Can you stop banning members I want to talk to?

Status
Not open for further replies.
TheVat said:
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.
Click to expand...
Deleting posts is a dangerous approach; a mod can simply silence other posters that they find odious.

There is an inherent tension between moderators that participate in discussions and their moderation actions. Often even if a moderator does not actively troll they will get attacked; they are lightning rods for such attacks because they are "The Man" and this bothers many people.

One solution is to separate the two completely. Mods do not get to argue.; only moderate. This is a tough sell for a completely voluntary and unpaid position.

Another is to have mods participate in discussions but use a separate account for moderation posts. That way they are not seen as "using their power to win an argument."

A third is to use AI. I've seen a few attempts at this, where AI judges the degree of personal attack vs information in a post. Right now they are easy to game, but it's worth mentioning because it will definitely get better.
 
Really you could just use AI and set it for "no name calling". Parmalee would get warned often, Sarkas wouldn't. That's about all we need anyway. Just play nice and no warning needed. Ban the nightly bots and that's about it.
 
Pinball1970 said:
Hercules Rockefeller post #21&24 of why don't humans slosh.
Click to expand...
Were those posts supposed to be examples of moderation?
Because they're not.
Hercules Rockefeller posts, per his history, about a dozen times a year, or less.
While he may have "moderator" as a title, he seems to be as active in that capacity as all the rest.
That is to say: not at all.
 
billvon said:
Another is to have mods participate in discussions but use a separate account for moderation posts. That way they are not seen as "using their power to win an argument."
Click to expand...
This has been suggested before, but while James R remains the only moderator it is moot.
Cart before horse.
 
It's funny how Baldeee only really shows up on sciforums to take personal potshots at me, on behalf of his "mate", Sarkus.

Baldeee always conveniently appears out of the shadows to fight Sarkus's battles for him, whenever Sarkus feels like he needs some extra support.

And while Baldeee is discussing his concerns, Sarkus is generally nowhere to be seen, even though Baldeee's opinions are always in lockstep with Sarkus's. I guess that Sarkus just doesn't feel the need to post when Baldeee is already saying the exact things Sarkus would say.

All this is mighty strange. It's almost like Baldeee and Sarkus are in love. Or are the same person. Almost.

Anyhoo, I will respond in more detail to Baldeee's oh-so-interesting personal attacks when it's not late at night (my time) and I don't have to get up at some ungodly hour tomorrow. He did manage to make one or two fair points. A pity about the rest of his rubbish.
 
Last edited:
billvon said:
One solution is to separate the two completely. Mods do not get to argue.; only moderate. This is a tough sell for a completely voluntary and unpaid position.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't be here if I wasn't allowed to discuss things. I think the owners would have a very hard time recruiting unpaid workers who were only allowed to moderate the forum and not to post. It's certainly not a job I'd volunteer for.
billvon said:
Another is to have mods participate in discussions but use a separate account for moderation posts. That way they are not seen as "using their power to win an argument."
Click to expand...
It wouldn't make much difference, in practice. If I were to create another account and use one account exclusively to post moderator messages and the other to post on-topic content, the effect for new members would be to obscure the fact that the two accounts were run by the same person. Yes, I could call one "James R 1" and another "James R 2", but I don't see any great advantage in that. And the alternative - posting as "James R" when moderating and "Fluffy Tortoise 69" when posting as regular member - would be equivalent to my using a sock puppet account, which is something that we discourage for other members.

It also wouldn't stop the problem of moderator bias. If James R stepped in to issue a warning to somebody for insulting Fluffy Tortoise, for example, then those in the know would accuse James R - as usual - of misusing his moderator powers to persecute a personal vendetta blah blah blah and - to make it worse - that James R was dishonestly pretending that Fluffy Tortoise wasn't a sock puppet of his. And those not in the know might be justifiably miffed when they later found out that, in fact, the moderator James R and Fluffy Tortoise were, in fact, one and the same person.

If the aim is to avoid the perception of a moderator using their power to win an argument, this is a terrible way to go about that, if you ask me.
billvon said:
A third is to use AI.
Click to expand...
Why not just replace all human moderators by AI moderators and be done with it?
 
billvon said:
Deleting posts is a dangerous approach; a mod can simply silence other posters that they find odious.
Click to expand...
Agreed. And a couple points to address the 30 posts following mine (my post was a frustrated aside in another thread, not an attempt to start a thread)...

Had I fleshed my suggestion out, it would have been more like, "Move posts with personal slander to a Septic Tank thread (or whatever). This would allow all to see what was removed, give member a chance to retrieve/salvage the non-attack parts and repost them, and of course prevent any Stalinesque disappearing of content. I've seen this done elsewhere and it seemed to work. This would prevent the sort of runaway thread derailment seen recently."

My OP (again, not meant as an OP) was not looking for a long exposition on forum rules and numerical systems of scorekeeping infractions. If y'all want to do that sort of negative points system, have at it - I personally don't like scorekeeping approaches to personal conflicts or disruptions on a forum, and the sort of Moderation by Threat that can lead to: "You're up to 48, GregorSamsa23, so be good or be gone." Scorekeeping gives the superficial sheen of objectivity without the actual substance of it. It makes moderation sound magnanimous, e.g. "we put up with this 48 times, but 50 will be a bridge too far," when the mod may really be using badboy Gregor's record as a bludgeon. I have no problem with anyone disagreeing with all this, but would rather people not pretend that mods are "emotionally neutral" or don't take personal dislikes to members.
 
James R said:
It's funny how Baldeee only really shows up on sciforums to take personal potshots at me, on behalf of his "mate", Sarkus.
Click to expand...
I show up when I have something I want to say.
I would think that is true of the vast majority here.
In this instance it was because I felt that what was said in the OP was a mere symptom of a bigger issue, an issue that I have posted about before.
As I explained in my post.
James R said:
Baldeee always conveniently appears out of the shadows to fight Sarkus's battles for him, whenever Sarkus feels like he needs some extra support.
Click to expand...
There is no battle that Sarkus is fighting here, is there?
He has certainly argued in the past for the need for more moderators here.
As have others.
I raised an issue, and more, that I felt was pertinent to this thread, to what was stated in the OP.
The fact that it was raised following you warning Sarkus is hardly coincidental, given the comments in the OP.
I do find that warning, however, to be highly suspect, but it served as evidence for the point I was making.
James R said:
And while Baldeee is discussing his concerns, Sarkus is generally nowhere to be seen, even though Baldeee's opinions are always in lockstep with Sarkus's. I guess that Sarkus just doesn't feel the need to post when Baldeee is already saying the exact things Sarkus would say.
Click to expand...
I post when I have something to say.
I do not control when, where, or what Sarkus chooses to post.
Just as I do not control when, where, or what you choose to post.
He mentioned that he had received a temporary ban, which may have caused me to visit the site, and this thread cropped up.
James R said:
All this is mighty strange. It's almost like Baldeee and Sarkus are in love.
Click to expand...
You find this sort of personal insinuation to be acceptable for a moderator?
You thinking sharing similar views on things is a sign of love?
James R said:
Or are the same person. Almost.
Click to expand...
You have a history of claiming people to be the same person: Seattle and Sarkus at one time; Parmalee and someone else, if memory serves; me and Sarkus.
Usually it is just turns out to be people who share the same low opinion of you.
 
Pinball1970 said:
Not what I see at all but I mostly post on science where we get many cranks.
Click to expand...
In the Science threads you can argue and try to keep to the facts (model wise) of a subject.

With political and social threads, there’s your ‘facts’ and the other persons ‘facts’. And, that leads to personal fall out and bickering, which then gets taken across to other non-political threads.
 
Last edited:
James R said:
It wouldn't make much difference, in practice. If I were to create another account and use one account exclusively to post moderator messages and the other to post on-topic content, the effect for new members would be to obscure the fact that the two accounts were run by the same person. Yes, I could call one "James R 1" and another "James R 2", but I don't see any great advantage in that.
Click to expand...
There are 2 main advantages that I see.
1. Other members can use the "ignore" function on your non-moderator account.
2. Your non-moderator account can be subject to the same standard of moderation as every other member.
If that means that you end up with a temporary ban at some point, so be it.

2 very strong reasons for you having separate accounts:
James R
James R_MOD

It is not difficult to implement.
You are the only thing standing in its way.
That will allow for point 1 above, and more moderators would help facilitate point 2.
Although that would mean your non-mod account would have to abide by the same standards as everyone else.
Are you really up for that?
 
Pinball1970 said:
Sorry Baldeee "not" the only one. You will to take your like off my post.
Click to expand...
Why?
I knew what you meant: the posts had been about Hercules Rockefeller also being a moderator, and you're not in the habit of contradicting yourself in the same sentence.
I didn't "like" your comment because you typed "James is the only one", but because your post was useful and precise.
You answered the question without issue, without reading bad-faith into it.
It was appreciated.
Hence the like.
 
Baldeee said:
Why?
I knew what you meant: the posts had been about Hercules Rockefeller also being a moderator, and you're not in the habit of contradicting yourself in the same sentence.
I didn't "like" your comment because you typed "James is the only one", but because your post was useful and precise.
You answered the question without issue, without reading bad-faith into it.
It was appreciated.
Hence the like.
Click to expand...
Reciprocated.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top