More moderation isn't needed. Different administrative decisions might be helpful such as doing away with all the voodoo sub-forums. It's kind of hard to complain about the nutjobs when there are a multitude of sub-forums that invite them in. No one needs such a contorted "banning system", lectures about "gaslighting", moderators posting for people to "just shut up" and the like. No one elected the moderators. If that were the case none of the current moderators would be moderators.
Forums ebb and flow, and those that are niche focused or one-theme driven, often lose traffic over time. I belong to a runners forum for example, and it used to be so active about five years back, but with Instagram, Facebook, and other social media platforms, forums are dying off. Forums that tend to attract a lot of traffic, are those where there is a wide variety of topics being offered. I think this is why the runners forum is dying down, because there aren't enough ''off topic'' threads to attract a wider audience. Granted, one could make the argument ...well, it's a runners forum, which is designed to bring mainly runners together, right? Sure but, in the end, even runners want to talk about something other than ...well, running. Same with science forums, or any one-theme driven forum. I wouldn't take it personally (if anyone is)...it's just the nature of forums, I think. I'm glad to see that this site is still hanging in...some other science sites have virtual tumble weeds blowing through. I have one in mind, where it's hard to say really what went wrong there, except that the owner went missing, and the mods etc were left to keep the forum going with minimal guidance. That used to be a fun forum though, and more moderated than this one, which seemed to work well, there. Sooo many trolls frequented there, for some reason, so the mods had to take a hard line with posting pseudo-science, specifically. I don't see anything inherently wrong with moderating this forum, even if traffic is less than it used to be...if you're not breaking the rules, don't worry about being moderated. (ahem ...Seattle) Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! As an aside, probably the number one killer of any forum, besides just becoming a less preferred form of social media than others mentioned above, is when they become echo chambers. Nothing worse than every single member agreeing, and mods berating and banning people who don't fall in line with the echo chamber. Forums are fun when they bring a variety of opinions together, within reason. Obviously racist, or misogynistic viewpoints for example aren't welcomed ''opinions,'' but overall...when everyone agrees, that is usually the end of the discussion. Forums depend on conversations not only surviving but thriving, and if everyone is basically parroting one another, it can grow boring rather quickly. Sci forums doesn't seem to be an echo chamber, and I hope it continues to welcome diverse opinions.
I agree about the one topic forums. I sometimes check into a guitar forum. It's small enough that the people "know" each other online and therefore it's polite. Someone started a political thread and at first a few people could do nothing other than appeal for a moderator to "close this thread!" but people continued to be polite and the others are beginning to realize that you don't have to read a thread if it trigger you as it doesn't trigger most people. If all you can talk about is guitars after while you just don't have any reason to stop by as often. When I think about moderation I think about two very specialized forums. They are about shaving.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Straight razor shaving, double edge blade shaving, shaving soap, sharpening straight razor blades, etc. It couldn't be more specialized. However there are two such forums. One has been there longer, the moderating is very authoritarian, the members are even a little that way (those who stay) and it doesn't have a lot of traffic anymore. There is another one that is 10 times bigger, it's way more polite, little moderating is needed and as I said there is way more traffic and way more topics. I don't even know who the moderators are as they are more or less transparent. Both sites should have the same amount of traffic and the only difference is that the smaller forum is just over-moderated and the moderators are in everyone's face and if a moderator has an opinion on the best way to do things, everyone else either has to agree or they are "attacked". It just isn't a pleasant place to be so most people eventually leave (including me) and therefore the few people who stay are all the same type (authoritarian). I think there are a lot of lessons here for how to run a forum and how not to. I've seen the same dynamics play out in other specialty forums. The heavily moderated ones don't do nearly as well. The less moderated ones have far less need for moderating. They aren't the ones where everyone is out of control like you might expect. If some poster is a jerk, they just don't get a lot of responses. Which is a far more effective way to deal with that problem. More effective than a convoluted banning system, annoyed moderators dealing with people they don't like, etc.
The one exception to this is the Physics Forum, where the moderation is very tight, but generally fair.
Almost certainly by consensus of existing moderators. The initial few would have included the owners, but eventually the mods would be left to invite whomever they think is a knowledgeable, even-handed and committed member.
I was the last elected moderator, as I recall. We appointed plenty, over the years, and even went out of our way to appoint moderators explicitly for being politically conservative. I don't really think it would have helped to appoint, say, a Christian moderator, for instance; part of what has happened over the years is the forfeiture of rational discourse, not so much as a tacit tragedy, but something of an unbelievable story. Really, though: In the history of any pretense about a "science site", the standard once upon a time was, "a science site, but fair". One way to look at it is to wonder what that means, how a "science site" would be inherently unfair. An early question I remember entertaining was what I owed the politics of phrenology in order to be fair. But for over a decade, people did try. And in our own ways, we still do. When I made the point three years ago, to you and someone else, that this isn't a science site, I had only recently learned that the whole thing about rational discourse and science was, y'know, not so much, and it's a nice idea, but ... I mean, I don't know. Over time, we've had plenty of occasion to consider what we are conceding in order to be fair. Maybe some folks missed it, but it's not exactly unheard of that I openly and publicly thrash James R over the state of things around here. The discussion on forum traffic and moderatioin is interesting. Earlier this year, I knocked someone for some ridiculous histrionics; the other, of course, didn't appreciate it. But part of what I told him was to remind of some old crackpottery he used to push and suggested making concessions for that sort of thing, over time, is part of what led to the idiocy he was responding to. Yeah, he really didn't like that; apparently, he still believes it. There's actually a James R story in there, too, but even the short episodes are long and complicated. If I say there remains a question what about rational discourse is anathema at Sciforums, well, just consider the fact of such a question. The discursive history of that point, here, is its own extraordinary circumstance.
Is that really your idea of concise writing? OK, I'm consider the fact of such a question and it's an extraordinary circumstance.
Now, consider: You're one of the beneficiaries of policy disdain toward rational discourse. And I do mean disdain. Not indifference. Disdain. The idea is that we value "free speech", and don't want to silence "political views". The trick, however, is in failing to discern between views and behavior. That is, certain ideas are hard to justify rationally. No amount of fallacious flailing, for instance, will make an argument true if it is inherently untrue. Requiring a rational argument might mean some people's personal sentiments have to wait until they find a rational expression, and those people often feel silenced. There isn't any official index of political views so protected, but if you're around long enough, and watch closely, it's easy enough to see how that resolves. It's also the irony of you whining about moderation and traffic.
Hello all, I'm here to tell you that rumors of my death have been somewhat exaggerated. I'm flattered that you took time to think about me, however. It gives me a nice warm fuzzy feeling inside. For those of you who said friendly things, I thank you sincerely for your kind thoughts. For those of you who can't stand me, it gives me a warm fuzzy feeling inside to know that I'm inhabiting part of your brain space even when I'm not here. "There is only one thing worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about." - Oscar Wilde.
Rumor has it you were abducted by space aliens. Can you verify? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
James was abducted by MR's aliens but he's never going to admit it. Welcome back, James. Although we argue a lot, I enjoy it and look forward to your posts. You argue well and (keep this a secret, it would ruin my reputation) I generally agree with you. The life kind of went out of this place when you disappeared.
