Clarifying when mods are entitled to delete posts

[scott3x]

So now I get a post deleted and a warning from Skinwalker because he believes that I engaged in "Trolling / Meaningless Post Content". This post is not about Skinwalker per se, but about when moderators should delete posts and issue warnings.

Skinwalker states that the post in question is "clearly trolling". All I said was that, in response to someone speaking of the fine line between science and pseudoscience, I believed that the problem was that too few people, including some moderators, don't truly understand the scientific method. -That's- trolling? That's simply voicing a view of mine, in a civil manner no less.

 

[scott3x]

Now I get -another- warning. This time it was only deleted for being off topic. Again, I disagree with him, but as last time he said that he could care less, I decided to skip telling him this time and simply PM James and post it here. Since this time his only complaint was that the message was off topic, I believe I can simply quote the whole message here, which I had posted after post 27 in this thread in the religion forum:

Please stay on topic. The topic is religion, not pseudoscience. You are free to start a new thread on that topic in the appropriate forum. Further off-topic posts here will result in official warnings via infractions.

The person who originally started the discussion concerning pseudoscience in this forum wasn't me, it was Diogenes. I followed his train of thought, but so did you. Then I responded to your response to his point on pseudoscience and yet -I'm- the only person who got off topic? As a matter of fact, I think that many good arguments can be made that much of religion is pseudoscientific. You yourself did so, while apparently also stating that not all religions are pseudoscientific, which I also agreed with.

I have a strong feeling that this isn't what you didn't like, however; I have a feeling that what you didn't like was my simple assertion that while I liked your broad criteria for defining what is pseudoscience, in religion or any other subject, I don't always agree with you in the particulars of what is and isn't good data. I contend that what constitutes good data and how we determine what is good data is a subject that -should- be allowed in any forum that respects the scientific method.

I disagree that this should have been deleted. Does anyone agree with me here? If not, why not?

 

[John99]

mods should delete more posts. i dont know wha the point of locking threads or sesspooling them.

 

[John99]

to me, i dont think they want to take the initiative or be known as the bad guy.

 

[scott3x]

The problem, I think, is that there's not enough clarity as to what constitutes a post that -should- be deleted. Without such a criteria, posts that should be deleted may stay up and posts that shouldn't be deleted are.

 

[Stryder]

Let's try to clarrify this for you Scottx (and others).

Moderators attempt to do a voluntary job of keeping the spam down by banning robots and "try" to stop entire forums being hijacked by one loud poster that's posting louder than another. The reason for this is it's a Public forum and as such it's meant to be available to all that can stay within the confines of the very few basic rules that we apply here.

We can't have one poster making the website their soapbox over all others. This is in fact the main reason why most of your 9/11 threads were locked originally. (no offence but it's all very well setting up on one corner with a soap box to preach but to set up multiple boxes was just too much).

For the most part the Moderators do try to work out the best way to deal with various posts as they arise and even some posters (well... "Trolls") When a post is deleted by a Moderator in a forum it is possible for that deletion to be reviewed, if of course it needs reviewing. For the most part though although we have lapse global rules to the site, each Moderator attempts to adapt their own way of handling the workload in their forum.

This basically means that some will apply ruleset's that others don't and should you find their methods offensive, you should perhaps come to terms that their methods only stem as far as the subforums they moderate. (In otherwords, "If you don't like Skinny's moderation, why post there?")

You should possibly take into consideration that constantly making threads about the methods of Moderation or Administration here really doesn't do you or your causes any favours.

On the subject of "What constitutes a post that -should- be deleted" in honesty many of your threads would of made that grade a long time ago, however we are just too polite to tell you and have obligations to try and keep a certain amount of freedom in the forum, no matter how Nazi we might be perceived.

 

[copernicus66]

You should possibly take into consideration that constantly making threads about the methods of Moderation or Administration here really doesn't do you or your causes any favours.

So criticism, queries and complaints are unwelcome? Interesting...

 

[Stryder]

So criticism, queries and complaints are unwelcome? Interesting...

Well that should be a given really...

Seriously we don't mind people having constructive criticism or feedback, however most of the time it's just complaints created because somebody hasn't got their own way in an argument, or they don't like a poster or moderator. So it can be difficult to weed out if they have a "Real" valid complaint or criticism or if they are just acting up for some power game/trip.

This is why it was suggested that if a member/poster should have a problem with moderation they should first take it up with the Moderator (i.e. "why was my post on X deleted? What can I do/change/edit to get it reposted? etc") and then if that fails they can ask an Administrator to look into it, rather than creating threads on the subject. (Since those threads can be there just to upset people)

 

[scott3x]

Let's try to clarrify this for you Scottx (and others).

Moderators attempt to do a voluntary job of keeping the spam down by banning robots and "try" to stop entire forums being hijacked by one loud poster that's posting louder than another.

I barely got a word or 2 in in the religion forum. I also don't think that my posts are all that 'loud'. I certainly don't caps them or size the letters big and you know that crude insults is anathema to me.

The reason for this is it's a Public forum and as such it's meant to be available to all that can stay within the confines of the very few basic rules that we apply here.

We can't have one poster making the website their soapbox over all others. This is in fact the main reason why most of your 9/11 threads were locked originally. (no offence but it's all very well setting up on one corner with a soap box to preach but to set up multiple boxes was just too much).

9/11 constitutes more then just one issue; you of all people should know just how much can be said on the subject. The irony is that -you- opened 3 9/11 threads (who, how, why); and then closed all 3 I believe; definitely the active ones at any rate. Anyway, when I realized you were closing down the 9/11 threads right and left in pseudoscience, I decided that it was probably only a matter of time before you closed all the active threads there, as you eventually did do. Not only this, but I thought it might be nice to have a more formal place to discuss the issue, as you know how much I dislike base insults. So I started things over in Formal Debates. Now James has decided that he doesn't like the discussion there anymore either, so I've now moved over to Science & Society, where Tiassa seems to be moderator; I honestly don't think I get along better with any other moderator, so if it's closed there, it may deep six the discussion here on sciforums; seems to be ok so far.

For the most part the Moderators do try to work out the best way to deal with various posts as they arise and even some posters (well... "Trolls")

I liked it better when you were going for 'loud'. I remember the last person you called a troll directly you banned permanently (ancientregime), for reasons that I found to be unjustified. He used a few insults at times, but certainly no worse then many posters here. He was went from member to permaban not for how profane he was but because he had views that you found to be heretical. A witch, or 'troll' hunt, if you will.

When a post is deleted by a Moderator in a forum it is possible for that deletion to be reviewed, if of course it needs reviewing. For the most part though although we have lapse global rules to the site, each Moderator attempts to adapt their own way of handling the workload in their forum.

This basically means that some will apply rulesets that others don't and should you find their methods offensive, you should perhaps come to terms that their methods only stem as far as the subforums they moderate. (In otherwords, "If you don't like Skinny's moderation, why post there?")

There is certainly truth in what you say and you may have noticed how little I've posted in forums moderated by Skinwalker. I actually hadn't even noticed that the religion forum was moderated by him until he started deleting my posts. However, while you may, ofcourse, simply say that it's all my fault that I got my posts deleted, the other possibility is that he's deleting posts for reasons that have nothing to do with the forum guidelines. Oh, he may do lip service to the guidelines, but I think if you read between the lines in the first 2 posts I've written here, it can become clear that what's really going on is he simply doesn't like me. He made this clear before I'd even posted in his forums; right here in SF Open Government, I believe; some crude insult regarding my views on 9/11 if I remember right.

You should possibly take into consideration that constantly making threads about the methods of Moderation or Administration here really doesn't do you or your causes any favours.

That depends. Maybe my cause is to point out that there is a certain amount of hypocracy in the way moderators enforce the forum guidelines or rules; how moderators can get 'off topic', but another poster gets their post deleted and a 'warning', say. Or how a moderator can decide that one can't say that moderators don't understand the scientific method all that well at times, but they are free to accuse any mere poster that -their- posts are pseudoscientific and even move entire threads over to the pseudoscience section, or the cesspool, then perhaps close the thread down a bit later for good measure. I'm glad that didn't delete this thread outright, as I did bring up a particular moderator, but as I said, these issues doesn't solely apply to Skinwalker.

On the subject of "What constitutes a post that -should- be deleted" in honesty many of your threads would of made that grade a long time ago, however we are just too polite to tell you and have obligations to try and keep a certain amount of freedom in the forum, no matter how Nazi we might be perceived.

What I'm trying to say is that you don't delete some personal attacks, because you agree with the people attacking or are indifferent, but you -will- delete some civil posts, because you disagree with the people writing them. Well, it's your ball game. I just thought I'd point out the hypocracies in it.

 

[scott3x]

So criticism, queries and complaints are unwelcome? Interesting...

Well that should be a given really...

Seriously we don't mind people having constructive criticism or feedback, however most of the time it's just complaints created because somebody hasn't got their own way in an argument, or they don't like a poster or moderator.

The issue I think you consider is, did the poster really deserve to get his or her post deleted and a warning given? Is their dislike of a moderator justified?

So it can be difficult to weed out if they have a "Real" valid complaint or criticism or if they are just acting up for some power game/trip.

I think the place to start is to actually address the issues brought up instead of going off on tangents...

This is why it was suggested that if a member/poster should have a problem with moderation they should first take it up with the Moderator (i.e. "why was my post on X deleted? What can I do/change/edit to get it reposted? etc")

I told Skinwalker that I disagreed with his post deletion the first time he deleted a post (the one I referred to in post 1). He said he could care less. Clearly, he's not the person to talk to about the matter.

and then if that fails they can ask an Administrator to look into it, rather than creating threads on the subject.

I forwarded both warnings that contained the deleted posts to James, asking him if he agreed with Skinwalker's decisions. No word as of yet.

(Since those threads can be there just to upset people)

I'm not trying to upset people; I wanted some clarification as to when mods are entitled to delete posts. Apparently, the short answer is, so long as they do lip service to the guidelines, any time they like. They don't have to be so stringent with their -own- posts ofcourse (perish the thought)...

 

[Idle Mind]

Apparently, the short answer is, so long as they do lip service to the guidelines, any time they like. They don't have to be so stringent with their -own- posts ofcourse (perish the thought)...

Exactly. They can delete content on a whim if they like. It's up to you whether you feel that is acceptable or not. However, if you find it unacceptable, the only real option you have is to find another place to voice your thoughts that better suits your needs.

 

[scott3x]

Apparently, the short answer is, so long as they do lip service to the guidelines, any time they like. They don't have to be so stringent with their -own- posts ofcourse (perish the thought)...

Exactly. They can delete content on a whim if they like.

Yes, they can, but I have a feeling that the moderators in general wouldn't like that and would take action against such a mod.

It's up to you whether you feel that is acceptable or not. However, if you find it unacceptable, the only real option you have is to find another place to voice your thoughts that better suits your needs.

There is only one moderator that I have serious problems with here and the above was most strongly directed at said mod.

There are only 2 controversial subjects where the head mods of this place strongly disagree with the views of me and a few others who are or have been here. In regards to a certain conspiracy theory, I have indeed found a new place where both sides are well represented. And I frequented other places concerning something else long before someone brought the issue to the fore here. Other subjects that can be dealt with in forums that a certain moderator doesn't moderate are still alright for discussion here, though.

 

[copernicus66]

I don't understand why everyone here is having a go at scott3x. All he is asking for is a little consistency in how this forum is moderated. The problem is that moderators leave it all up to their own judgment, so you have a lot of inconsistency. And this inconsistency makes it easy to deny there being any bias, especially when a moderator is notorious for twisting things into what they aren't.

There has been a lot of unprofessional conduct on this forum. For example, it has even been admitted that a long term moderator vented about a particular poster they had a grudge against in the private moderator forum (although I wouldn't really call that venting as much as I'd just call it trying to ban a member who they had an agenda against). Either way, venting is highly unprofessional as it leads to the propositions of bannings of innocent members who simply had the misfortune to gain the ire of a moderator, and you can't have a balanced moderating staff if you allow that sort of shit.

The problem is that the moderator staff aren't amenable to constructive criticism, they are inherently corrupt and driven by their own biases. What's the point of implementing all these new bullshit rules (eg. Zero tolerance week) when the top enforcerers are still the same individuals driven by their own biases, when the corruption spreads right to the top? Let's have a complete overhaul of the entire moderating hierarchy, let's make these moderators accountable to the members they lord over by starting up a voting system. Perhaps then they will feel a little less comfortable, and try a little harder to take criticism into account.

 

[copernicus66]

Well that should be a given really...

Seriously we don't mind people having constructive criticism or feedback, however most of the time it's just complaints created because somebody hasn't got their own way in an argument, or they don't like a poster or moderator.

Outright nonsense. Scottx is confused by the inconsistency. He didn't expect to be moderated, and when he was moderated he simply sent a private message to the moderator disagreeing with the action (and asking for clarification, I bet) to which he got the middle finger extended!

No wonder this forum is a dead shithole, when the moderators behave in such a fashion.

 

[John99]

Get lost Copernicus. Every forum has to have a 911 thread to satisfy scott. and that included the religion forum? are you delusional too?

 

[scott3x]

I don't understand why everyone here is having a go at scott3x.

Not everyone, but certainly a well sized posse. Put succinctly, I think it's because they disagree with some of my views.

All he is asking for is a little consistency in how this forum is moderated. The problem is that moderators leave it all up to their own judgment, so you have a lot of inconsistency.

Not quite. Even the moderator who I dislike the most pays lip service to enforcing the forum rules. The problem is that some of the forum rules are rather vague and at times the moderator himself doesn't hold himself up to the very rules he will delete others' posts for. This is what we call hypocracy. The moderator -never- got along with me, even before I had written a single message in one of the forums he moderates. He'd started straight off insulting me when I mentioned a certain subject which someone else has named here. From that point, I classified him as an offensive opponent. Now in his own forums, I don't recall him insulting me. But why bother? He can simply delete a post or 3 for petty reasons such as supposed 'off topicness' when he had just done the same thing. Or for daring to suggest that some moderators may not have as good an understanding of the scientific method as they'd like to think. This is a problem and I really do think it should be addressed.

And this inconsistency makes it easy to deny there being any bias, especially when a moderator is notorious for twisting things into what they aren't.

I agree.

There has been a lot of unprofessional conduct on this forum. For example, it has even been admitted that a long term moderator vented about a particular poster they had a grudge against in the private moderator forum (although I wouldn't really call that venting as much as I'd just call it trying to ban a member who they had an agenda against). Either way, venting is highly unprofessional as it leads to the propositions of bannings of innocent members who simply had the misfortune to gain the ire of a moderator, and you can't have a balanced moderating staff if you allow that sort of shit.

I'm not sure that Baron Max could be called innocent; I wasn't there at the time, but I have -never- had any serious problem with Tiassa's moderation (as a matter of fact, I think he's my favourite mod) and Bells backed him up as well (we've had our differences, but to date I think she's the moderator who's gone the most in depth concerning the forum rules. While she may attack, she tends to do so only with one barrel and politely at that).

The problem is that the moderator staff aren't amenable to constructive criticism, they are inherently corrupt and driven by their own biases.

I suppose it could be argued that we're all inherently corrupt and driven by our own biases. No one's perfect. What you look for is to get moderators who are -less- corrupt and driven by their own biases then the population at large. In that, I believe that sciforums has succeeded relatively well, which is why I think it has the population it does.

What's the point of implementing all these new bullshit rules (eg. Zero tolerance week) when the top enforcerers are still the same individuals driven by their own biases, when the corruption spreads right to the top? Let's have a complete overhaul of the entire moderating hierarchy, let's make these moderators accountable to the members they lord over by starting up a voting system. Perhaps then they will feel a little less comfortable, and try a little harder to take criticism into account.

Any leader is accountable to its members in one way or another. This is especially so in the online community, where voting with one's feet is a lot easier then in the physical world. While I agree with you that there are some problems in the moderation at times, I would contend that those problems are minor, not major. You will note that I generally don't frequent forums moderated by a certain moderator and it seems that I'm not alone in this. Actions frequently speak louder than words.

 

[scott3x]

Well that should be a given really...

Seriously we don't mind people having constructive criticism or feedback, however most of the time it's just complaints created because somebody hasn't got their own way in an argument, or they don't like a poster or moderator.

Outright nonsense. Scottx is confused by the inconsistency.

I was, when I started this thread. At this point, I've come to the conclusion that all a moderator has to do is pay lip service to some rule in order to delete a post and possibly issue a warning. The moderator doesn't actually have to follow such inane interpretations of the rules themselves, but they are allowed to apply them to others, apparently with the blessing of even James (I asked, he was fine with Skinwalker's deletions).

He didn't expect to be moderated, and when he was moderated he simply sent a private message to the moderator disagreeing with the action (and asking for clarification, I bet) to which he got the middle finger extended!

Not quite. In the first deletion, I didn't ask for clarification, as the moderator in question had sent me a warning, stating that I was 'trolling'; I disagreed with his assertion, made my reasons clear for my disagreement in the OP of this thread and informed him of my action. He stated that he 'could care less'. I assume he meant "couldn't", and so determined that sending him any sort of response in the future would be a waste of time. He did -not- flip me the bird in the PM, although he has called me an f word derivative in a post that has since rightfully been deleted by Tiassa in his Ethics forum. The term, as far as I'm concerned, was rather interesting for one reason. It combined the f word with 'retard'. Now the reason it's interesting is because Tiassa had used the non abreviated version in this very forum previously. I'm not sure Skinwalker's choice was a coincidence. Anyway, Skinwalker even said (jokingly or not) that he'd reported himself at one point, so I think he knew what he was in for.

No wonder this forum is a dead shithole, when the moderators behave in such a fashion.

I don't share your view of this forum. This forum is good for people who wish to talk about certain things. Certain subjects are proscribed, however, or atleast certain views on those subjects are proscribed. I have simply found that certain subjects can only be discussed in certain forums.

 

[scott3x]

Get lost Copernicus. Every forum has to have a 911 thread to satisfy scott. and that included the religion forum? are you delusional too?

No, every forum didn't have to have a 9/11 thread. The problem was that existing 9/11 threads were consistently being shut down; so I kept on creating a new 9/11 thread in a different forum. In the end, however, Stryder decided that that particular thread subject would be on auto ban, which prompted me to find another place to speak of this issue; democratic underground, which has a dedicated forum for September 11 and is well represented on both sides of the debate.

 

[Gustav]

whats your handle on that forum?

 

[scott3x]

whats your handle on that forum?

I seem to be doing fine there, although the only subject I've touched on so far there is 9/11. In time, I may expand to other subjects there, just as I did here. Specifically concerning 9/11, though, I must admit it's a relief to not only not have to worry about where to set up camp, but to have an entire -forum- to discuss the issues.