Backgrounds in moderation

[Bells]

There is no entry in the suspension log; indeed, the only mention of it I've found is one moderator questioning the suspension in the internal memoranda. You did not see fit to respond to that memo, at least in view of any of the rest of us. Neither do I see that support for your action in the thread where the violation occurred.

I mean, perhaps if that majority constitutes one out of one moderator who happened to comment in a post somewhere, I've simply missed it. But where else should I be looking? I even checked the warnings log. Where is this discussion that I apparently missed?

No, there was no answer given to that initial query. Not by PM or any other form.

And no other moderator commented. Been waiting for a while and yeah, no comment until this latest one when it was again brought up.

Please read my post in the Temp Ban thread in the mod forum about this issue.

This is why I told Gustav to ask James personally. Trying to guess was not a good idea on my part.

 

[chimpkin]

If you keep going on about being one or not wanting to be one.. well it shows a bit too much eagerness.

Or that I have ooh shineys wherein I fixate on things especially on 3 hours sleep...

You're more qualified; discussion dropped.

 

[Bells]

Or that I have ooh shineys wherein I fixate on things especially on 3 hours sleep...

You're more qualified; discussion dropped.

I never took it as a challenge chimpkin. If you want to moderate Human Science, then yeah, good luck to you.

I have been here for a long time and the usual policy has always been to not promote people who openly seek to be promoted or go on about being promoted. That is what I meant.

 

[Tiassa]

Imagine all the people tossed out in the streets

Please read my post in the Temp Ban thread in the mod forum about this issue.

Aye. This is a difficult time, but Sciforums will get through it one way or another.

I might well be going a bit hard on him, but frackity-frack-frack-feldergarb, I just don't see how these applications of the rules will work if we apply them generally. That, and I'm tired of taking heat for him. I'm perfectly capable of pissing off various members on my own. And I'll answer them for that. But "we", the staff, are often indicted for one another's mistakes. We are the staff, collectively, so the blame comes down, to some degree, on all of us. It actually makes it harder to resolve a member's complaint about something I do if I must defend it in the context of other people's decisions that I clearly disagree with.

I'm nearly certain you have a list; I know I do. Should we start acting on our lists according to the example James sets? And we probably have a few names in common on our lists.

But ... you know. We don't. And I would think we don't for obvious reasons.

Of course, that's just me.

 

[geekzilla]

I'm nearly certain you have a list; I know I do. Should we start acting on our lists according to the example James sets? And we probably have a few names in common on our lists.

But ... you know. We don't. And I would think we don't for obvious reasons.

Of course, that's just me.

The truth is out.

The lists exist.

Thank goodness those with lists can't roam the streets with yellow stars and guns and the weight of (some kinda) authority behind them.

Oh ah...

 

[chimpkin]

Thank goodness those with lists can't roam the streets with yellow stars and guns

nope, they can't...me, though...
I have a silver star and a gun... but no list, only a Code Of Honor.
I take Bat Country with me wherever I go...

As your lawyer I advise you to take this pill...

 

[geekzilla]

nope, they can't...me, though...
I have a silver star and a gun... but no list, only a Code Of Honor.
I take Bat Country with me wherever I go...

As your lawyer I advise you to take this pill...

Yeah. If you ain't one of us you is one of them.

And that's just about how it (appears to) roll/s.

 

[Bells]

Aye. This is a difficult time, but Sciforums will get through it one way or another.

I might well be going a bit hard on him, but frackity-frack-frack-feldergarb, I just don't see how these applications of the rules will work if we apply them generally. That, and I'm tired of taking heat for him. I'm perfectly capable of pissing off various members on my own. And I'll answer them for that. But "we", the staff, are often indicted for one another's mistakes. We are the staff, collectively, so the blame comes down, to some degree, on all of us. It actually makes it harder to resolve a member's complaint about something I do if I must defend it in the context of other people's decisions that I clearly disagree with.

I'm nearly certain you have a list; I know I do. Should we start acting on our lists according to the example James sets? And we probably have a few names in common on our lists.

But ... you know. We don't. And I would think we don't for obvious reasons.

Of course, that's just me.

As you are well aware, I do not moderate certain members and will seek a review when necessary. And that is so there is no issue of bias, or there would be no grounds for bias.

 

[universaldistress]

I've made this same suggestion before, and the answer was very clearly "dictatorship."

I dunno - there would be a lot of problems with a straightforward member voting system. But I do think there should be more turn-over in moderation, one way or the other. Even if it's not to be an actual democracy, I think term limits and some mechanism for regularly bringing in fresh blood would help keep things moving in a positive direction. It's been quite some time since there was any real movement in those terms. It would break up some of these long-standing politicized stalemates, address the old "power corrupts" adage, etc. But there seems to be zero appetite to even consider anything like that - and much typical authoritarian response besides.

So Tiassa's suggestions it is in OUR hands is BS then?

 

[geekzilla]

As you are well aware, I do not moderate certain members and will seek a review when necessary. And that is so there is no issue of bias, or there would be no grounds for bias.

In your opinion are others demonstrably biased?

 

[universaldistress]

If we can't have an option to vote out moderators from office, could we acquire the right to vote them in after a set term has expired?

Also, should anyone get permabanned without a vote?

 

[Bells]

In your opinion are others demonstrably biased?

That is not for me to answer.

Are you completely without bias? Is everyone completely without bias? Certainly, if you exist in a vacuum you would be. Do you exist in a vacuum and have no contact with anyone?

If we can't have an option to vote out moderators from office, could we acquire the right to vote them in after a set term has expired?

Also, should anyone get permabanned without a vote?

And then of course you will have the personality issues coming into play, where people will get others to vote off someone they dislike for example. How do you propose to work around that? How do you prevent a popularity contest?

We have tried all of this in the past and all have failed.

And then of course we permaban people every day. Do you want to set up votes for every single spammer we permaban? Or are they to be excluded?

What about if a member threatens anothe member or is stalking them? Which we have had in the past? Should that go to a personal vote as well? Have the victim explain themselves? What if a popularity contest then follows and the stalker remains? Where exactly do you draw the line?

 

[geekzilla]

That is not for me to answer.

Why not? If someone is demonstrating a bias against an individual or a group of individuals what is wrong with highlighting it? Worthy of discussion at least? Ditto: chips, grudges, et al.

Are you completely without bias? Is everyone completely without bias? Certainly, if you exist in a vacuum you would be. Do you exist in a vacuum and have no contact with anyone?

No-one is completely without bias. However, one can be made aware of one's bias particularly where said bias might cloud judgement. Something in the context of which we are currently engaged, I might suggest, matters muchly.

 

[Bells]

Why not? If someone is demonstrating a bias against an individual or a group of individuals what is wrong with highlighting it? Worthy of discussion at least? Ditto: chips, grudges, et al.



No-one is completely without bias. However, one can be made aware of one's bias particularly where said bias might cloud judgement. Something in the context of which we are currently engaged, I might suggest, matters muchly.

I am going to give you some advice.

When you see a bad fire burning, you don't try to heap more fuel on it.

Everyone has their own bias. If it comes up or we notice that it may be an issue, we do talk about it and we do speak out and state our opinion and at times rip each others eyes out. Usually in private and rarely, as now, in public. Trying to capitalise and find out 'who is biased', etc, will not really help matters much.

So no, it is not for me to answer because to answer would pretty much amount gossiping by the watercooler.

 

[geekzilla]

I am going to give you some advice.

Although you may not realise it I am an adult. I did not solicit your advice.

When you see a bad fire burning, you don't try to heap more fuel on it.

A true, real life, recent incident: I saw a fire burning recently, started by some young people who didn't know any better. I tried to put it out. I could not so, so I called some people with a large red truck who could. Whilst they were putting out the fire I engaged with those young people who were still hanging around to try to establish what happened and why. I did and we talked about it. Now I could just have walked on by saying 'not my problem' but I stood my ground and tried to make a difference. That's the sort of person I am.

So believe it or not; I am NOT trying to set flame here despite the fact that I may actually have good reason to. In other words I might have been on the receiving end of that bias on more than one occasion and as a result walked away from the site for a good long while.

Everyone has their own bias. If it comes up or we notice that it may be an issue, we do talk about it and we do speak out and state our opinion and at times rip each others eyes out. Usually in private and rarely, as now, in public. Trying to capitalise and find out 'who is biased', etc, will not really help matters much.

See above. I have been chewed out here for (allegedly) making false assumptions. Don't make me, er, chew you out.

So no, it is not for me to answer because to answer would pretty much amount gossiping by the watercooler.

If you want to have any members left here you will realise that this issue is not about some pathetic attempt at gossiping.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Although you may not realise it I am an adult. I do not ask for unsolicited advice.

As an adult maybe you should realise that, by definition, unsolicited advice is unasked-for.

 

[geekzilla]

As an adult maybe you should realise that, by definition, unsolicited advice is unasked-for.

Like an adult I fixed that.

 

[Bells]

Although you may not realise it I am an adult. I did not solicit your advice.

:shrug:

A true, real life, recent incident: I saw a fire burning recently, started by some young people who didn't know any better. I tried to put it out. I could not so, so I called some people with a large red truck who could. Whilst they were putting out the fire I engaged with those young people who were still hanging around to try to establish what happened and why. I did and we talked about it. Now I could just have walked on by saying 'not my problem' but I stood my ground and tried to make a difference. That's the sort of person I am.

So believe it or not; I am NOT trying to set flame here despite the fact that I may actually have good reason to. In other words I might have been on the receiving end of that bias on more than one occasion and as a result walked away from the site for a good long while.

Considering I barely ever speak to you on this forum, if you believe the person(s) on the giving end of possible bias, were biased, wouldn't it be more prudent to ask them directly?

Or do you expect me to guess and make the fire worse if I guess incorrectly?

See above. I have been chewed out here for (allegedly) making false assumptions. Don't make me, er, chew you out.

So you are going to chew me out for refusing to make an assumption?

Knock yourself out.

If you want to have any members left here you will realise that this issue is not about some pathetic attempt at gossiping.

So to keep members we keep making false assumptions about everything instead of trying to figure it out like adults?

/Psst.. guess what?

I'm not playing this game. If you have a problem with a moderator or you believe someone was biased, then name them and cite where the issue is and seek a review.

 

[geekzilla]

I'm not playing this game. If you have a problem with a moderator or you believe someone was biased, then name them and cite where the issue is and seek a review.

OK I think JamesR appears to have a problem with anyone who ever associated with spuriousmonkey. It has gotten out of hand in my view.

 

[Varda]

I second the opinion that JamesR should resign.
I know nothing about the person, but the point that I have been making for several years is that we can't bw throwing out our best people like they are expendable.

There may be 500 people viewing the site, but there is only 20 or so of us posting here every day.
Think about all the people that used to post here 3 or so years ago, and who are all gone, either pushed out or too frustrated to continue. Who came to take their place, outside of a very few memorable mentions?

Did anyone notice the impact of not having gustav here for a single week? And he is just one person.

Maybe us 20 or so should up and leave too. Leave this place to the moths. Then you mods can have some very grown up and uplifting and beyond legal reprove conversations among yourselves.