A Request For Sciforum "Moderators"

[(Q)]

I get the impression that you honestly don't realize that YOU are the idiot here, not Bells. The only reason we keep you around is for entertainment.

Resign immediately.

You're clearly not worthy or capable of moderating a discussion forum. You've lost all credibility and respect from the members who YOU would ban for the very same thing. I have received a ban for much less. If you have a shred of decency and dignity left in your body, you would resign as a moderator.

 

[spidergoat]

Term limits.

 

[GeoffP]

Anarchist.

 

[origin]

Hey Q, moderators are people too, sometimes they blow off steam. Do you really think you are blameless in the exchange? You have to admitt Fraggle Rockers comment was kind of a funny comment...

 

[Kittamaru]

How about a fair compromise instead...

You stop acting like a jackass, and people will stop calling you one.

Resign immediately.

You're clearly not worthy or capable of moderating a discussion forum. You've lost all credibility and respect from the members who YOU would ban for the very same thing. I have received a ban for much less. If you have a shred of decency and dignity left in your body, you would resign as a moderator.

I also wasn't aware you had been elected as an advocate for the forum populace in general...

To the people of Sci Forums- do you wish to all (Q) to be your elected voice?

 

[(Q)]

How about a fair compromise instead...

You stop acting like a jackass, and people will stop calling you one.

More personal insults from moderators. You too should resign immediately.

I also wasn't aware you had been elected as an advocate for the forum populace in general...

To the people of Sci Forums- do you wish to all (Q) to be your elected voice?

Why are you making up lies? Where did I say such a thing?

 

[(Q)]

Hey Q, moderators are people too, sometimes they blow off steam. Do you really think you are blameless in the exchange? You have to admitt Fraggle Rockers comment was kind of a funny comment...

Yeah, real funny. Haha. It would have had anyone else banned.

 

[Kittamaru]

More personal insults from moderators. You too should resign immediately.

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that saying you were acting like a jackass was equivalent to calling you a jackass.

Why are you making up lies? Where did I say such a thing?

Lies? I'm sorry, but I even quoted you in it... but here it is again:

You're clearly not worthy or capable of moderating a discussion forum. You've lost all credibility and respect from the members who YOU would ban for the very same thing. I have received a ban for much less. If you have a shred of decency and dignity left in your body, you would resign as a moderator.

You are speaking on behalf of the community at large here... or did you mean to say he lost your respect? If so... please refrain from such broad-reaching generalizations in the future.

 

[GeoffP]

... Q speaks at least in part for me. I give him some leeway in that regard. Many of us do.

 

[Kittamaru]

Fair enough GeoffP. I would ask for clarification though on what you would like to have happen. If we are to hold moderators and members alike to the same standards, then what do we do when members cross the line insulting moderators and the moderators respond in kind, instead of simply enforcing the rules and issuing infractions to said member (which has happened in the past, to which the response was that moderators needed to "grow thicker skins" and "rely on infractions/banning less"... now that that seems to be occurring, it seems that people are asking for the reverse to occur)

 

[Magical Realist]

I agree with Q. I was banned for 2 weeks for flaming and calling someone childish in a thread where I was already being flamed and called childish. As if that wasn't enough, the excuse that I had used profanity ("bullshit" and "bitching") was added to the reasons for my banning. Finally, it was argued that I had not proven that the photos I had posted were not fake, as if that could ever be done with ANY photo. So THAT was twisted into a failure to back my claim. I was consequently banned for a month, and when everybody pointed out to the moderator the wrongness of this, he relented and changed it to a 2 week ban. But even that was uncalled for. Moderators insult, flame and use profanity every bit as much if not more than I did. Are we applying a double standard here? It's something that needs to be considered at least.

 

[Kittamaru]

I take full responsibility for your ban on that MR, and I do apologize for issuing the initial ban of the incorrect length; allow me to detail my error.

Number of infraction points    Maximum permissible ban
0                               3 days
1                               7 days
2                              14 days
3                               1 month
4 or more                       1 month + Ask an admin for a permaban.

That is our infraction and ban pattern guideline - bans and infractions do not HAVE to follow that pattern, but it is the standard. When I issued your ban, you had 2 active infraction points. I issued a red card, bringing the total to three. My error is that I did not realize the ban was issued based on the number of points at the time the infraction was issued, not including the point from the infraction being issued. Thus, we reduced the ban to two weeks.

However

The bulk of your infractions are for insulting other members, including calling them names. In this instance "spoiled toddler", "troll", "whiner", among other insults being hurled. In retrospect you were being goaded on, and I do apologize for not having stepped in sooner; however, the appropriate course of action would have been simply to report the inflammatory posts instead of responding to them. Rising to the bait and hurling insults was the reason for the infraction and subsequent ban, in addition to the fact that you kept making the claim the photographs in question were "genuine" without being able to support that statement. If you had simply modified that to include that, as far as you were aware they were genuine, that would have been acceptable; however, you were presenting as fact something that could not be substantiated. Now, I have been advised that since it is the "fringe" forum that such rules are to be relaxed a bit, and so I will take that into consideration going onward; however, even with that being a part of it, I still stick by my initial infraction. If I were to do something differently, it would be simply to hand out infractions to the ones who had been goading you on, and for the fact that I did not do so, I offer you my apology.

 

[GeoffP]

Fair enough GeoffP. I would ask for clarification though on what you would like to have happen. If we are to hold moderators and members alike to the same standards, then what do we do when members cross the line insulting moderators and the moderators respond in kind, instead of simply enforcing the rules and issuing infractions to said member (which has happened in the past, to which the response was that moderators needed to "grow thicker skins" and "rely on infractions/banning less"... now that that seems to be occurring, it seems that people are asking for the reverse to occur)

I disagree with your scenario: I've experienced numerous periods where I've been libeled, suffered a range of personal attacks and then been threatened with bans for daring to handle a moderator the way they've been handling me. In other words, they start it, I reply and then I get threatened. In the case of the poster being the first to use an insult, the system is empowered to function correctly - the poster may receive an infraction or a ban, or the mod may choose to tolerate it. The latter is their choice; similarly, posters may choose to tolerate each other's behaviour. That is their choice.

In the (and I amuse myself with the language I'm using here) 'reverse' case where a mod just flies off and libels posters, no such power exists and none will be implemented; the mod may get a little handslap or, more often, their prejudicial call on the poster is reversed by a sane and responsible mod, as I've had happen several times. In that case, which is my experience of SF, the mod may then fly off on a tantrum which is essentially about not being able to express the full limits of their power unjustly. That's the problem here. I can't speak to the experience of all posters, but I see this a lot. I use 'libel' above in a specific way: insults I can tolerate, but not outright fables about my character for the sake of winning from an untenable position.

So what I would like to happen is for mods to be subject to the rules that posters are subject to, although I'm intrigued by SG's comment about term limits. At its core, of course, its really about the people in the system. People would accept a fair-minded dictator, dictator though he or she be. Several of the mod staff carry implicit power with them; do I struggle against them? No, because it isn't used unevenly, maliciously or unfairly. If it were, and I saw evidence of same, I'd stand up against them also. Fair is fair.

 

[Gremmie]

I disagree with your scenario: I've experienced numerous periods where I've been libeled, suffered a range of personal attacks and then been threatened with bans for daring to handle a moderator the way they've been handling me. In other words, they start it, I reply and then I get threatened. In the case of the poster being the first to use an insult, the system is empowered to function correctly - the poster may receive an infraction or a ban, or the mod may choose to tolerate it. The latter is their choice; similarly, posters may choose to tolerate each other's behaviour. That is their choice.

In the (and I amuse myself with the language I'm using here) 'reverse' case where a mod just flies off and libels posters, no such power exists and none will be implemented; the mod may get a little handslap or, more often, their prejudicial call on the poster is reversed by a sane and responsible mod, as I've had happen several times. In that case, which is my experience of SF, the mod may then fly off on a tantrum which is essentially about not being able to express the full limits of their power unjustly. That's the problem here. I can't speak to the experience of all posters, but I see this a lot. I use 'libel' above in a specific way: insults I can tolerate, but not outright fables about my character for the sake of winning from an untenable position.

So what I would like to happen is for mods to be subject to the rules that posters are subject to, although I'm intrigued by SG's comment about term limits. At its core, of course, its really about the people in the system. People would accept a fair-minded dictator, dictator though he or she be. Several of the mod staff carry implicit power with them; do I struggle against them? No, because it isn't used unevenly, maliciously or unfairly. If it were, and I saw evidence of same, I'd stand up against them also. Fair is fair.

In a perfect world, Geoff... You ever notice, that if someone questions Bells, Tiassa chimes in immediately?, and vice versa. James is gone, I guess... Haven't seen him around at all.

Stryder seems OK... Kitt seems overworked.

What's going on around here?

Now await the mod Inquisition... Go ahead and bring it... This place has gone to hell, meh.

 

[GeoffP]

In a perfect world, Geoff... You ever notice, that if someone questions Bells, Tiassa chimes in immediately?, and vice versa. James is gone, I guess... Haven't seen him around at all.

Stryder seems OK... Kitt seems overworked.

What's going on around here?

I know await the mod Inquisition... Go ahead and bring it... This place has gone to hell, meh.

Seconded on all those points, and strongly. I understand that some people have had unhappy dealings with James, or with Fraggle, but I haven't. I've found them to be approachable and rational throughout - I disagree with Fraggle's call on the way the system works, but that's just a disagreement. He hasn't drunk-modded me, which is more than I can say for one member of the group. Kitt is fronting the system right now, which is a lot to do and above and beyond the call. Essentially, I only see problems with two or three mods - and one of those is on perma-vacation, it seems. (Maybe he's sleeping it off. ) Another has shown signs of improvement in the last month or so.

The forum would be improved - and, presumably, traffic generated - by a few changes. I've been quite up front about what these should be. These will not be undertaken, however; the power to do so is lacking. And that's it, really.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLgYAHHkPFs&feature=kp

 

[GoGoGoGuy]

Don't fucking kid yourself. The administrators have no intentions of dealing ''with mod activity'' because no doubt they get reported by the mods there are no problems. Just like how other members ''are the problem'' whenever they decide to stick up for themselves. Moderators here, know how to do this almost professionally. In Britain, it's called passing the buck, or passing the blame. You can't ask them to mod more, because any modding they do is trivial anyway and they are too quick to issue punishments and bans... too quick because it's absolute, you don't get a say if you are banned or not, so to hell with whether you are supposed to be banned or not.

The sites a fucking state. The mods are killing it.

 

[Kittamaru]

I disagree with your scenario: I've experienced numerous periods where I've been libeled, suffered a range of personal attacks and then been threatened with bans for daring to handle a moderator the way they've been handling me. In other words, they start it, I reply and then I get threatened. In the case of the poster being the first to use an insult, the system is empowered to function correctly - the poster may receive an infraction or a ban, or the mod may choose to tolerate it. The latter is their choice; similarly, posters may choose to tolerate each other's behaviour. That is their choice.

And this is exactly what the ticket system was set up for. One of the things we have been trying to do is remove the vested interest issue... that is to say, moderators getting so involved in a discussion as to be blind of the truth due to their own involvement or emotion. It is, however, a problem as well, especially in the more science-oriented forums, as the moderators with the most experience in those areas are put in charge... if they are to be swapped out (say, if I were to take over the Physics forum), things would be messy... I am no expert on Physics, though I am fascinated by them, and I dont' have near as much knowledge on the subject as, say, Prometheus or Alpha Numeric.

In the (and I amuse myself with the language I'm using here) 'reverse' case where a mod just flies off and libels posters, no such power exists and none will be implemented; the mod may get a little handslap or, more often, their prejudicial call on the poster is reversed by a sane and responsible mod, as I've had happen several times. In that case, which is my experience of SF, the mod may then fly off on a tantrum which is essentially about not being able to express the full limits of their power unjustly. That's the problem here. I can't speak to the experience of all posters, but I see this a lot. I use 'libel' above in a specific way: insults I can tolerate, but not outright fables about my character for the sake of winning from an untenable position.

So what I would like to happen is for mods to be subject to the rules that posters are subject to, although I'm intrigued by SG's comment about term limits. At its core, of course, its really about the people in the system. People would accept a fair-minded dictator, dictator though he or she be. Several of the mod staff carry implicit power with them; do I struggle against them? No, because it isn't used unevenly, maliciously or unfairly. If it were, and I saw evidence of same, I'd stand up against them also. Fair is fair.

I believe that is a fair enough request, and one I will work to ensure is implemented... at the same time, I would request that the long standing grudges that are prevalent be let go of... on both sides of the wall. Let us make this a "fresh start" as it were.

 

[Gremmie]

Don't fucking kid yourself. The administrators have no intentions of dealing ''with mod activity'' because no doubt they get reported by the mods there are no problems. Just like how other members ''are the problem'' whenever they decide to stick up for themselves. Moderators here, know how to do this almost professionally. In Britain, it's called passing the buck, or passing the blame. You can't ask them to mod more, because any modding they do is trivial anyway and they are too quick to issue punishments and bans... too quick because it's absolute, you don't get a say if you are banned or not, so to hell with whether you are supposed to be banned or not.

The sites a fucking state. The mods are killing it.

Hiya Reiku...I can't say I disagree entirely, but, let's face it, it's not a democracy here...

Bells and Tiassa tag team, it's what they do. Stryder is good, Fraggle, I just can't help but like. Kitt is busting his ass around here. Haven't seen James, since he issued me my first ever infraction...

I'm just waiting to see what happens, when summer comes, and we get more posters... Bedlam, and more bans, me thinks...

 

[Kittamaru]

That is what I/We are hoping to avoid. Some rules are too strict, some are too lax, and others just don't always apply the way they are intended. However, implementing a sweeping change of the rules is... troublesome in its own right.

 

[GeoffP]

And this is exactly what the ticket system was set up for. One of the things we have been trying to do is remove the vested interest issue... that is to say, moderators getting so involved in a discussion as to be blind of the truth due to their own involvement or emotion. It is, however, a problem as well, especially in the more science-oriented forums, as the moderators with the most experience in those areas are put in charge... if they are to be swapped out (say, if I were to take over the Physics forum), things would be messy... I am no expert on Physics, though I am fascinated by them, and I dont' have near as much knowledge on the subject as, say, Prometheus or Alpha Numeric.

It's a start. I submitted a ticket recently that a mod recused on, because they felt they were too close to the issue. But the problem is deeper even than that: ticket or no ticket system, what could possibly be done about bad moderation? I very much doubt that the ticket I submitted will result in any actual consequences. There are a couple bad apples that are ruining the basket. I think they'd function better as simple members, without any trappings of power to be abused: really level the field, as it were. Neither is in a position that no other person could fill, and I have a short-list of putative replacements; far be it from me to ask for changes in the technical support structure of the site, for that way lies madness. I sense you're seeking to defuse this or direct it away from the central issues; if so, please rest assured that I understand your impulses here. It's difficult to countenance; it inspires anxiety and uncertainty and the complexities thereof are not unknown to me. But Alexander found that the sword cut through even the Gordian Knot; let a new broom sweep only a little clean.

I believe that is a fair enough request, and one I will work to ensure is implemented... at the same time, I would request that the long standing grudges that are prevalent be let go of... on both sides of the wall. Let us make this a "fresh start" as it were.

I thank you wholeheartedly; this is more than most would agree to. At the same time, take care in your steps; sometimes people replace squeaky wheels. I appreciate your position here and I would like to make it a fresh start, but barring contrition by the offenders, I do not think it can be so. Let's hope.

Best regards,

Geoff