Making Sciforums more Successful.!!!

Yeah i didnt figer in the human factor... cause if mods cant back each other up who can they back up... kinda the way cops help each other out when 1 of 'em screws up.!!!

Good pont... wit that check an balance system in place what coud go wrong.!!!

Yep... i hadnt considered the positive effect of inconsistent moderation based on worthy/unworthy rules that werent ment to be consistently enforced.!!!

Thanks for you'r input Kitt... i thank ive got my mind right now... an no dout we are 1 step closer to increasin site traffic.!!!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

which is why they should be perma banned and these ridiculous mod bashing topics moved to the cesspool.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

what you do not understand is,
this is very typical.
the nonsense that goes on from individuals ( get it ) occurs on every single one of these sites.
and it's always the ones who create the problems(get it) whining about how they were abused or such.
you will find the same whining on all of them.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

is this not your topic, along with other of the same nonsense ?

 

maybe create an arguing thread and banned all the troll screamers there.
just a thought.

 

Troll!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Yes you can. That's what is so great about being a mod: you can be the enforcer! If you don't like those discussions (and you shouldn't), delete/lock them! You don't have to respond to insults with insults, you can respond by cracking skulls! Lock/delete/edit the insults/threads. Give yourself the last word if you want. Issue infractions.

What I don't get here is that you guys are not doing what is actually the best part of being a moderator! And getting involved in a flame war actually takes much, much more effort (and is much less effective and fun) than properly moderating it would!

 

Heres some goals for Sciforums.!!!

A Mods duty shoud be to facilitate discussion an deescalate heated situations... which shoud never include childish remarks such as... if you dont like it... dont let the door hit you in the Azz.!!!
Mods shoud not be searchin for reasons to ban people... they shoud not make excuses for ther own bad behavior... always be professional when preformin ther mod duties... an lookin for ways to make Sciforums more hospitable to more people.!!!

Thers no reason that alternate theories an established science cant both be a part of Sciforums an kept in ther seperate areas.!!!

An to all... at ease... not everthang in the alternate theories an pseudoscience forums has to be debunked/ground to dust... those so inclined shoud be allowed to freely discuss ther ideas... an the discussion in the Academic/scientific forums will be held to a scientific standard.!!!

I discussed psychics wit MR in a thred he started... we both got our ponts across an mayb got a beter idea of each others pont of view... but in any case... we both lived to post anuther day... perty simple realy.!!!

 

Good points RW... some mods just dont get it... an those are likely the mods who will abuse knowinly/or unknowingly ther skull-crackin power makin Sciforums a more inhospitable place.!!!

Thats when you need good super mods an Administrators to step in an keep thangs on track.!!!

 

I'm still not clear on what Sciforums' management wants the board to be. Who do they want to market Sciforums to?

On one hand, there's the desire to increase traffic. On the other, there's the desire that this be a science discussion board. The obvious difficulty there is that the general public doesn't typically know very much about science.

Sciforums is facing the same difficulties that usenet faced in the early days of the internet. At first the unmoderated usenet groups were populated mostly by engineers. Scientists flocked to them and we saw sci. groups devoted to particular experiments or to specialized technical issues, with researchers around the world posting back and forth.

Then the internet started appealing to a broader market, became trendy and 'alternative' (remember 'cyberculture'?) and the alt. hierarchy blossomed. We started seeing the scientists and engineers' groups invaded by people off the street who lacked any specialized training in the subject that the group was discussing but with more than enough attitude to make up for that lack.

Even one persistent crank or troll can totally ruin an unmoderated discussion group. So the professionals started to leave, migrating to moderated discussion lists whose participants had to be pre-approved (that often meant being a professional or a graduate student in the subject) and where disruptive individuals could easily be removed. I'm not sure how professional scientists communicate with each other on the internet today, but they obviously do. (I expect that one of the things that today's university students in the sciences learn is where to find that stuff.)

I don't think that it's realistic to position Sciforums as a site for professional scientists or for advanced university students in the sciences. It would probably be up against some very established competition. Trying to attract professionals is probably beyond the realm of possibility.

The other extreme doesn't look all that attractive either, at least to me. That's the anything-goes option that Sciforums seems to be currently taking. Allowing anyone to post essentially anything in any thread turns Sciforums into effectively the same thing that the unmoderated usenet became, and the result is going to be the same: the lowest-common-denominator devolution of the board (except without all the spam this time). We'll just end up with little more than endless flame-battles and inanities, which is what some threads are right now.

Perhaps a middle ground is possible between these extremes, by positioning Sciforums as a board for secondary-level science students, students in introductory university level classes and preeminently for the kind of interested laypeople who read Discover or New Scientist.

So how could Sciforums attract these kinds of individual?

First, the board needs suitable content. Simply waiting for board participants to provide it isn't going to work if the board isn't already populated by the kind of individual that Sciforums wants to attract. The pump needs to be primed.

That suggests that Sciforums needs more moderators with some academic background in the subjects they are moderating. (A degree would be nice.) Perhaps moderators should behave more like the discussion facilitators in oneline university classes: starting topical threads, throwing out questions, providing necessary background and, yes, heading off cranks and nipping flame-battles in the bud.

If Sciforums opts to go that way, it will discover that the role of discussion-facilitator is going to be a lot harder on an open discussion board than in a university class. (Harder, not easier.) Participants won't all be on the same page, listening to the same lectures and reading the same text. Many laypeople can't help behaving like cranks when they try to reason creatively about science, since they lack the necessary understanding of why the mainstream thinks as it does. So the moderators need to be able to help them come up to speed, explaining scientific principles that some moderators might not totally understand themselves.

If this vision of Sciforums is going to work, the moderators need to behave more like teachers, very good teachers who can teach in a friendly and unthreatening way, without the slightest hint of condescension, so that board participants experience the joy of learning without even really being aware that they are being taught. The way to do that is probably to just make good posts. Missing context and necessary background can be introduced in the shape of one's own contributions to a thread without directly challenging anybody.

There's also the obvious problem of when and how to cut off combative, recalcitrant or frankly bizarre people (Sciforums has quite a few of those) and perhaps banish them down to the 'Alternative' fora. That's going to require quite a bit of finesse.

Is it possible to adjust the board software so that individuals can be banned (temporarily or permanently) from the science fora while still being allowed to post down in alternative?

My suggestion is to keep the alternative theories forum and to maintain a pretty much anything-goes policy down there. If somebody thinks that Einstein was an idiot, let them expound to their heart's content in alternative. Maybe step in to stop the more over-the-top flame-battles, but allow just about any kind of content: PSI, UFOs, ghosts and spirits, religious creationists... Everyone should all be able to argue their case down there, however 'unscientific' it might appear.

 

If the community wants us to take that kind of initiative, by all means we can - is that what is wanted though?

 

also, is that not partly what they are whining about ?

 

There seem to be two sequential questions:

1. What do people want Sciforums to be?

2. What should be done to move it in whatever direction that is?

(My own ideas about that are in post #30, up above.)

 

I want Farsight and Undefined to be banned., Tach to be unbanned, and the listed mods for physics and math to be active.

Maybe the beers made my tongue loose, but I at liked saying what I felt.

If one feels intimidated or pestered by cranks, how should one feel to openly ask questions? It's not worth asking questions.

 

Again: the mods are in charge. It is your decision to make.

 

i was just given a 2 day ban from the math and physics section.

 

Not by AlphaNumeric, Pete, or Prometheus

 

" and the listed mods for physics and math to be active. "
but it stilled occurred.
plain and simple,
which means,
mods are active in that section.
call me yzarc, but....

and also, my first infraction ever was from pete.
you can look at the infractions list on my profile.

 

Well OK then, let the admin tell us who is active and posting.

 

seriously??????
the one who gave the ban is active, again, plian and simple.