Clarifying when mods are entitled to delete posts

pardon
who do you post as?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

he he he heeeee...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

scott75

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Gustav, I don't know Scott's handle there, but I did dig this little gem out of their rules: Personal Attacks, Civility and Respect

I guess they take the "Democratic" part of "Democratic Underground" seriously. I wonder if they follow the "don't ask, don't tell" doctrine for those Republicans? I mean, regardless of your political POV, actually calling someone a "Republican" out loud and proud? The horrors...

On the other hand, perhaps certain posters here, at least as to particular topics, may have found a home which adequately repressed dissenting sensible viewpoints. Happy posting to those that feel at home there!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

i thought that was funny. i dont like the format there (too hard to navigate) but i have been a member there for years.

 

instinct tells me to bat for scott
cackle somewhere else

 

was i cackling? you can bat for whoever you want. you guys are too serious.

 

My instinct tells me you should run john...

/casts spell to ward off john99

 

*Precisely*. You are learning, young Padawan. How zealous a particular moderator is on enforcing a rule depends on their own particular disposition, and the individual who is believed to be breaking the rule. For example, if the individual in question is renowned for being a 'crackpot', then they are more likely to be moderated over bullshit which a mediocre (or privileged) poster wouldn't be busted for.

That's right, the mods don't give a fuck about your complaints. If you don't like it, then just fuck off! Nice service.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

No wonder this forum is half dead.

This forum is populated mainly by individuals whose mediocrity and/or liberalism have allowed them to stick around for years, going around in circles spouting their partisan bullshit.

 

Skinwalker has gone off a bit in my opinion. It was really wierd how he jumped into the philosophy thread on babies are born athiest/thiest with some unscientific gibberish that was the converse of accepted scientific information and was almost evangelising, apparently, in case someone googled that thread and was misled by all the scientific data that dissented from his opinion.

And as he has himself declared, if you're a thiest, you should prepare to be insulted because although the Religion forum rules say otherwise, that is how he moderates the forums. Unscientific gibberish from atheists is not to be challenged. Labelling all theists as wackos is valid dissent. So yeah, it would be nice to have a set of rules that one could be pointed to or point to when rules are broken, that are actually followed by the moderator.

And I agree with scot, Skin acts like a douche or simply ignores it when you ask him why posts are deleted and James is not any better, so telling people to take the official route is pointless. Besides, the precedent is that action is usually only taken against moderators when there is public whining on the issue.

I also think that as the forums have republicans and democrats to balance opinion in the politics thread, they should have a thiest in the religion forum as well. I for one, have no confidence in the ability of Skinwalker to be unbiased and not use the forums to preach his own point of view by selective deletion and permitting selective evangelising and trolling.

 

personally i feel that all mods and administrators should be REQUIRED to use sock puppets when posting on the board.
example:
skinwalker would use his skinwalker alias when moderating his boards but when he posts as a poster then he would use his sockpuppet.

my 2 cents.

 

Voting was tried initially back in the early days of sciforums. The problem was however that Moderators were voted in because of popularity not function for the most part. Regularly polls would be generated and members would attempt to be voted in. I know I myself was in such a poll, I was voted in because I was aiming for trying to boost the functionality of the site while others were just trying to gain the popular votes.

I remember running in the Pseudoscience election, most people were upset that I was trying to run for a second subforum (Since I do the Computer Sciences & Culture) and the closest competitor I had at the time was actually Skinwalker for votes. (I only marginally beat him). The only reason I got the votes was because I believe the voters were concerned that "his brand of moderation" would stop their discussion of things in Pseudoscience. Obviously over the years they probably wished I hadn't of been emplaced because some of the hardline "oddities" in regards to individuals with beliefs or estranged reasoning's have been moderated and even banned from the site. This was nothing personal in regards to them, as I know some of them are just in a period of transgression, where they are still trying to work out their perception of the world and everything in it and what part they are suppose to play.

Still the point here is that Skinwalker was set to be a Moderator by the opinion of that time and some of the problems he has faced here on this forum are internet lurkers that just stalk Skin.

There is a fundamental truth that I've heard stated: "A leader is born, not made!". This means you can place a person in charge to do a job, they won't necessarily be able to do the job unless that is the job they are suppose to do. Some might think this as some profound reasoning involving causality, while others might see some form of tyranny to mimic the obsessions of Alexander the Great , but the fundamental truth is that; "some can do the task, while others can not".

This is why voting for a member to become a moderator is flawed. I agree that not all moderators necessarily know best, yes we are human and we have our own individually trained traits. Perhaps the moderators need some training, how about a meet up at a sciforums seminar on how to best moderate, the problem there however is it would cost money and the fact that we are indeed scattered all over the world. (Some might even be retiring enough not to want to put in a physical appearance)

This is why a very simple form of Occums razor can be applied, "What ever is the simplest solution works the best". In this instance if you really can't put up with the moderation (or attempt to work with the moderators at the very least) then try a different website, otherwise the soap box preaching isn't going to change anything alone. (Any problems solution only occurs through effort, and there is no effort in complaint.)

 

Sryder: This is why a very simple form of Occums razor can be applied, "What ever is the simplest solution works the best". In this instance if you really can't put up with the moderation (or attempt to work with the moderators at the very least) then try a different website, otherwise the soap box preaching isn't going to change anything alone. (Any problems solution only occurs through effort, and there is no effort in complaint.)

Reasonable advice. Couldn't agree with you more!

 

Seconded.

 

Thats why so many good posters from the Religion forum have left when their complaints were disregarded. Ultimately, the only ones left will be the ones who either agree with each other [or consider it unnecessary to point out when the atheists talk gibberish, which is the same thing in the religion forum] and have nothing more to say or the ones who have no good discussion to offer or refrain from it because they are treated poorly by moderators.

It is my opinion that it is irresponsible of the admin to ignore Skinwalker's bias in this regard and his negative effect on the quality of discussion in the religion forum. Any moderator who cannot separate personal bias from objective moderation is a poor moderator.

 

So he has to act like a normal member sometimes and a moderator at others? I think he should simply be less hypocritical; and if he can't be, he should be replaced.

 

I think your moderation could use some work, but I've always believed you're a cut above Skinwalker. Skinwalker isn't as bad as some, but he'll sink right to the bottom of the heap in forums he doesn't moderate and his hypocracy in his selective deletions in his own forum is fairly evident as well.

I simply believe that his moderation leaves much to be desired. However, if you want to keep him, it's your ball game. I'll just generally avoid the forums he moderates.

Here's a possible solution:
People who would like to be moderators declare their wish in a thread; if they are seconded by x (2?) amount of people, they become a phase 1 contender.

Next, normal members vote for the people they would most like to see as moderators, out of 2 pools:
1, the moderators that already exist.
2, the pool of contenders.

They also are allowed to vote who they do -not- want to see as moderators, again from the aforementioned pools. People who earn the most votes for wanted moderators become phase 2 contenders or are essentially validified in their positions.

Finally, phase 3: the administration makes the final choices as to whether anyone is promoted to moderator and/or anyone is demoted from being a moderator. This, I think, is necessary, because unlike a normal government, members don't pay taxes and moderators aren't getting paid by members.

I think I have tried to work with the moderators, in this very forum; I have stated what I believe is wrong and I have also stated what I think the solution(s) might be. Conversely, when I realized that speaking of 9/11 was no longer possible here, I found another forum to do so, just as I always had other forums for another subject that has come up before. But the world isn't -just- about these subjects; and for other subjects, I'd like to think that this place still has some discussion I'd like to see.

I don't agree with that (I think doing anything takes effort), but someone who only states what they think is wrong without offering a solution is frequently someone who isn't all that appreciated. However, if the same person or someone else comes up with the solution to these alleged problems, that's another story.

 

for a specific example:
you and bells was discussing "personal insults", you took that to mean you was getting a nod from the moderators.
requiring mods to post as alias's,unless moderating, will prevent assumptions like that.

edit:
as far as skinwalker goes, is he being fair?
he moderates both the history forum and religion.
i haven't had many, if any, posts removed/edited/deleted in the history forum.
as far as the religion forum goes, well there ain't a whole lot happening so i usually don't post there.

 

I still think she was giving me the nod

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. She hasn't denied it anyway. And I like that about a moderator always being a moderator; it's not like you have to wonder about their secret identity. I think that Tiassa has a solution that is around your alley; when he wants to do a 'mod' thing, he writes in green text.

Neither have I, but I also haven't posted there a whole lot; I had considered setting up camp with a 9/11 thread there when it was looking for a home after being closed up in Formal Debates, but when I saw that Skinwalker was a mod there, I chose another one. I can certainly believe that you haven't had any posts removed/edited/deleted, but you might consider the possibility that this has more to do with the fact that you're generally in agreement with Skinwalker's views then anything else.

Perhaps you might consider a question; why do you think it is that so little happens there? Do you think that perhaps it might have to do with Skinwalker's moderating style? I barely got my foot in the door before I got 2 harmless posts deleted and 2 warnings to boot. I talk about my 'high crime' concerning the first post deletion in the OP of this thread and second post deletion, concerning an allegedly 'off topic' post is posted verbatim as post#2. For posting this harmless post that was only allegedly off topic in the forum where it was originally posted, James himself said that if I did it again, I would be banned. I -hope- that it's simply that he didn't understand that I didn't actually post the post in the same forum again. Meanwhile, Skinwalker got on the same (allegedly off topic) point, but he didn't delete -that- post and I sincerely doubt that he gave himself a warning.