Ideological Balance in WE&P

Personally I have always found madant to be excrutiatingly unbiased, string too is generally fair though he has his wtf moments while hypewaders(!) occasionally makes me scratch my head.

I don't find any particular bias due to right, left or centrist leanings.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

you are a real piece of work, string
i think the first step would be to get rid of you and then discuss the issue of maintaining an ideological balance in we&p

is that actual concern that prompted you to lecture herc??
its hard to see since i am practically blinded by your hypocrisy after seeing this hysterical and rather vicious diatribe you direct towards ice.

ja, thats all you

Last edited by madanthonywayne; Today at 12:14 AM.. Reason: insult removed

Last edited by madanthonywayne; Today at 12:18 AM.. Reason: Insults removed

/chuckle

and so they point their fingers, shake their heads and sigh at the americans

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

oh, i am so lefty.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

bells

how were mods elected in the early days of sci? how were you? something like this.........

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

..?

 

Depends on who and when

Somewhere in the archive is likely the thread that elected me to EM&J. Couldn't tell you what it was called, or where to look, though. I think I nominated myself, but I'm pretty sure we had an election once that wasn't self-nomination. We've used various election formats over the years.

 

When I read what you write, I hear chihuahuas yapping.

I care what you think, Gustav. I really do!

~String

 

I don't think you're helping yourself or the situation in general

I'm sorry, String; I know Gustav can annoy people, and no, I didn't particularly enjoy being the object of his ire the last time I was, but—

—you are, in a way, and likely unintentionally, making his point for him.

Setting our political differences aside: one of the reasons the heat is up right now has to do with the behavior of one of our colleagues. Whether we like it or not, such behavior reflects on us because, as members of the staff, we are often viewed in a context of common cause with our fellows. You've been here long enough to see ... I don't know, how many accusations about "the moderators" because of disdain toward one of us? And while we are often encouraged toward, and there is some value in, unity among the staff, quite obviously that unity doesn't hold up.

It's okay to show some sympathy to the membership in these disputes with the staff. That doesn't make them triumphant. Rather, it's kind of like an ongoing discussion of perceptions and behavior; as I asked a couple days ago, "Does the support of the accusation necessarily need to prove the charge true, or only that one has a reasonable explanation for their perception?"

Now, as a policy matter, it could be that we prescribe one answer while in certain other contexts we hold to another. In the present context, I would ask, "Can you see, at all, why one might think these things true?"

That is, setting aside the chihuahuas and other objects of your disdain, and simply attending the facts—not all of which do we necessarily have at hand in any given situation without some effort to collect them—is it possible that the reason someone perceives certain aspects of behavior about another might be understandable?

Look what's gone on the last couple weeks. We have one side of the aisle raising straw men all over the place, and not facing any consequence for their fallacious trolling. We have a moderator enforcing that people should not call out that intellectual dishonesty publicly, yet at the same time, nobody is doing anything about it. And then there's you, unloading on Ice, and then denouncing with insult a member's frustration about the situation.

In the back room we discuss the implications of intellectual dishonesty, and in WE&P, nothing is being done to curb such problematic behavior; indeed, one might wonder if the moderators are encouraging such conduct.

There are our standards, which I would hope certain discussions might suggest are complex in their own right. And then there is our conduct, which is a far cry from our standards.

Take the "Shoot the Darky" thread, for instance. We have a number of members advocating the conservative argument, but doing so by raising straw men. Of course, they're insulted by implications of racism; why should they be called racist just because they're taking a line supporting something many perceive as racist, and arguing fallacies? So, of course, conservatives feel insulted. And then here comes a conservative moderator insulting his opponents as Morrolan slew the Easterners at the Wall of Barritt's Tomb. Some feel insulted by potentially supportable (and possibly supported) rhetoric, and here comes one of their allies blatantly insulting. If some perceive it as retaliatory, or self-interested, is it possible, sir, that there is a reason?

I would imagine you have reasons that make sense to you explaining your frustration. It is not my intention at this time to contest those reasons. Rather, I'm asking you to consider how this looks to members, specifically those who might complain. Do their perceptions not make any sense to you? Or is there some aspect of what's going on that says, "Well, yeah, I can see how they might think that, but still ...."

The question isn't necessarily about tyranny, although that aspect comes up eventually. At the heart of the issue is one of sincerity. That is: Do we, as moderators, give the appearance of sincerity about our duties?

And from that perspective, whatever else might be going on—including things that you are aware of and I am not—I can only shrug and say, "Yeah, I can see how they might think that."

Sarcasm and contempt only get us so far. Indeed, the only thing it demonstrates sincerity about is sarcasm and contempt. And, sure, there is a time and place for everything, but is this the occasion for sarcasm and contempt? How do you think such a response will affect people's perceptions? That is, should Gustav slap himself on the forehead and say, "Of course! How could I not see how wrong I was! How could I not understand that String is right, and I never should have complained in the first place!"

Pekes and Pollicles, indeed.

People have diverse perceptions. And if you think some of those perceptions are wrong, what good will it accomplish to simply brush them off with sarcasm and contempt?

If, for instance, you feel wrongly included in this thread's suggestions, what have you done to make clear tht you should not be included in the perception of bias?

And have you done anything that might reinforce those perceptions, regardless of how you perceive them?

 

Which is precisely why I wrote what I did.

Earlier in the day, I sat about writing a response with lots of details and opted to delete it and be contrite. It isn't the "questioning me" thing that bothers me. I had to issue my mea culpa to SAM recently, so I'm capable of introspection and reflection. It's the source of the questions that made me realize that there is little I could do--short of dying, resigning or becoming Gustav's pet--that would satisfy the man.

So why bother? I fully admit to a total lack of respect for Gustav. He's a troll. Even Ice, despite the fact that he pisses me off more than any other member, has worthwhile place on this website. He contributes, he can write in whole sentences and can convey thoughts. As far as I'm concerned, Gustav does none of that and as such I feel no real obligation--except at the point of an Admin's spear--to show him any courtesy. Sometimes I opt to lob the occasional rejoinder at his comments. The rest of the time I'm content to pretend he doesn't exist, which I have to assume is the MO for most people who have the unfortunate circumstance to come within 10 feet of him.

But, out of respect for you--and pretty much every other member--I'll answer any pointed question.

We aren't at the nadir we were at last Christmas, but it comes in cycles. But to answer your question: A lot. I have a staff of 125 that report--in one way or another--to me on a daily basis. I, and every other member of management up and down the ladder, are constantly accused of rudeness, detachment, dis-interest, favoritism and any number of petty complaints. When the same complaint comes in from the same employees, over and over again and when those employees contribute the least to the organization, I usually start to tune them out. It comes as no surprise that the people--who exist in an age of total entitlement--regularly create threads just to pule about how people mistreat them.

Yep. And if the question came from a member OTHER than one who I rank with the likes of SupuriusMonkey, Draqon, Qadark and Norsefire, then I'd probably suck it up, dig deep and try to respond with something approaching sincerity.

Affirmative.

Remember back when there were all these new rules and things and I tried to get the subforum in order. Too harsh. Back off. Don't stifle the conversation. I was told. And, here we are. I respond only to reported posts and usually don't ban people as long as they make sense. If they want to beat their heads against the wall, stating the same thing over and over ad nauseum, then they can have at it.

If it were Ice that called me out in a thread, I'd have to apologize. As I did to him recently for wrongfully including "leftists" in a misstated description of Islamic sympathizers. As I did recently to SAM for issuing a warning. Gustav is worthless and his opinions mean nothing to me and therefore I see no reason to humor any of his puerile inquiries (yet AGAIN) into the admin staff. Like I tell disgruntled employees who constantly bitch about things over and over again, "Maybe we aren't the right place for you to work." [substitute "post" for "work"]

We probably need to agree upon how we will define such things. You might be surprised to hear that the member of our team who is the most lenient is Hype (and, don't construe this with annoyance on my part, we all have different styles). So, before we tackle intellectual dishonesty, we need to agree upon what it is and how to deal with it. I'm from the shoot-first-ask-questions-later school of thought in moderating fora. So, you don't have to convince me.

Yes.

I understand them. Many of them do not make sense. Many do. A good starting point for me is, "Is their name Gustav?" If the answer is "no" then I will generally try to suck it up--no matter how much I might dislike them--and ponder for a minute their request or inquiry.

Is there anything, at this point, that would make Gustav less of a tosh-factory and earn my respect? Probably. I've come around to appreciating SAM, you and a number of people I used to not like. Most of that was my own doing and acceptance. One wonder's why Gustav still irritates me. Perhaps it has to do with his presence here having no value whatsoever and my desire to see him leave as expediently as possible. As such, I see no reason to humor any inquiry of his.

Correct. That's why I use it only on those who do nothing for the website.

I have no delusions that anything I could say or do would convince Gustav that his presence on this website is pretty pointless and that he should change his ways. Since I'm not into tipping windmills, I usually opt for the "pretend he doesn't exist" option, but sometimes forget that and throw out the occasional insult. For that, I am wrong. I will henceforth continue to ignore him unless his posts merit moderating.

Much like the rest of our illustrious mod team, probably quite a bit and probably nothing at all.

~String

 

/chuckle

i thought that would be obvious
see post #42
its where i slam you....

...and shit

thats alright

/pats

comprehension was never your strong suit anyway
as for chihuahuas, poodles and whatnot.... i see the mistress gendanken has acquired a hysterical faghag to her entourage

/woot

and that, dear string, is why you are an epic fail both as a member and a mod. you lack competence and integrity. now please, do run along before you bust a blood vessel or something

 

Hear, hear. I think it is essential that we clarify what we mean as moderators, and express publicly what we're going to accomplish, before our next policy change. I expect that we can noticeably improve our moderating effectiveness as a team, but first we've got to reach a clear expression of what we're trying to do and how we're going to do it.

I don't think it is prudent for moderators to air personal conflicts in the context of such discussions, and I think this is a perfect example and opportunity to clarify what we mean by higher standards.

In encouraging higher posting standards, I personally would like it very much for a culture to be cultivated here, where personal conflicts are customarily taken aside from our discussions, preferably into private. As a moderating team, whenever there is a personality conflict between a member and a mod, that case should be handled when possible by moderators on better terms with the member in question.

I think it's very good that we bring more future policy discussion from the private moderators' forum out here into the daylight. I think it's good that we prepare the regulars at WE&P for some changes ahead, especially in advising members of our intentions as we raise the standards of participation there. Bringing moderator discussions about controversial members into the open is generally not a good idea IMO. I think that some troublemakers revel in controversy, and that public discussions of disruptors may unintentionally encourage them.

Let's let the wider membership know what we're thinking about improvements in WE&P and in Sf as a whole, but let's also please apply the higher standards as we define them. In my opinion, it's OK to express momentary dismay with others in passing, but in the threads I moderate, I want any developing or long-standing personal conflicts out. WE&P is an arena for the battles of ideas that are shaping our world. It's not the place for personal and personality contests. If we're going to set higher standards, then we moderators will need to lead by example.

 

We currently have a problem with corruption

I would go so far as to accuse that part of the reason we haven't yet done so is that certain among our colleagues might see self-interest in not doing so. I don't think it's any secret to our fellows that I am, presently, seethingly furious with certain issues pertaining to intellectual dishonesty and other problematic aspects involving posting.

(And, for the record, despite having ripped String a couple of times in recent days, he's not actually the object of my ire.)

 

Then you have the perfect opportunity to demonstrate a victory of reason over emotion, and set a higher example here. Let's get to work defining higher standards, leaving any past personality conflicts and shortcomings aside.

 

excellent
there are rules against insults
string is a repeat offender
he should know better
ban him for a day

/waiting

 

I honestly think there is a gulf between what we see and expect. In the "Mod Cave" we should probably bring this up.

I never took it as anything other than respectful, appropriate analysis. In fact, your questions here have been the only part of this thread--for the most part--worthy of responding to.

[okay, well, Hype's stuff is also apropos]

~String

 

isn't it implied in asking this question that people are incapable of moderating their own biases internally?

 

indeed. it is expedient for some to profess ignorance so one can continue to troll with impunity

/snicker

indeed
intellectual dishonesty is not really hard to detect in sci. this is a persistent medium and all one has to do is track down a past statement that directly contradicts the current one and viola.....what we gots here is a scumbag

for instance...the prior....to ice...

the current...to ice....

self serving garbage
intellectual dishonesty
lack of integrity
troll!

so after all these years we have some begging for definitions?
gimme a goddamn break!

/scoffs

 

This.

 

now
before getting back on topic, i need to do some prepping by way of some questions regarding two threads that were posted in we
perhaps hype can oblige....

the first...Taliban stone couple to death for adultery in Afghanistan

nirakar did not respond but the thread was moved by an unknown mod and is currently suffering a fate as described by tiassa

the second...Rabbis Fail To Report Chomo

i remark...

well is it? if not, would the requested move be appropriate?

thanks

 

Just for the record, and not as if it matters:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!