Perceptions of sciforums moderation

Discussion in 'SF Open Government' started by James R, Apr 13, 2009.

?

Compared to other online forums, the moderation of sciforums is (tick all that apply)

Poll closed Apr 27, 2009.
  1. not strict enough

    20.9%
  2. less strict

    41.9%
  3. equally as strict

    14.0%
  4. more strict

    11.6%
  5. too strict

    2.3%
  6. much less affected by the personal biases of moderators

    9.3%
  7. a little less affected by the personal biases of moderators

    11.6%
  8. about the same in terms of moderator bias

    23.3%
  9. a little more affected by the personal biases of moderators

    16.3%
  10. hopelessly affected by the personal biases of moderators

    9.3%
  11. applied arbitrarily by moderators without any clear guidelines

    16.3%
  12. applied somewhat more arbitrarily

    20.9%
  13. applied with about the same moderator discretion

    16.3%
  14. more strictly in accordance with the published rules

    2.3%
  15. always rigidly applied according to the rules

    4.7%
  16. hopelessly below par, even for unpaid volunteers

    11.6%
  17. somewhat less competent

    9.3%
  18. about the same in terms of moderator competence

    20.9%
  19. somewhat more competent

    14.0%
  20. very good, given that moderators are unpaid volunteers

    48.8%
  21. I do not wish to participate in this poll

    7.0%
Multiple votes are allowed.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    Get out inzomnia the above excuses are crazymaking

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    I don't think he inferred that I was hypocritical, although perhaps I'm mistaken. When he first brought me up, he used the term "ironic" and that my posts regarding a certain subject were detrimental to sciforums. I disagree, but after seeing the same pattern occur multiple times (discussion of subject, closing of thread), I think that it's best that (a) the subject be discussed via PM or (b) all of you remain with what you know or atleast what you believe you know about my views and their legitimacy and just leave it at that.
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    That an ad hominem, even implied its still an ad hominem.
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. copernicus66 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    639
    See scottx, this is what I mean by slanted moderation. I was given a warning for calling Tiassa a windbag. Lucysnow calls you a sick fuck, and *that* insult is allowed to stand.
     
  8. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    I just used the language Electric used to describe him:shrug:

    To reiterating his point.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Electric; its a gross ad homenim to say scott3x can't complain about the moderation just because he is a sick fuck,

    Post#228 I think.
     
    Last edited: Apr 29, 2009
  9. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    Emnos
    Its not clear exactly what reading material you have available for reading in regards to infraction notices and deletions of a third party

    :shrug:
     
  10. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,102
    Have you not thought that she wasn't in fact attempting to insult him, but in fact that is how she felt/thought of him because of his attitude towards feelings. If anything she could probably sue for psychological damage from having the discussion.

    To be honest mou....Copernicus... We can tell the difference between a purposeful attack and a reactionary statement.
     
  11. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,102
    You could also take into consideration that your might well read the Newspaper for news, however you have to remember that the Newspapers are printed by vast media corporations that make their money from stories that are "Entertainment". So you don't necessarily get the truth from what you read.

    I mention this because you might well read a wonderful complaint message on the forum like a post or thread in SFOG, most of the time it's a flight of fantasy by the poster, rarely do they have "Evidence" to backup any claim or wrong doing and this is why we usually get the circular arguments of how "Moderators don't do their job properly".

    If there is evidence abound and it's not subjective, then obviously it can be acted upon however if it's just because of some grudge match or hostility there isn't much that can be done outright.
     
  12. copernicus66 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    639
    Wow, the rationalisations moderators will engage in to justify their biased and arbitrary moderation is just mind boggling.
     
  13. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,102
    Come on, you need not play coy. We know which previous poster you were. I mention this because there is a great deal of "Bias" in your own perception of moderation on this forum and I doubt that will ever change, no matter what sock you don upon your hand.
     
  14. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    I was not talking about you.
     
  15. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    I know.
     
  16. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    Sure

    There is always the issue of bias coming in between the lines, whether one is a mod or poster.

    My question is more about exactly what a poster is acting on when they determine a mod is not acting in a biased fashion towards others (since they are not privvy to the infraction notices or fingerprints of a deleted post).
     
  17. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,824
    Just an FYI to show how the moderation works.

    I just received a PM from Stryder that he had to delete my post and a response to it in the The Line between Evil and Insanity thread, because some members saw it as a personal jab.

    Yippee yay. Too bad all the reports I made about similar "jabs" against Muslims go largely ignored.
     
  18. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    I guess it was all alright to bash them if its in its own thread.

    http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=65771

    Mind you lord hillyer was banned but I don't know why. don't worry about it. you're a good poster and there are much more interesting things you have to contribute.
     
  19. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,824
  20. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    But you know in that thread you posted (I only read the first page) all the members save Scorpius and Cheski agreed with MW's rant. The rest thought her 'all muslims lie' an ingnorant assessment.
     
  21. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,824
    You forgot (Q).

    Plus, whats the criteria for hate speech? How many members disagree with it?

    What marks a post for deletion? Its too witty? Who feels "hurt" about it?
     
  22. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    These will always be issues here at sciforums, its a fairly loose site, if you make it too restrictive people complain of rigidity when they are not complaining about that its too free and unregulated. Either way these complaints and complaint threads against mods are created. You were a mod you know this better than I do.
     
  23. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,824
    So do you think I should pretend that some ethnic and religious groups are not discriminated against?

    I don't care which way they go, as long as they do not allow personal bias to direct moderation.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page