Have you got what it takes to be a moderator?

If a law does not exist, they have to be made. YOU CANNOT MAKE LAWS ON THE SPOT.
If there is no law against murder, I go kill somebody:
1. You may make a law against murder, define it, and apply it to future law breakers.
2. You may not hold me accountable or punish me for something when I never committed a crime.

It is you that does not get the point. Sure somebody has to create them. But they have to be created in advance.
1. You cannot create laws on the spot.
2. People are innocent until proven guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.

The reason for # 2 is that it prevents premature conclusions about people. Sure it is must easier to assume somebody is committing a violation, than to go out of your way to understand what a person is doing to make sure he is actually violating any rules. However, this is corruption.

3. All members are equal.

4. A post either violates the rules or it does not. There is no making up rules on the spot. There is no making up consequences on the spot. Doing so is anarchy. Doing so is disorder. Doing so is biad, and violates ethics.

Know the rules
Check the post if it violates.
If it does not, fine.
If it does, apply the proper procedures according to prewritten rules.

No bais. No making anything up on the spot. No abuse of power.

Even in politics, I would never vote for a moron claiming that reasonable doubt is over rated, innocent until proven guilty is over rated, making rules up on the spot is OK, treating members differently is OK, labeling people is OK.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Here is a thought (considering PoLLs are all the fashion)

POLL
Should POLLS be POLLED for a polling result of how relavent polls are when polled ?
1. YES because!
2. No because, because!
3. yes BUT...
4. no BUT...
5. all of the above, because BUT!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Kill 'em all, drink their blood, devour their souls for five million years!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If moderating requires deleting peoples messages without letting them know, and no explanation at all, anywhere, such as what occurred to me today in the earth forum when I posed a question, then I'm afraid I don't think I could help moderate those forums as I wouldn't have the heart to do something as irritating as that.

 

?????????????
"earth forum"
?????????????

 

What on Earth......?

 

Ok.. if there is a rule that posts need to be at least half-way decent, how do you decide what is decent or not?

We all know what is decent... but there is some disagreement about what is not decent.

Also remember... (as far as the US goes): free speech only applies to the governement, not private parties.

 

Can you also put these questions to the existing moderators so the new wanabee's are at least competing on an equal footing.

Can you also suggest that your moderators, new and old do not become part of the problem and abuse and stalk and adhom members themselves. It's quite funny reading your 'scenario's' and being aware of how often one of your moderators features in them.

 

This is not a valid question: "if there is a rule that posts need to be at least half-way decent"

Rules cannot be this idiotic. Rules must be specific. The answer to that question is you cannot moderate that rule because the rule is invalid. Illogical rules do not exist. They are not logically valid, and therefore, have no say or sway.

I don't even know why you ask such an utterly dumb question.

 

Do not question rules imposed on us by the moderators, for they are our Gods. Gods hold power over us, those who rebell will suffer. All rules of moderators are justified as moderators know better and their are far superior intelligent beings than we are.

 

Rules of Rules:
1. Rules have to be clear.
2. Rules have to be specific. They cannot be vague.
3. Rules have to provide exact consequence for warning and violation.
4. Rules have to apply to everybody equally.
5. Rules have to be created in advance through a fair process of what the rulemakers decide is necessary and ethical. They cannot be made up by mods on the spot.
6. Rules have to be subject to process of change and updates. There must be rules for updating rules. Nobody can be held accountable unless they violated a rule.


Did I miss anything?

 

6. Rules are not to be questioned for they are created by being higher in hierarchy than the beings for whom the rules were created

also u listed in #2 that rules have to be pacific, why pacific? why not atlantic? or is specific you meant to say?

 

So this is what we do: everytime someone does something we do not like, but it isn't against the rule, this person cannot be held accountable.

So, what we CAN do is make a rule after-the-fact and the next time someone does the same thing, then they are in trouble?

It would work... however we have something like that in the US Constitiution because the founders knew it is impossible to think of everything. ALSO we have it because we put so many people in charge of the government it is hard, if not impossible, to keep a standard if everyone is arresting and punishing those that we see as "trouble makers."

This is a small Internet forum... it is much easier to keep the small hand full of people in line. If we elect those that we see as unbias and repesent the average SciForum member, we would be fine.

You are afraid of "anarchy." It won't be, there is a governing body over SF.. you are afraid of totalitarianism (of sorts).

 

Wow.

Equal rules for equal people. Equal consequences for equal crimes done by equal people.

However, you fail to realize that no two people (with the exception of twins and clones) are equal. Everyone has different life experiences.. different ways of viewing the world... different neural programming... etc...

Just a bad counter-example.. but we all hate spam. Say we made up all of our rules. And, although we made a rules stating that spam posters will be banned by IP... we never properly defined spam. Just to be an asshat, I will follow coolskill's rules and argue to death that what with new user posted is NOT spam because our definition is vague (and of course, I'll show why).

What to do? Leave the user's posts and his account unbanned? After all... our rule was not clear.

 

WTF?
You cannot hold a person accountable for something "we do not like" if a rule was not violated.

 

You fail to realize that this is subjective prejudice ignorant thinking.
ALL MEMBERS ARE EQUAL WHEN IT COMES TO THE RULES.

 

WTF?
How so convenient that you overlooked RULE#2.

 

No matter has "pacific" you make the definition of spam (to make the rule about spam clear), I bet you I can always find a loophole in it. Hence, it's not clear.

 

Wrong.

 

I'd be more inclined to let it slide with older members. If I could distinguish any value in their discussion it could carry on eternally. And by any value it could just be a funny argument with good insults.
Ofcourse, if it was a discussion on a topic which doesn't interest me personally I would close and delete the thread and ban both members permanently.

I'd edit their posts so that their signature linked to gay porn, then I'd bring it to everyone's attention like "haha look guys his signature is gay porn!"and then when he posted to defend himself I'd edit those posts to make him say really gay things, which would further incriminate him untill eventually he would leave in extreme frustration.

I'd pretend to be the banned members "lifeline", his only friend at sciforums, saying things like I agree the banning was unjust. My status as a moderator would make him place a lot of value in our friendship and I'd gradually coerce him to be my pal, maybe even send me some pics of himself over msn, then I'd post the pics at the forum and accompany them with quotes of the deepest secrets he told me in confidence, as well as humorous commentary from myself mocking and humiliating him, shaming him from ever showing his face around here again.

If it's also occuring in other subforums I'd just think "can't someone else do it?" and get on with my job of torturing serious members.
I would delete the post in my subforum maybe.

I like spurious' idea of nuking kuwait.
Or else I would ring the president of kuwait and just fly off the handle accusing him of trying to ruin sciforums and telling him he better watch his ass, at which he would be understandably confused and I'd say "don't play dumb with me HH Sheikh Sabah Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah".

Tell the person emailing me to fuck off and join pussyforums.com.

I should just debate with them as a normal member. Instead I'd present my case and edit all responses to it to say "damn, I was wrong, you sure showed us" or something to that effect. Then I'd say "since we're all in agreement this thread can be locked and stickied" and lock and sticky the thread.

Take their word for it with no proof and discipline the accused to the fullest extent of sciforums law.
Ofcourse I'm talking about sending goons over the persons address and disembowelling whoever is inside, burning their insides infront of their eyes before having them dragged behind a horse until they are dead.