A Call for Tighter Moderation
- Thread starter Tnerb
- Start date
- Status
I do not believe someone who commits a crime is innocent. Do you.
Good question.
Just that moderators be allowed to offer a more strict moderating service.
Neither should people who are banned for whatever reason.
And you would, of course, be happy if stricter moderation was applied to yourself as the first example....?
Yes sir. I do not agree with parading stupidity or anything like that. Do u?
I am sure ginormous amounts of people who are banned are done so not for a just reason, unfairly.
And people who are jailed, also have no whatsoever to do with the crime, suffering because of the faulty judicial system. I am sure ginormous amounts of people who are banned are done so not for a just reason, unfairly.
that is not true people who are banned are banned unfairly to be sure if the ban is not right. however, people who are jailed are guilty of committing a crime and before i let their punishment be forgiven i should seriously think about something..
Tighter, stronger ... deeper, faster, harder!
I'm going to draw a line between "tighter" and "stronger" moderation. One is in the title, the other in the poll.
Tighter moderation would mean more of our nitpicking over little things, including expressions other people don't find objectionable, and also rampant stupidity.
Stronger moderation would mean that we simply load up our responses. We'd try to let people have some room to move around, but when the hammer drops, it would drop faster.
I'm in favor of the latter if we should make any particularly substantive change. The list of complaints I cleared out of my inbox a few hours ago was the stuff of shame. It's amazing how tough people act in the fora when we stop to consider how fucking weak their complaints are.
To the other, a lot of the weak complaints derived from larger, more important problems. A lot of the offenses aren't significant of people who are detrimental to our community, but rather suggestive that they're tired of playing nice while a bunch of dishonest, half-wit losers carry out their personal vendettas.
As such, I think stronger moderation would be the preferable route. I mean, I don't object to getting rid of certain people quickly. It's just that we let others hang around and shit all over the place forever. That is where we run into the ethical quandary.
I'm going to draw a line between "tighter" and "stronger" moderation. One is in the title, the other in the poll.
Tighter moderation would mean more of our nitpicking over little things, including expressions other people don't find objectionable, and also rampant stupidity.
Stronger moderation would mean that we simply load up our responses. We'd try to let people have some room to move around, but when the hammer drops, it would drop faster.
I'm in favor of the latter if we should make any particularly substantive change. The list of complaints I cleared out of my inbox a few hours ago was the stuff of shame. It's amazing how tough people act in the fora when we stop to consider how fucking weak their complaints are.
To the other, a lot of the weak complaints derived from larger, more important problems. A lot of the offenses aren't significant of people who are detrimental to our community, but rather suggestive that they're tired of playing nice while a bunch of dishonest, half-wit losers carry out their personal vendettas.
As such, I think stronger moderation would be the preferable route. I mean, I don't object to getting rid of certain people quickly. It's just that we let others hang around and shit all over the place forever. That is where we run into the ethical quandary.
I think the above is fine. However, I think that there should be a -specific- list of insults that are off limits. If some forum moderators don't want to do it that way in their forums, fine. I'd be happy if even one forum I post in would adopt a list of off limit insults. I have suggested such a list and will do so here:
the f word in all of its permutations, moron, stupid, idiot, pea brain, bitch, whore or their derivatives (moronic, stupid argument, idiotic, etc.).
I personally think that a -few- fairly innocuous insults could be suggested as alternatives if a person is particularly itching to use one:
Put downs such as fool/foolish/foolery, lame, obtuse and allusions, flocklike and flock mentalities.
I think the term troll should be allowed although I doubt I'll ever use it against someone. I find there are other ways to describe someone who is making a fool of himself, such as, well, fool ;-). I think that too often it's used to simply put someone down and if that someone is an admin, it may be sayonara soon as well.
I also dislike the term 'woo woo' but I'll take it any day over any of the insults I'd like proscribed.
Last edited:
the only dictator who killed more people was Mao. (This includes Hitler, who takes the bronze.) Glorious mother land, indeed.
No...you were trolling. If you enjoyed it that much, then you can post more meaningless drivel in a physics thread.
We tried stronger moderation in the past, and it just causes more problems. I think the present level is fine.
I find that moderation is much stronger or tighter or whatever than it was when I first joined a little over a year ago. As a result, I think this place is not as fun as it was then. Mind you, I'm not complaining, just stating facts. I miss a lot of the people who used to frequent sciforums, even though many of them pissed me off on a regular basis, they also challenged me to evaluate my own ways of thinking. Moderation tightened up, some left, some got banned; and now this place is generally not as interesting. Keep in mind tnerb, if people feel like they can't come here and have fun, they're not going to come at all.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Priceless
Picture perfect rite
Asking bureaucrats to do anything whatever is never a wise course.
Asking them to do more than they already do is absolute, utter, and complete insanity.
Yeah...
Then later he lost his nerve, and all of a sudden Ed Teller had a fan club.
Best ignore the poor fool.
He's not well.
He doesn't know what he's talking about
The guy you're talking to Killjoy, is probably healthy if he's not a sock.
You on the other hand are the most malacious man alive. And no one should take you seriously. No one.
Could be a healthy sock. A nice Argyle.
No way !
You're way more malicious than me.
I'm like a softy junior goober sponge-a-riffic bubble cake creampuff compared to you !
Matter of fact, I bow down before your Brobdingnagian malevolence -
:worship::worship::worship:
Hail You !
- Status