Clarifying when mods are entitled to delete posts

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I find it very odd that decisions about moderators are based on their views outside the forums they moderate rather than how they moderate. Thats not a meritocracy, thats a partisan club that encourages bias and seeks to direct opinion on the forums. Consider how it would work out in the real world if people were hired for their political views even if they did a shoddy job.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Okay direct question then.

How is merit defined by owners/administrators of sciforums? Perhaps the ideal way to define an ethos would be discover what it is.

Not the internet. However one would hope that an "intelligent" community that claims to defend the right to evidence based discussion would be less partisan.

 

You essentially admitted that the moderators could disregard the rules (oops, I mean 'guidelines') when they felt it was appropriate to do so. Can't you see the potential for abuse there? Can't you see why this forum lacks consistency in moderation? Can't you see why moderators are prone to make edicts heavily influenced by their own biases and prejudices?

They should moderate in a fair and dispassionate manner, without allowing their political, ideological and personal prejudices to colour their judgements.

Yep. I didn't do much though, I believed in minimal interference. And there were always other Gestapo moderators to butt in and do my job for me.

Yep. This might be the time to point out that in any sports game, an umpire does not disregard a rule when it is appropriate to do so. Rules are clearly defined, and equally enforced.

That's like a monarch believing that their corrupt high counsellor does an acceptable job, while the commoners complain. Who has the administrators' ear, the moderators or the average poster?

At one point, she was entitled to 'protection' from criticism! Remember how you used to deny that S.A.M was bigoted, intellectually dishonest and radical, and instead chalked down all complaints against her to 'Islamophobia' and 'personality disputes'? But the moment she questions the establishment (as seen after Avatar and Dr Lou Natic were moderated), *BAM*, demoted. It seems that there is a trend here. Every moderator who breaks ranks (Gendaken, Avatar, S.A.M) is demoted. Fancy that.

SAM was always radical, people were complaining about her radical anti-Western anti-Israeli opinions for ages, and you just turned a blind eye. It was only *after* S.A.M started questioning the establishment and its slanted enforcement of the 'hate speech' rule that you started caring about her radicalism.

Been there, done that. Refer back to my case studies of S.A.M and Baron Max.

Oh, I'd love some statistical data to back that up. It's also worth noting that some dissenters have left/been banned, while others have just come to accept the bullshit that occurs on sciforums as the norm (eg. Ophiolite)

Yeah, fancy that.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I don't think we interpret that observation in the same way, James.

Those locked threads in Open Government suggest otherwise.

Not the other forums I frequent.

No, 'you' don't.

 

That's open for debate. But even as you yourself admit, the moderators can arbitrarily disregard the rules that average members are expected to adhere to. Why should moderators be so privileged, they aren't any better than us, and they don't pay for such a luxury.

'Can' be. But every moderator that *has* been demoted was demoted for questioning the establishment. Moderators who have been caught red handed abusing their moderator position (such as pushing to pursue a ban against a member they dislike, and then confessing that they shouldn't have even brought their plan before the council of moderators) remain.

To a moderator, perhaps. The monarch finds a high prevalence of poverty unimportant as well, that doesn't mean that the common man doesn't share the same view.

But that's not because they circumvent the rules, it's because they make a factual error. For example, an umpire who missed viewing a foul because their back was turned is *not* arbitrarily changing the rules of the game to suit them.

That potential disagreement is minimised significantly when the arbiter adheres to a clearly defined set of rules. Something which does not happen on this forum.

What if the moderators lose the confidence of the average posters? Should a corrupt Alcade remain in power simply because the King of Spain views him as trustworthy?

No. But even facist states can exhibit consistency in the way that the laws are enforced.

Yep, she only became all those things *after* she started questioning the establishment. How coincidental.

Yep, the cabal of seedy moderators reigns supreme.

Skinwalker insults people. Hell, he belittles them when they issue a complaint. An entire thread was devoted to Tiassa because he insulted Read only (I think?)

You think SAM is the only moderator who pushes a political agenda? WOW.

Why? You're the one who made the assertion. Why is the onus on me to support assertions *you* make?

Of course the black man who was arrested unjustly by the white police officer is going to be disgruntled. Would you expect otherwise?

Come off it. Stryder banned one member simply for the crime of dissenting, he even admitted that this was the case.

With a number of the threads getting locked.

 

so the same old shit is still going on?
this is highly unacceptable

/disappointed

i say!
this copernicus character
most awesome

/kowtow

 

When I was a young man and in my first significant supervisory role, with fifty people reporting to me, I used to console myself with the same shortsighted nonsense. Hearing it from yourself confirms for me that the issue here is one of maturity of the moderators, not in the conventional sense, but in terms of their experience in and eduation for the role. The first is chaotic, the second is wholly lacking.

 

Yes, there is. It's a 6 word list of examples. It's in the forum rules, you know this and have even referred to it further below.

Sure you do. Even if you don't call it a 'list'. Otherwise, there's no way you could have said "All of which are viewed as being "insults" and when found or reported, moderators will usually act on it." Instead, you would have said you had no clue whether such terms were insults because you had no internal list or whatever you want to call it.

Yes, I know. The fact that they're examples doesn't take away from the fact that they are a list of words that are proscribed, however.

Yes, I know this too. But there are some words that are frequently used in personal attacks. I personally think that the words in the list you essentially agreed were generally insults was a bit better then the official list, but the point is that with lists of proscribed terms, people will know there are certain terms they have to be careful with. They can be kept guessing as to what combinations of words (your famous noodle + brain example) are off, but some terms generally tend to be personal attacks all by themselves; and yet I've seen them a fair amount go unpunished. It's for this reason that I think the such a list would be most helpful.

That and making sure that moderators don't hypocritically delete posts for things they themselves engage in, and frequently in a less civil manner.

 

They subject is one and the same; a mod can and did say I was trolling and thus, deleted my post; so, in order to know what mods are entitled to delete, one must know what is considered trolling. This was all in the past, however. At this point, I essentially believe that some mods are simply hypocritical and will find any excuse that can qualify as a forum rule/guideline to delete posts from a person they dislike, while 'breaking' the same rules themselves with impunity. Fortunately, up to this point, the only mod that I have seen do this is Skinwalker.

 

If you think I misunderstood you, by all means, clarify where you believe this occured.

 

Perhaps you've responded to this point of mine; if so, please direct me to said response. But since I haven't seen such a response, I will go with the same line as before:
That is, that while I haven't seen the evidence against Baron Max, I have never found Tiassa to be unfair with anyone. Bells also backed him up. And while I tend to quibble with Bells a fair amount, I credit her with giving the most in depth explanation of what is and isn't supposed to be allowed in terms of discussion with each other.

 

Sam you know very well that the three of you who have this grievance (essentially roughly three members) will carry on with this until perhaps James gets bored and stops responding or until you get tired and move on or someone gets banned for bringing it up 5x too often and then everything will go on just the same as usual. There are not enough people who share your position, the admins and mods (outside of James and Bells) haven't entered this discussion and as we all know this is not a democracy. Nothing will come of this.

 

If you do nothing, you fail anyway. At least, by doing something you can pretend to have given an opportunity for change. Who knows? Maybe something can come out of this?

 

What if you succeed ?

 

You've been here long enough to know better, there isn't enough people who refer to what you say as a problem

 

Then we can move one more step in the right direction.

Lets just say that I have personal experience that even three or four complainants can lead to action against moderators.

 

The right direction according to you. Isn't that a bit self-righteous ?