standard.
Moderators should be models for behaviour and I know it's sometimes hard to keep mouth shut when you're directly attacked.
Also, there is a lot of members who hastily wait to jump moderators' throats to check if they're really human in their reactions.
Unfortunately, some (hopefully) minority will go that far to hack PCs and send threats to moderators (I'm still shaken with thing that happened to Bells).

Anyway, I will be more rigorous in implementing forum rules (more in conclusion) and in monitoring members' and moderators' behaviour from now on.
Same rules apply to all members, including moderators and administrators.
I expect, what you said in your post, that members will also help me and help other moderators when there are offenders and 'assholes' on the board.
We are intelligent community and that won't be a problem.

redarmy like you took my thoughts. But, you're better writer than I am.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I agree with this wholeheartedly.

I always experienced SciForums as nice mix of tastes and interests. I would love to maintain that course.
We are scientific forum indeed, but I always loved the general aspect of SF.
But, as you pointed that out, we have to sort sober discussion out of off topic subjects.
There is a room for both, but both should have own place.
SciForums wouldn't be same place if it's only forum for scientific discussion. But I think that science should be emphasized, with or without implementing Alpha rules, or with help of 'small directional signs' - off topic and casual discussion goes there - About Memebrs, Free Thoughts,...; whatever members decide.

I emphasized your quote in red.

I admit that I can be arrogant and sarcastic git sometimes and I hate myself because of that. I don't think that public ridicule would be good idea.
I love to send PMs with an explanation, if necessary. But, sometimes I just close trivial complaining topics without any explanation. I'll try to improve that part.
Also, regarding public ridicule in other forums. I also think it wouldn't be good.

Take wrong estimation into consideration for example:
Confused 17 y/o kid who is brilliant in Physics (or has potential to become great scientist) registers on SF and posts couple of posts in P&M forum. His posts include some nice questions but he's on the brink of pseudoscience because he provided us with some 'Non Peer Review Halal' theories which is understandable, because kid is 'king of the world' with his 17 years (I had some silly theories myself in my teen ages

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

).
What he need is guidance not ridicule. Because he could represent himself as 39 y/o scientist (this is only the internet) and we could be more harsh to someone who wear lab coat and still babbling nonsense, than if we imagine him as someone who came here to learn.
We will drive him away and lose decent contributor maybe.

Well, I guess I gave trivial example.

Regarding, ads and donating. Your posts are the only donations that SciForums needs.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Many members ask how to donate SF, but really that's not important.
Thank you all for interest, but your contribution here is the best donation.


As a small conclusion:

You both mentioned self-assessment and self-discipline and I think that would work.
We need clearly stated rules for forum actions. I think we have decent rules already (Reference: http://www.sciforums.com/announcement.php?a=35), not so scary at all.
All we need is couple of amendments to fill some holes and I'll be free to add them as soon as possible, but first, when I finish amendments I will present framework to the community, so members could give comments and add some parts that are missing.

Thing that we need as well is consistency in the interpretation of the rules.
No separate rules for the members, moderators, admins,...

We'll wait for end of this poll to define strategy in future warning and ban system, I hope within the mentioned framework.


We're passing through the tough period and I'm glad this discussion has been raised. I hope we will solve all problems and back this forum to normal.

I'm sorry I cannot post more today, because of my other commitments, but I will join discussion later.

 

I'm liberal on the idea of public ridicule. ie, I was being none-too-serious there, maybe, and am slightly embarrassed to see that highlighted in glowing red letters.

And it was Avatar who first identified a 'sissy culture', without actually using that phrase.

But anyway, thanks for the lengthy response which I think we all now need time to digest.

 

could make a witty remark now, but I am two points away from a ban

 

Bah... Selective perception. No one is immune. Sorry both of you.

Bad grammar?... I knew it.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

12 actually... So hit.

 

Alright!! they expired finally!

I'm going to save it for where it really hurts though if you don't mind.

 

Not that I've seen you personally do anything objectionable, but I think that this attitude is common amongst the mods and very problematic. It may well be that you consider yourself to be in "normal user" mode when posting outside the subforum you moderate, but it's doubtful that many users agree with this assessment. Like it or not, mods occupy a position of authority throughout SciForums, even if their explicit powers are limited to particular subforums. If nothing else, you have a closer relationship with the higher-ups and a say in some of the moderator-consensus decisions we occasionally hear about. It's simply not possible to take your "moderator" hat on and off; people are going to look at your posts, in whatever subforum, as emblematic of the desired discourse here. I think it's simplistic and unrealistic to think of mods as simply administrators of certain strictly-defined subfora. People look to the mods as examples of good SciForums citizens, and there's really nothing you can do to change this expectation. Accepting a higher standard of behavior is simply one of the prices of being a mod.

 

Sure, but I don't have to be a sissy, bend low and fall in a nice, expected place.
Also you have to consider that Sciforums is international and not everyone is a member of a classic western society with its idea of what an authority should be.

And I've not received any infractions as a member or a moderator.