Also, @James R : Could we please stop banning members - I would like to be able to chat with Sarkus and Parma.
Our posting guidelines are available for all members to read, along with our Warnings and Bans policy. (See the Site Feedback subforum).
Warning points only become bans if a member accumulates 50 active warning points or more in a 6 month period. In practice, that usually means 5 separate warnings, each worth 10 points. Warning points typically expire 6 months from the date of issue. Temporary bans are
automatic, based on warning points, by the way. As a moderator, I just issue warnings where appropriate. I do not arbitrary decide when to impose bans or how long a temporary ban is for. All this is in our published policies.
Many members get along just fine without ever receiving a single warning point. New members are usually gently directed to familiarise themselves with the site rules the first time they overstep the bounds - usually without receiving any warning points. Some members get one warning and that's enough incentive for them to adjust their posting behaviours so that they don't get any further warnings.
Some members, though, think they are special. They think the rules don't apply to them. When they receive a warning, instead of taking some time to reconsider the choices they make when they post here, they instead get angry and complain loudly, usually while either continuing to behave the same way that got them warned in the first place or while actually escalating their anti-social behaviours.
Both Sarkus and parmalee have been members of sciforums for many years. They know the rules. They know how the warnings system works. They know what kinds of behaviour get people warned. Clearly, knowing all this, they make deliberate and considered choices about their postings on this forum. I assume that this means they are more than willing to accept the consequences of making those choices.
parmalee has had very few warnings over many years. However, over 2024-2026, he has received approximately 12 warnings. Many of those warnings have been for insulting other forum members. He really can't pretend that he isn't aware that if he continues to insult people he will keep receiving warnings for insulting people.
Sarkus has, for whatever reason, taken to trolling over the last couple of years, and has stepped up the frequency of that trolling in particular in 2026. He, too, is in no position to pretend that he is unaware of the consequences of his actions, having received several repeated warnings in recent times for essentially the same behaviour.
So, if you, TheVat, would like to have Sarkus and parmalee available for chatting, I suggest that you encourage them to take more notice of the content of official warnings from moderators in future. You might like to suggest they consider altering their behaviour to bring it back in line with the site posting guidelines that they agreed to abide by when they signed up to this forum, many years ago. After all, there was a time when they had no problems acting like decent, normal human beings on this forum. I think they have it in them to go back to that. I guess we'll see what they want to do, one way or the other.
Temp banning just seems to perpetuate antagonism between the moderator and those members.
By the time a member accumulates the 50 warning points required to get their first temporary ban, they are usually well aware of the kinds of things they are receiving warnings for. It then becomes a deliberate
choice to get temporarily banned.
Now, I completely agree with you that many members who get themselves temporarily banned often want to lash out at the moderators. It's the wrong choice, of course. Better outcomes occur when the banned member reflects on what got him banned in the first place and then adjusts what and/or how he posts to make sure that he is in compliance with our posting guidelines in future, thus avoiding future warnings and bans.
Because I understand that some people get emotional when their toys are taken away for a while, I tend to let some of the "evil/biased moderator" comments that sometimes come when a member returns from a ban slide. Of course, that can depend on
how emotional the reaction is. If a member returns from a ban and immediately insults moderators and breaches several other site rules, things tend not to go well for that member. (At the time of posting, we have just seen an example from the extreme end of the scale, wherein a temporarily-banned member returned from his ban and then spammed the same post about 20+ times to various threads, insulting the moderators, crying out against the injustice in the world, calling the entire membership of the forum all kinds of names, and so on. That member was permanently banned, because clearly he decided to burn his bridges and go out in blaze of self-immolation.)
I don't have antagonistic feelings towards members whom I moderate, generally speaking. Of course, if a member breaks the rules repeatedly by insulting
me personally, or otherwise acts like a dick towards me personally, then I'm not always thrilled about that, for reasons I'm sure you can understand. But I try not to let my personal feelings cloud my judgment when it comes to applying the site rules in a fair and unbiased way.
It is, of course, very easy for a member who is disgruntled about a temporary ban to whine about moderator bias. It's also not that unusual, unfortunately. In the end, the proof is in the pudding. Our members can see who gets warnings and what they get warnings for. Everyone can judge the fairness or otherwise of moderator actions over time, for themselves. If they are not willing to accept how moderation is applied and they believe they have no change of helping to bring about effective change, they are always free to seek out some other online community that better suits their needs and wants.
Here's an alternative strategy: if moderator feels insulted (esp slandered) they can delete the post, rather than engage with the member and then derail threads with sometimes a dozen or more OT posts in which mod and member comb over each other's words like corporate lawyers.
Personally, I am of the view that deleting posts is almost always a bad idea (the only exceptions that come to mind are obvious spam and/or extremely anti-social posts made in bad faith). Posts that are deleted leave no public record of what was said and done, leaving bad actors free to tell lies and make up stories after the event. That is why posts that breach the site rules are typically flagged with notes explaining what is unacceptable about the content and/or behaviours displayed in them, rather than being deleted.
If a moderator
is insulted (which is a much clearer standard than merely
feeling insulted), then the situation is the same as applies when
any member of the forum is insulted. An official warning may be issued. (Personally, to avoid the perception of bias, I am much more tolerant of insults directed at me - especially in my capacity as a moderator - than I am about insults directed at non-moderator members.)
If a
member (including a moderator) is insulted by another member, they are allowed to reply appropriately, which in some cases can include giving the original insulter a piece of one's mind, so to speak. As a moderator, I don't think much of reports filed that complain that B insulted A - right after A insulted B - especially if it is A who is filing the report. Of course, our official advice is that if another member insults you, the best response might be to hit the "report" button on the offending post and leave it to a moderator to deal with the matter. This is always an option - sometimes the best option.
One final comment: moderators on sciforums are not
just moderators. They are here because they enjoy talking about topics that interest them on the forum. Inevitably, then, no moderator is posting
all the time in their official capacity as a moderator. We generally make it very clear when a moderator
is posting in an official capacity.
Moderators are allowed to "engage" with members
as members, not just as moderators.
Combing over other people's words is something that often happens in contentious discussions on a text-based discussion forum like this one. It can sometimes be tiresome for readers who are not directly involved in a dispute, but those readers are not actually obliged to read stuff they don't want to read.
You make a valid point about threads getting derailed over personal disputes. As a moderator, I often split threads that go off on tangents. If you think a thread is being derailed, that is another use for the "report" button.
