SciForums Policy Discussion

Discussion in 'SF Open Government' started by Plazma Inferno!, Jun 4, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Plazma Inferno! Ding Ding Ding Ding Administrator

    Messages:
    4,609
    Dear Sciforums members!

    In this thread we will discus future of SciForums.

    For the start I’ll present you a Policy draft and draft of rules that will be implemented in SciForums.

    We will discus this together. I expect that you provide pro et contra for both and your own suggestions how SciForums could be improved, which course should be taken, etc.
    Most of all I want serious discussion in this thread.

    Any attempt of trolling and meaningless posting won’t be tolerated.

    In case that occurs, I’ll issue (in order):

    1. Warning with deletion
    2. Infraction
    3. Three day ban

    We’ll start with SciForums Policy and SciForums Rules drafts:

    SciForums Policy

    1. Sciforums is an Internet community that, foremost and among other things, values
    intelligent discussion, scientific method, critical thinking and sound
    reasoning.

    2. Sciforums unites members from all countries of the world for the
    common goal to discuss, among other things, all things science in a
    pleasant, non-threatening environment, where each and every member is
    valued according to his or her contribution to the community.

    3. Sciforums is dedicated to enriching each and every member with
    scientific and other knowledge.

    4. A member of the community:
    4.1. acts in accordance with this policy;
    4.2. supports actions taken by the administrators and moderators if
    those actions are in accordance with this policy;
    4.3. is responsible for his or her actions and has no right for moderator assistance
    if the problem in question is fully or partially caused by the member.


    5. Sciforums is run and managed by a team of administrators and
    moderators who:
    5.1. act in accordance with this policy;
    5.2. take into consideration the common interests of the community;
    5.3. respect human rights;
    5.4. take action to enforce and promote this policy among the members
    of the community.



    SciForums Rules (Guide Lines):

    1. Existing Forum Guidelines (Rules) will be placed in each forum in a form of announcement to ensure civilized discussion.

    2. Every moderator could add appendix or separate thread with own rules for particular forum (he/she moderates).
    Appendix or separate forum rules shouldn’t be in inconsistency with General Guidelines (Rules) and/or SciForums Policy.

    3. ‘Rokkon’ Rules (*) - Every SciForums member has the right to set up own rules for particular thread he/she created in particular forum.
    That will enable that members could also steer discussion and ensure that their threads won’t be overwhelmed with off topic content.
    ‘Rokkon” Rules shouldn’t be in inconsistency with General Guidelines (Rules), Rules that have been set by moderator of that particular forum and/or SciForums Policy.





    Be sure that your responds and posts are not consisted of only: “Bullshit”, “That won’t work.”, “I don’t like this”, etc; without providing any arguments. Otherwise, your posts will be considered as trolling and deleted and you’ll be warned.

    I don’t expect that you answer right away. Take as much time as you need for preparing answers and arguments.

    If you don’t want to discus seriously, then it’s better to stay away from this thread.
    Discussion here won’t be funny.


    I'm looking forward to your inputs!

    _______________

    (*) - Named by member Rokkon who posted experimental thread in General Philosophy (28 December 2006) with his own rules:
    http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=61514&highlight=Rokkon
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Creative Fossil Banned Banned

    Messages:
    295
    I see an abuse here:

    members should be valued equally not some more than others as you suggest here:

    "Sciforums unites members from all countries of the world for the
    common goal to discuss, among other things, all things science in a
    pleasant, non-threatening environment, where each and every member is
    valued according to his or her contribution
    to the community."

    'Valued according to their contribution'. Who determines the value of that cointribution?

    One of the main problems here is mods favouring some and victimising others due to differences of opinion.
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Creative Fossil Banned Banned

    Messages:
    295
    I see an abuse here

    4. A member of the community:
    4.1. acts in accordance with this policy;
    4.2. supports actions taken by the administrators and moderators if
    those actions are in accordance with this policy;
    4.3. is responsible for his or her actions and has no right for moderator assistance if the problem in question is fully or partially caused by the member.

    Who decides if the poster is responsible?

    If an agressive flame war starts with two members , one of whom the moderator favours or shares their view point, does that mod then deem the other poster to have 'brought' it upon themesleves if the opposing poster personally insults them?

    This clause sounds like a way out of resolving problems when a psoter comes under attack.

    Again, one of the main problems on this baord is mods exercising double standards, playing favourites and victimising certain members. I see these two policy clauses as supporting that 'abuse' of power rather than addressing and resolving it.

    These board policies seem to be entirely about keeping the community under control BUT all the complaints have been about moderators NOT members.

    SO

    where are your policies that recognise and take steps to address that problem?
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Creative Fossil Banned Banned

    Messages:
    295
    Note: may I suggest a code of conduct is written up for moderators to abide by.

    1) Moderators must ensure the board rules are followed by members while remaining neutral when dealing with issues that call for moderator intervention.

    ie. Note the rule breach, note the penalty.
    Keep all personal opinions out of it. REMAIN neutral.

    Only when posting on behalf of yourself (not with mod hat on) can you freely express your views (within rules) as do other members of the board.

    When expressing views as a 'member' your posts MUST be moderated with the same degree of vigilance as any other non mod. Abuse of board rules may result in you losing moderator status.

    Moderators will only be appointed to post, if they have shown as members that they themselves have always respected other members views and demonstrate the qualities of self restraint and sound judgement.

    etc.
     
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2007
  8. Avatar smoking revolver Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,083
    The community itself.
    Valued according to contribution means that we'll probably have awards and other things.

    Equal value is utopism. Some are better to the community, some are less desired.
    Just compare, for example, Hercules Rockefeller with Sandy or duendy, or IAC.
     
  9. Avatar smoking revolver Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,083
    Hint: moderators are members too.
    I suggested we make separate guidelines for moderators a few days ago,
    but we still haven't got a draft.
     
  10. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    HAHAHAHAHAHA
    man, don't get me started.
    judging by some of the poll results i've seen i wouldn't trust 80% of these people to cross the street.

    which brings us right back to CFs post and the matter of favorites.
    there are only a select few that can be trusted in any situation, be it mods, presidents, teachers, cops, or posters.
     
  11. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    The "Rokkon" rules sound reasonable. This is somehting that I have tried to do in a couple of threads---clearly defining the parameters of the debate is always a good idea, especially when one wants to debate controversial things.

    I would also add a caveat that once a thread in one of the science forums has been sufficiently shown to be wrong, it should be moved into the Cesspool or Pseudoscience forum. I think this is a responsible thing to do, so that SciForums isn't seen to endorse bad science.
     
  12. Nickelodeon Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,581
    Shown to be wrong in the thread itself? Then keep it, nothing wrong with that.
     
  13. Creative Fossil Banned Banned

    Messages:
    295
    Mods should not be in a position to JUDGE members this is what creates division. If posters break the rules, address it but the favouritism has to stop. Communities need difference. YOUR opinion is Herc is better. Your opinion is not requested, you are here to enforce board rules NOT epxress an opinion. THAT expression of opinion re members by mods is the PROBLEM.
     
  14. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,823
    I disagree.

    Who is in a position to say that it is wrong?

    Sciforums is supposed to encourage scientific discussion. Not decide what is right or wrong science (bad terminology, I know, but it's late and I'm tired and cranky).
     
  15. Avatar smoking revolver Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,083
    Why do you keep bugging me about mods?
    I made it clear that it is the community that decides who has more or less value for the community.
     
  16. Creative Fossil Banned Banned

    Messages:
    295
    Excuse me?

    ARE you Plazma?

    NO, this is not personal to you. I replied to Plasma's post, YOU replied to me, thus I then replied to you.

    THE problems of this board at present ARE moderators. ALL the complaint theads are about moderators.

    If mods get their house in order the rest will follow and that starts with NOT playing favourites, not making it personal and NOT victimising those whose opinions you do not value or support.

    THE community should also NOT decide who has more value. Cliques form, members with marginal views are alientated and side lined. THIS is not the way a democracy operates. YOU cannot give permission for minority views to be IGNORED and abused.

    Mods job is ensuring rules are abided by NOT encouraging victimisation and segregation.

    This idea re 'value' is appalling.


    Presently religious and pseudoscience are subject to victimsiation YET there are two threads here for them, so they are clearly invited to be part of this forum SO why then are their views belittled by mods? Belittlement by members is to be moderated by you not supported by you!
     
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2007
  17. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    the complaints aren't only against the mods.
     
  18. Creative Fossil Banned Banned

    Messages:
    295
    My posts are addressed to Plazma, this is not a chat thread.

    If you have other complaints, address them to Plazma.
     
  19. Avatar smoking revolver Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,083
    Of course it should if we want this to be a reasonable place that prefers a scientific method above others.
    And Sciforums is not a democracy, never was.

    p.s. Writing in bold and red doesn't make you more correct.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,823
    You both have a point. 5.1. act in accordance with this policy; applies to moderators.

    Maybe it should be made or worded to ensure that moderators are also moderated and that members with complaints have a recourse for their complaint. The rules should apply to moderators as well as members. If a moderator breaks the rules in another forum (not one in which they moderate) they should be treated the same as members since they are members outside of the particular forum they moderate. If they break the rules in their own forums, then the administration should apply the rules to deal with their infraction(s).

    :shrug:

    Just a suggestion.
     
  21. Creative Fossil Banned Banned

    Messages:
    295

    THIS is a discussion BOARD for scientific and NONE scientific discussion.

    BOLD and COLOUR is for 'emphasis' NOT as demonstration of fact- pity I had to spell a simple thing such as that out to you.

    VALUE IS NOT this boards PURPOSE and those of you who are trying to make it a resource are creating the problem. THERE are much better sites that satisfy that purpose, those with articles that are peer reviewed etc. THIS IS A DISCUSSION BOARD.


    YOU are part of the problem. Every response from you thus far has contained a patronising element and air of superiority. YOU are not superior to anyone.

    I will start an article board and make anyone interested in posting scientific articles an author so they can post freely and moderate their own articles comments. I will promote it accordingly. THIS will satisfy a need for that type of posting.


    Meanwhile, this is a discussion baord and I am against any modertator/member allocation of 'value' to other members. Members will not join this boar knowing they face JUDGEMENT.
     
  22. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    kiss my fucking ass you snotty little bitch.
     
  23. darksidZz Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,922
    In order to ensure proper usage of the forums you must define this at the very start of joining. It mustn't be left up to speculation but instead clearly given boundries of what is trolling and what is not. For example if a member like IAC continues posting his arguments about Earth's age in threads other than his own, this in itself is not trolling IMO but merely presenting his theory.

    Also note that presentation of ANY theory should not be considered trolling, much like Singularities Moon conspiracy theories. Therefore we must define this first before other rules are established.



    Agreed, but how precisely does this relate to the policy. This is merely a statement of fact, it holds no real sway over conversation within the forum. If you wish to use it as a guide however then it's a good finger to point the way...

    Would make more sense to say "SciForums strives to unitie humanity for the common goals we each have of discussion & debate, in an environment free of harassment by our peers."

    Agreed

    As long as it doesn't violate the primary rules

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I concur

    I think it's important to address those topics which might otherwise be called into question. For example, is sex and anything similar a RISKY thing to discuss on the forum... many sites threaten a ban if you even begin a thread on this topic. While it's clear SciForums isn't banning people for talking about sex I think that might be more valuable to state in the policy itself. You should also make clear what James R is always saying, "please do not incite violence", etc. Let people know they can discuss things in a scientific way, but if the content of the thread is unscientific then it will simply be removed.

    I'll give some examples, say I began a thread in the religion forum, I titled it "Are Christians Trash?". It's clear this has no real scientific basis, it's a personal statement designed to incite feelings of hate, etc. If it were instead titled "Are Christians Judgemental?"; Well that's abit more like it.. this question doesn't incite hate, it's more or less directed without violant intent. Of course the real problem with that thread would likely be "All people are different and from differing economic backgrounds, etc. Thus this has no real meaning in today's society." But ehh.. It'll die fast if nobody's interested.

    So yea, I think you can allow topics that are unusual and bizarre as long as they won't incite violence or be unscientific in their wording. A good example again would be "Is Rape Fun?" now that by itself might seem a little unsettling, even sick.. that's why it would be important to make clear you CAN ask it, but in a scientific manner... like say "Is Rape Fun For The Rapiest?"

    or something along those lines... maybe "Does A Rapiest Find It Fun?" They poster should present a scientific viewpoint immediately for this kind of tense topic, one that presents some facts, etc.. Then it can be carried over into a conversation that may be of benefit over-all.

    Those are extreme examples, I merely try making a point. James R made a good thread about "Attitudes Towards Rape" awhile back.. this was admirable in that he was willing to even ask it, perhaps I've rubbed off on the guy abit :C~ Now if he'd called that thread "Rape Is Fun" or "Rape Is Evil" or "Rape Is Horrible & They Should Die".... well... it's clear these aren't scientific in their nature, they're only to incite violence, or to present unscientific arguments.

    Science is god, and thus it can define for us parameters for discussion. Anything can be scientific if asked correctly, and thus it's important to make that clear. If you have a question, one you are really interested in discussing, it should be phrased in a scientific manner with links to source material. That's the ideal post.

    :Z
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page