(alpha) Reinventing Sciforums -1- Choosing New Mods

[shorty_37]

BenTheMan;
Clearly it depends on who is doing the reporting.

You people seem to be under the illusion that all of the members are equal.“

Shorty
Please elaborate on "You People" with out YOU PEOPLE there would be no discussion and a dead forum. You talk down like
we are so tiny and should just take whatever gets thrown at us by YOU (mods) the high and mighty.


Originally Posted by BenTheMan
Again, it depends on who's doing the complaining.
”

Shorty;
SO who is important enough here to speak up and who isn't exactly. It would be nice to finally know who's SAY would actually
make a difference.

“
Please elaborate on "You People" with out YOU PEOPLE there would be no discussion and a dead forum.
”

BenTheMan,
On the contrary, this forum would be much more close to the ideal that the creators set out to achieve. Right now, some of the fora are like AOL chat rooms, which is surely NOT the intended purpose.


Maybe we should all stop posting then huh? because it is obvious from your tone which posters you are referring to. We aren't good enough or smart enough or joke too much for your liking around here. Then you can have your quiet little science forum for what it was intended. It would be interesting to see how interesting your forum is after that.


BenTheMan,
One can always dream...

Of course, then only interesting people would post here, and that would be like a wet dream.


Well since almost everyone I know here has been under suspicion.....by SAM.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=86579

Just today while I was PMing with another member (Baron), they just so happened to post in a thread where SAM was. SAM automatically jumped to conclusions.

With this reply;

Baron to the rescue!

I honestly do find it creepy that she is monitoring who is PMing who, then accuses them of something when they make a post. I don't really think it is any of her FUCKING business, esp not to insinuate something is going on just because they know me and they post something that is in disagreement to her. I feel like she is STALKING ME and everyone I frequently talk to here. Medicine Woman was accused of being in cahoots with me and I didn't even know MW FFS.:crazy:

The link I posted above shows how the other members feel about her monitoring and accusations but of course they aren't worthy enough to be heard either.

You and SAM seem to think I am the Ring Leader of the Sam haters club, also I shouldn't be able to post here because I am not educated enough. I have been called everything from a brain dead goldfish to only good for being someones sex toy and everything in between......mostly by SAM and BELLS.

From your posts above BEN you have a high and mighty attitude that a lot of members here are not worthy, so they have no say in anything. There is no point in complaining or making reports as lepustimidus said because unless you are CERTAIN member it won't make any difference anyway.

I read something Kadark said about being banned for saying something about raping Asguard. Well I have made some reports about Mr Hamtastic running around this board with all his sexual innuendos towards Nietzschefan. He is talking about raping him, and molesting him etc. I reported them because Nietzsche is on holidays at the moment. Why isn't this idiot being banned?
How can you ban one member yet not another for the same behavior. Then you wonder why you have so much trouble on your hands. You say that we have a "click" here amongst some members. What about the "click" you mods have with certain members?

I have a real problem with liars and esp ones who make up lies and try to make the innocent party look like a liar. SAM is a pro at this, and when it isn't working she
resorts to trying to "trick" members into saying something by pretending that as a MOD she has more insight then she actually does. Then she just makes up some bullshit (lies)
then says later .....Oh yeah it was a " trick" When all else fails she will just twist your words or bring up any personal info you have shared and throw it back at you in some warped,
demented way. SAM is just a fucking LIAR. I am not the only one who thinks so, your members here aren't as stupid as you think they are.

On another note I am called out for being so uneducated but yet you have Asguard as a MOD who can barely type one sentence without at least 3 spelling mistakes.
All he does lately is run behind BELLs kissing her ass agreeing with everything she says. How the hell did he get the job?



Anyway,

I will leave your forum for a while and you can have all the WET DREAMS you want.

 

[BenTheMan]

I honestly do find it creepy that she is monitoring who is PMing who, then accuses them of something when they make a post. I don't really think it is any of her FUCKING business, esp not to insinuate something is going on just because they know me and they post something that is in disagreement to her. I feel like she is STALKING ME and everyone I frequently talk to here. Medicine Woman was accused of being in cahoots with me and I didn't even know MW FFS.:crazy:

The link I posted above shows how the other members feel about her monitoring and accusations but of course they aren't worthy enough to be heard either.

How can SAM monitor your PMs? Is there some secret mod technology I don't know about? I think they're called "private" messages for a reason.

From your posts above BEN you have a high and mighty attitude that a lot of members here are not worthy, so they have no say in anything. There is no point in complaining or making reports as lepustimidus said because unless you are CERTAIN member it won't make any difference anyway.

I will reiterate what I said before: I think there are people who add to the culture at SciForums, and people who detract from it. Personally, I wouldn't pay very much attention to people who complain about SAM, but who never post in her forum.

I have a real problem with liars and esp ones who make up lies and try to make the innocent party look like a liar. SAM is a pro at this, and when it isn't working she
resorts to trying to "trick" members into saying something by pretending that as a MOD she has more insight then she actually does. Then she just makes up some bullshit (lies)
then says later .....Oh yeah it was a " trick" When all else fails she will just twist your words or bring up any personal info you have shared and throw it back at you in some warped,
demented way. SAM is just a fucking LIAR. I am not the only one who thinks so, your members here aren't as stupid as you think they are.

And all of this in a thread about evolution, right? I mean, you are talking about what SAM is doing in the Biology forum, right? Because otherwise you might as well be complaining about Orleander...

Anyway,

I will leave your forum for a while and you can have all the WET DREAMS you want.

Seriously?

 

[Gustav]

once again, an ombudsman.
appointed by the community

 

[Avatar]

M.W:


To be honest, I never had a problem with Avatar as a moderator, but I rarely posted in CR. I have read posts of his outside CR, and he seems like a decent guy.

My problem with Avatar being demodded is that it wasn't done for a valid reason. He wasn't demodded for abusing posters and his mod privileges, he was demodded because he acted to prevent a serious abuse of moderator privileges. He was demodded because he introduced some transparency into the way this forum is administrated. And that sets an AWFUL precedent. What the administration is saying is "Moderators can abuse their powers and kick around regular members with impunity, but if they dare ever bring the public's attention to injustices committed by moderators, we'll demote them quick than a rat up a drainpipe."

For the record: I locked or deleted some MW posts because she posted a load of crap crackpot theories of Jesus being the sun god and what not in CR. We used to have some standards there. She was the equivalent of Reiku in Physics.

 

[one_raven]

once again, an ombudsman.
appointed by the community

http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=86813

 

[amethyst08]

I have just been able to be online again. My first comment is, as written in the title: "(alpha) Reinventing Sciforums -1- Choosing New Mods", this is an alpha thread. For those of you who haven't familiar with alpha thread yet, can click this link. From that link:

# Alpha Rules

* No hijacking.
The thread may be sidetracked, but only within reason and as long as the sidetrack is about some point in the main thread.
* Be Polite.
No insults, profanity, threats, abuse, demeaning or fight provoking behavior. Attacking claims and arguments is OK. Attacking people is not.
* Defend your statements.
Direct questions regarding your statements must be clearly addressed in a timely manner (within reason... sometimes too many questions are asked at once). "I don't know" is a valid answer.
The relevance of a question must be demonstrated on request. Questions that lead to extensive sidetracks might be considered hijacking in some cases.
If faced with multiple independent questions that require significant responses, you need only address one at a time. The others may be deferred until later.
* Be clear
Say what you mean. Try not to be coy, or overly subtle.
Most importantly, request for clarification must be answered. Politely.
* No plagiarism.
If you copy anything (words, pictures, even an idea) from anywhere else, you should say so.
* Try to be rational.
This one is more a guideline than a rule. Breaches of this rule might only be addressed by a PM. What I'm aiming at is:
o Try to avoid logical fallacies
o When your argument is challenged, seriously consider the possibility that you were wrong, in whole or in part.
o When someone demonstrates a point you made is wrong (it happens to everyone!), acknowledge that it was shown to be wrong and don’t keep repeating it. If you've made a mistake, thank people for pointing it out.
* Have fun! If you're not enjoying yourself, then what's the point?

So, for those of you who have been complaining about SAM, Avatar, Baron Max, or other off-topic content, I would suggest you to make your thread somewhere else, in order to respect Avatar proposal. What is relevant here is only about choosing new mods: is it necessary? is the mechanism fine? etc. I would like to suggest mod to delete any coming off-topic posts in this thread, but in order not to give too much work for mod (is not like they are paid for it...), lets us restrain ourselves from hijacking this thread.

 

[Enmos]

I don't see what the point of this thread is if Plazma doesn't join in.
Of course all the current mods are going to be against Avatars ideas, no surprise there.

 

[amethyst08]

The OP:

[1] Choosing new moderators

A few premises:

[a] New moderators can't be chosen just by the old mods, because that may be a blind man leading a blind man. A faulty moderator taking part choosing another faulty moderator.

New moderators can't be chosen just by the public, because we all know how ugly and unfair ellections get to be. There will be a lot of popularity seeking, etc.
There's a saying that nobody, who is desperate to become a president, should ever be permitted to be one.

Idea:

1. Someone who wishes to become a mod of a particular subforum has to get 6 recommendations to become one:
1) three recommendations from science subforum mods
2) two recommendation from a non-science subforum mod
3) one recommendation from an admin, after getting recommendations in 1) and 2).

2. After that he or she has the right to create a thread in open government.
The thread has to be Alpha rules with a poll with two answers, like this:

Should [username] be the moderator of [subforum]?
Yes ()
No()

3. All members vote and discuss. There should be at least 50 votes total with at least 2/3 voting Yes.

4. If voted in, the member becomes a moderator of the particular subforum.
There can be 2 mods per subforum.

-------

5. If a mod wishes to become a supermod he has to:
1) Get recommendations from 4/5 of moderators
2) Get recommendation from 2/3 of admins or other supermods
3) Has to be voted in with at least 4/5 of voters voting Yes.

I am basically hate radical changes, so my principal would be "why fix thing that ain't broke"? So, in my personal opinion:

* there is no need to replace existing supermod. But if there is any mod who wish to become a supermod, I think the steps that is proposed by Avatar is perfectly fine.

* there is no need to replace existing moderators whose jobs seem just fine. I know this is quite subjective, but I think that we have to sort out the priority first. For example, is anyone see any problem with the moderation of BentheMan? Superstring? MadAnt? etc? I don't see why we have to waste energy for that. Maybe we shoud just focus and make a list of which subforum or which moderator that needs to be re-elected.

To be continued (I don't like long post, so I would break it down)

 

[amethyst08]

If there is any need to re-elect moderators of particular subforum, I think the mechanism that is proposed by Avatar sounds alright:

1. Someone who wishes to become a mod of a particular subforum has to get 6 recommendations to become one:
1) three recommendations from science subforum mods
2) two recommendation from a non-science subforum mod
3) one recommendation from an admin, after getting recommendations in 1) and 2).

2. After that he or she has the right to create a thread in open government.
The thread has to be Alpha rules with a poll with two answers, like this:

Should [username] be the moderator of [subforum]?
Yes ()
No()

3. All members vote and discuss. There should be at least 50 votes total with at least 2/3 voting Yes.

4. If voted in, the member becomes a moderator of the particular subforum.
There can be 2 mods per subforum.

There are some moderators that are under spotlights. For the betterment of the forum, I really think that admin should listen to the community, taking appropriate action, so that the problem could be solved.

I don't know who are exactly the moderators under spotlight. This should be asked to the community, let say by running a public poll.

Now, don't get me wrong. There are some moderators who are under spotlight, but I personally quite like them. However, I would save my personal opinion for myself. It's also kind of pity to see them under constant aggression (which telling us something is wrong, but not necessarily them).

Whichever are the moderator under spotlights, my suggestion would be:
1. to limit their moderation power (explanation is given below), or
2. to replace them

Explanation:
1. to limit their moderation power (explanation is given below)

What I mean by to limit is, to remove their moderating power on members who have specific clash with them. For example:
- In case of moderator X vs member Y, admin should say that moderator X has no moderation power over the said member(s). This means, moderator X stays as moderator, but in no way X could do any moderating action to member Y in the forum that X moderates. If Y breaks the forum rules, the action (warning, post deleting, or banning) would be taken by admin, not by moderator X.

Main reason for that is to avoid the mod misusing their power with members that have personal problem with. On the other hand, if the disputing members continues their complain to moderator X, it should not affect X's position as moderator, because X has no more mod power over the specific members. This should be win-win solution for both party (X and the anti-X), because X can stay mod (for the sake of us who appreciate X's capacity), but X can stay no longer mod for those who dislike X.

If that is too complicated (for example, because too many members are against moderator X, Y, or Z), alternatively they can stay become mods but they don't have any moderating power over ANYONE. This means, they can still access secret mod forum, can give advice to admin or other moderators (it's up to admin and other moderators whether they would like to consider their suggestion or not), but they don't have any more power to give any warning, banning, thread deletion or locking.

The reason behind switching their position into some kind of 'advisor' is that, they are still appreciated for their outstanding capacity and contribution (which make them considered to be moderator in the first place), but it should stop all the complain about how unfair or bias them in moderating. Further complain about them would be consider as personal and should be proceed according to forum rules.

2. to replace them

If alternative 1 doesn't work after some significant period, they could be replaced, and the process could go with the steps proposed by Avatar.

To be continued.

 

[amethyst08]

I don't see what the point of this thread is if Plazma doesn't join in.
Of course all the current mods are going to be against Avatars ideas, no surprise there.

Shortly comment for your post, I think Plazma is in a conference or something (said a moderator friend).

 

[amethyst08]

In case there is any mods that need to be re-elected, and the first alternative that I suggest (feel free to give input on that one) doesn't work after some significant period of time (but I don't see why it should not work), or in case there is any poster who is interested to be mod, I think the steps that are proposed by Avatar is fine.

From what I have read in previous posts, there are at least 2 issues with the mechanism:
1. that the candidate doesn't have proper capacity (as explained by BenTheMan), but have enough 'buddy list' that can be convinced to vote him/her
2. that the qualified candidate will be eliminated by those who are against them (most likely because of personal grudges).

For that issue:
Point 1 should not be happened, because as Avatar said, before the voting step (step #2), the candidate should pass step 1, which is:
1. Someone who wishes to become a mod of a particular subforum has to get 6 recommendations to become one:
1) three recommendations from science subforum mods
2) two recommendation from a non-science subforum mod
3) one recommendation from an admin, after getting recommendations in 1) and 2).


Point 2 could likely happened, i.e. qualified candidate could be eliminated based on popularity contest. Now, in my personal opinion, if a certain candidate is qualified enough, but many oppose them, even if it is because of personal matter, then surely they should not be mod. It's a pity but their moderators position will continuously facing problem. Moderators don't need just to be qualified, but should also have some extra leadership skills, i.e. could gain support from members. So in my personal opinion, if the said candidate could pass that 1st step (getting recommendation, etc), but could not pass the 2nd step, they could become an advisor (non-executive moderator), i.e. they can access secret forum discussion, etc, but don't have moderating power (to avoid constant aggression or misuse of power).

p.s.: I have add some edit to former post.

 

[S.A.M.]

inzomnia:

In case of moderator X vs member Y, admin should say that moderator X has no moderation power over the said member(s). This means, moderator X stays as moderator, but in no way X could do any moderating action to member Y in the forum that X moderates. If Y breaks the forum rules, the action (warning, post deleting, or banning) would be taken by admin, not by moderator X.

so if Reiku constantly posts Pseudoscience in Physics and Ben deletes his posts, Ben should have no moderation power over Reiku because Reiku has clashes with him for deleting his posts?

Anytime there is a "clash" the administrator looks at the complaint, looks at the posts [deleted posts are visible to administrators] decides if the complaint is genuine or bullshit and makes a decision.

You cannot have trolls protected against moderation. Then there is no point in having a moderator. And it is the ones who are moderated who have the clashes with moderators. For instance, if Ben moderates Reiku more severely, it is because Reiku has a history of posting pseudoscience in Physics. That is Ben's job, to restrict that kind of posting.

qualified candidate could be eliminated based on popularity contest. Now, in my personal opinion, if a certain candidate is qualified enough, but many oppose them, even if it is because of personal matter, then surely they should not be mod.

So we should have less qualified candidates moderating forums because some trolls form cliques and go on riots? Why not permanently ban the trolls instead?

 

[amethyst08]

inzomnia:




so if Reiku constantly posts Pseudoscience in Physics and Ben deletes his posts, Ben should have no moderation power over Reiku because Reiku has clashes with him for deleting his posts?

Anytime there is a "clash" the administrator looks at the complaint, looks at the posts [deleted posts are visible to administrators] decides if the complaint is genuine or bullshit and makes a decision.

You cannot have trolls protected against moderation. Then there is no point in having a moderator. And it is the ones who are moderated who have the clashes with moderators. For instance, if Ben moderates Reiku more severely, it is because Reiku has a history of posting pseudoscience in Physics. That is Ben's job, to restrict that kind of posting.

Uhm, not at all. As I said later in that post:

Main reason for that is to avoid the mod misusing their power with members that have personal problem with. On the other hand, if the disputing members continues their complain to moderator X, it should not affect X's position as moderator, because X has no more mod power over the specific members. This should be win-win solution for both party (X and the anti-X), because X can stay mod (for the sake of us who appreciate X's capacity), but X can stay no longer mod for those who dislike X.

Notice the words 'personal problem'. In case of Ben and Reiku, the clash isn't personal (I think), but because some of Reiku's posts are considered pseudoscience. In many cases Ben (and some other poster like AlphaNumeric) have shown their argument in which part Reiku was wrong.

In your case with Shorty, for example, it is personal. Shorty could not specifically point out where you have been wrong in your moderation but she keeps complaining about your moderation. M*W also could not specifically point out where you have been wrong in your moderation (namely in your Biology and Genetics, and in Science & Society subforums), but anytime they are given chance, they would jumped to hijack the thread to de-mod you. This is clearly personal problem. The solution is that, either they are banned, or you change your approach to them, or admin specifically says that you don't moderate them (the ones that have specifically clash with you). In this case, if after admin already said that you don't moderate them but they would keep complaining your moderation, you can report them to admin that they have doing personal attack. Have you ever report them for personal attack? Personal attack is a breach of forum rules and hence warrant bans.

In case with Tiassa, also, IF the problem between him and Baron Max is just personal, then either he changes his approach to Baron, or to remove his moderating power over Baron Max, and he could continue to moderate his subforum.

In case with Asguard (I think that he is also under spotlight sometimes), I don't think there is anything personal with him, but he just need to change his approach a little bit. He should stop saying 'take it or leave it' and focus on the issue at hands instead. Just a little bit more maturity. Other than that, I think he is ok.

 

[amethyst08]

I have added some edit to the above post..

 

[S.A.M.]

Uhm, not at all. As I said later in that post:




Notice the world 'personal problem'. In case of Ben and Reiku, the clash isn't personal (I think), but because some of Reiku's posts are considered pseudoscience. In many cases Ben (and some other poster like AlphaNumeric) have shown their argument in which part Reiku was wrong.

In your case with Shorty, for example, it is personal. Shorty could not specifically point out where you have been wrong in your moderation but she keeps complaining about your moderation. M*W also could not specifically point out where you have been wrong in your moderation (namely in your Biology and Genetics, and in Science & Society subforums), but anytime they are given chance, they would jumped to hijack the thread to de-mod you. This is clearly personal problem. The solution is that, either they are banned, or you change your approach to them, or admin specifically says that you don't moderate them (the ones that have specifically clash with you). In this case, if after admin already said that you don't moderate them but they would keep complaining, you can complain to admin that they have doing personal attack. Personal attack warrant bans.

I still fail to see how curtailing the mods in this instance makes any sense.

e.g. shorty/MW have problem with me. They post nonsense in my subforums that is against my idea of what constitutes S&S and B&G. So I cannot moderate them because they have hissy fits? How does that make any sense? It would be unfair to other posters who report them and expect me to take action. It would also be biased to moderate other posters and leave them up to the admin, simply because of their bad behaviour.

 

[amethyst08]

So we should have less qualified candidates moderating forums because some trolls form cliques and go on riots? Why not permanently ban the trolls instead?

No, as I said before (which refers to Avatar's proposal), if anyone is interested to be a moderator, they have to firstly get 6 recommendation (3 from other science mods, 2 from other non-science mods, and 1 from admin). Only then the candidate can run a poll to get public acceptance. The first step (getting recommendation) would ensure the candidate quality. The second step would ensure the acceptance. I think it's alright.

 

[S.A.M.]

I don't think so, I would want a physicist to moderate physics and a biologist to moderate biology, not some popular but clueless candidate.

Have you ever report them for personal attack? Personal attack is a breach of forum rules and hence warrant bans.

I haven't reported MW, mainly because I think she is confused over some of my posts on atheism. Since Skinwalker, who is moderator of Religion, understands my POV, I prefer to let her come to her own conclusions eventually. I noticed she had been absent when she started posting against me and I assume she came in the middle of a heated discussion. However, these are all assumptions. I have frequently had discussions with MW and while I do not subscribe to her POV, she has contributed to several interesting discussions in Religion.

As for shorty, the problem is not hidden and has been discussed several times.

 

[amethyst08]

I still fail to see how curtailing the mods in this instance makes any sense.

e.g. shorty/MW have problem with me. They post nonsense in my subforums that is against my idea of what constitutes S&S and B&G. So I cannot moderate them because they have hissy fits? How does that make any sense? It would be unfair to other posters who report them and expect me to take action. It would also be biased to moderate other posters and leave them up to the admin, simply because of their bad behaviour.

I think what I said should be pretty obvious. If the moderation action to members who have personal problem with the related moderator is applied by admin or by fellow mod (in case the mod has fellow mod in the subforum), then there is no way the members could accuse the mod for his or her moderation anymore. They should stop saying de-mod the moderator. They should make the complain to admin instead if their post get deleted or something.

 

[amethyst08]

I don't think so, I would want a physicist to moderate physics and a biologist to moderate biology, not some popular but clueless candidate.

I think you miss my point. Please read again my post...

 

[John99]

The biggest problem is that two moderators (initials- S-T) have very little common sense, one i can understand but T is as annoying as a rock in a shoe. One is senile (F) so i consider that when i read his posts.