If you could change one thing about sciforums...

[Dywyddyr]

atheism is black and white, all others is either believers or agnostics.

No.
Atheism and theism are positions on the belief in god. Agnosticism is a position on whether we can know anything about god.
You can have agnostic theists and agnostic atheists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

Atheism ranges from lack of belief in god to outright denial of his existence.

 

[leopold]

No.
Atheism and theism are positions on the belief in god. Agnosticism is a position on whether we can know anything about god.
You can have agnostic theists and agnostic atheists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

Atheism ranges from lack of belief in god to outright denial of his existence.

frankly i feel the argument is a philosophical one until adequate proof is found.

a good definition would certainly help. how can you argue something you can't define?

 

[kwhilborn]

Off topic much? Sciforums needs a video game app. An online experience where we can grab bats, pitchforks, or even guns. Then we could gang up on people and tar and feather them or just plain lynch them.

Nevermind; I realize we kinda do that now.

 

[James R]

Summary so far:

• Have a goal for the forum.
• Unban banned members by general vote of the membership.
• Let thread starters moderate their own threads to remove comments they don't like.
• Term limits for moderators.
• Less moderation so that people can speak their mind without fear of moderator retribution. (I'm not sure if this means more freedom to insult other members or not.)
• More subforums, especially in the SubCultures category.
• Moderators should get infraction points in a similar way to other members, and these should be publically viewable (who would issue them?)
• Moderators who are biased, or who seem to be biased, against particular members, ought not to be allowed to moderate them. A member should be allowed to freely accuse a moderator of bias and ask that that moderator not moderator him/her but that another mod/admin should do it instead.
• Create a "Free for all" subforum with no moderation.
• Make an iOS and Android app for sciforums.
• Make Stryder the only admin.
• Unban everybody who has been permanently banned.
• Allow multiple identities.
• Require all theists to identify themselves as theists before being allowed to post.
• Ban people from particular threads/subforums instead of the whole site.
• Improve and expand on the LaTeX features of the forum.
• Abolish permanent bans and have maximum ban of 1 year instead.
• Introduce a rating system for individual posts, and allow members to vote posts up or down.
• Sort the list of moderators by subforum.

 

[leopold]

Create a "Free for all" subforum with no moderation.

this should be interesting.
you know how people are, give 'em an inch and they'll turn it into a light year.

Make an iOS and Android app for sciforums.

sure, why not?

Make Stryder the only admin.

no.

i luv ya stryder.

Unban everybody who has been permanently banned.

you do realize this also means every spambot you ever banned.

Allow multiple identities.

this forum has always been against sock puppets for some reason.
i don't see what the hoopla is all about i guess.

Require all theists to identify themselves as theists before being allowed to post.

:roflmao:

Ban people from particular threads/subforums instead of the whole site.

i was thinking more along the lines banning them to the cesspool

Improve and expand on the LaTeX features of the forum.

i have never used latex, although i might if it easier to do so.
i'll volunteer as a beta tester.

Abolish permanent bans and have maximum ban of 1 year instead.

don't forget the spambots, you never want them back.

Introduce a rating system for individual posts, and allow members to vote posts up or down.

appeal to authority makes me gag
appeal to reason makes more sense.

Sort the list of moderators by subforum.

the present list is fine.

in my opinion of course.

 

[Enmos]

[*]Ban people from particular threads/subforums instead of the whole site.

I didn't mean it exactly like that. What I meant was that we should, imo, have the option added to ban people from a thread or a subforum while, more or less, keeping the system as it is in place.
You can then make a choice between banning someone from the website or just banning them from, for example, the Religion subforum if they have been misbehaving there.
If a person can't handle a certain thread or subforum, either in general or temporarily, and gets so frustrated that he/she breaks the rules, you could just ban him/her from that thread or subforum.

I propose that thread-bans are always permanent (perhaps unless the situation is extraordinary) and that subforum-bans are never permanent but significantly longer than site-bans are now for the same offense.
Site-bans can then be used for particularly nasty members that just won't learn to behave and of course for spammers (permanent).
The infraction-point system will have to be adapted to include thread- and subforum-bans, but could still work using the same mechanism.

A thread- or subforum-ban will be a strong reminder for the member to adhere to the rules while he or she can still enjoy the website.
So it will be a powerful tool for the moderators that doesn't hurt site-traffic anywhere near as much as banning a member from the entire website.

 

[GeoffP]

Summary so far:

• Have a goal for the forum.
• Unban banned members by general vote of the membership.
• Let thread starters moderate their own threads to remove comments they don't like.
• Term limits for moderators.
• Less moderation so that people can speak their mind without fear of moderator retribution. (I'm not sure if this means more freedom to insult other members or not.)
• More subforums, especially in the SubCultures category.
• Moderators should get infraction points in a similar way to other members, and these should be publically viewable (who would issue them?)
• Moderators who are biased, or who seem to be biased, against particular members, ought not to be allowed to moderate them. A member should be allowed to freely accuse a moderator of bias and ask that that moderator not moderator him/her but that another mod/admin should do it instead.
• Create a "Free for all" subforum with no moderation.
• Make an iOS and Android app for sciforums.
• Make Stryder the only admin.
• Unban everybody who has been permanently banned.
• Allow multiple identities.
• Require all theists to identify themselves as theists before being allowed to post.
• Ban people from particular threads/subforums instead of the whole site.
• Improve and expand on the LaTeX features of the forum.
• Abolish permanent bans and have maximum ban of 1 year instead.
• Introduce a rating system for individual posts, and allow members to vote posts up or down.
• Sort the list of moderators by subforum.

Very interesting array of ideas here. I'd like to extend my general commendation to everyone presenting positive ideas in this thread. You are all deserving of an Order of Geoff (Third Class).

Anyway: someone mentioned the idea of demerits for Mods, and I couldn't agree more. Mods do get removed at various other fora in various ways; Enmos mentioned the possibility that a particularly hated Mod could be ganged up on. Possibly; but a very hated Mod has probably dug their own grave. The red/yellow card system should apply to everyone. I've seen some asolutely venemous personal attacks on here by some mods, and it's not the kind of thing that should be tolerated; it is producing some of the most serious fall-out in SF morale. Term limits for mods? Not so sure about that. There are certainly characters whose expertise provides long-term benefit. Perhaps a name or two could be submitted and the Admins evaluate them at that time; the valued mod could thereby be kept.

 

[MacGyver1968]

It's been mentioned before in other threads, but adding the ability to embed YT videos would be nice.

 

[keith1]

• A certain level of moderation is essential for site integrity, function, and draw of higher intellect traffic.
  
• Adding punishment to moderators is no incentive to draw, nor retain, the new and qualified.

 

[GeoffP]

• A certain level of moderation is essential for site integrity, function, and draw of higher intellect traffic.
  
• Adding punishment to moderators is no incentive to draw, nor retain, the new and qualified.

A poor mod should indeed be punished, if they are trolling their own domain. Having separate value systems for mods and posters is no incentive to draw, nor retain, new and qualified posters - who form the vast majority of SF. Mods who obey the rules have nothing to fear. Posters who obey the rules have nothing to fear. Beyond that, I hope decency would play a role in behaviour.

 

[keith1]

A poor mod should indeed be punished, if they are trolling their own domain. Having separate value systems for mods and posters is no incentive to draw, nor retain, new and qualified posters - who form the vast majority of SF. Mods who obey the rules have nothing to fear. Posters who obey the rules have nothing to fear. Beyond that, I hope decency would play a role in behaviour.

Okay, very well then, I thought about it for a few hours (B.S., I went to work).

Perhaps a jury of their peers...

A forum venue, where many Mods (from like forums) can discuss and analyze a particular grievance event, or detail of events (made by a non-Mod poster), which led to the perceived Mod infraction.
For transparency without input, any non-Mod would be allowed to observe the proceeding, but only proven, and verified Mods could participate in posts at that location.

Another solution is already in place. A poor mod runs off the posters, and damages the poster count. The server is diminished by it's lack of intellect in not picking a qualified and self-managed Mod. A competitor server receives the refugee posters.

 

[Tiassa]

Not necessarily

A poor mod runs off the posters, and damages the poster count.

Not necessarily. A poor moderator can increase traffic and member count. We have, over the years, in a mistaken attempt to be kind to bigotry, attracted a tremendous number of bigots.

We can certainly call that a whoops! if we look at it from certain perspectives. To the other, some would say it is a good thing.

 

[Tiassa]

That doesn't sound right

The playing field is not even.
Theists and atheists are not equals.
Theists are the ones directly or indirectly claiming to be better than others.
So let's hold the theists to higher standards then.

I would disagree.

We've long favored atheists at this site, to the point of allowing them to behave in ways that we don't find acceptable of theists.

 

[Gustav]

Summary so far:

• Have a goal for the forum.
• Unban banned members by general vote of the membership.
• Let thread starters moderate their own threads to remove comments they don't like.
• Term limits for moderators.
• Less moderation so that people can speak their mind without fear of moderator retribution. (I'm not sure if this means more freedom to insult other members or not.)
• More subforums, especially in the SubCultures category.
• Moderators should get infraction points in a similar way to other members, and these should be publically viewable (who would issue them?)
• Moderators who are biased, or who seem to be biased, against particular members, ought not to be allowed to moderate them. A member should be allowed to freely accuse a moderator of bias and ask that that moderator not moderator him/her but that another mod/admin should do it instead.
• Create a "Free for all" subforum with no moderation.
• Make an iOS and Android app for sciforums.
• Make Stryder the only admin.
• Unban everybody who has been permanently banned.
• Allow multiple identities.
• Require all theists to identify themselves as theists before being allowed to post.
• Ban people from particular threads/subforums instead of the whole site.
• Improve and expand on the LaTeX features of the forum.
• Abolish permanent bans and have maximum ban of 1 year instead.
• Introduce a rating system for individual posts, and allow members to vote posts up or down.
• Sort the list of moderators by subforum.

Very interesting array of ideas here. I'd like to extend my general commendation to everyone presenting positive ideas in this thread. You are all deserving of an Order of Geoff (Third Class).

/bitchslaps


garbage except for......

• More subforums, especially in the SubCultures category.
• Improve and expand on the LaTeX features of the forum.
• Make an iOS and Android app for sciforums.

 

[Varda]

Doesn"t vBulletin already have a mobile friendly interface?
Anyway, I'll write a sciforums android app in exchange for read/post access to the moderators board.

 

[wynn]

I would disagree.

We've long favored atheists at this site, to the point of allowing them to behave in ways that we don't find acceptable of theists.

To level the playing field (and continuing to allow theists to post anonymously and to ridicule non-theists) would be to say that the theistic doctrines are nothing but theories. Surely the theists would find this gravely offensive, as they are convinced they have more than mere theory to offer.

 

[Varda]

Signal, shut up about this already.
Discrimination based on religious belief is unnaceptable. This isn't Saudi Arabia.

 

[Syzygys]

If I could change one thing here, I would abolish the permanent ban system and make it maximum one year instead,

Some people would just get consequtive 1 year bans, with a few posts in between.

People like Sandy deserve the rope, I mean permanent bans....

 

[GeoffP]

Disjoint

Not necessarily. A poor moderator can increase traffic and member count. We have, over the years, in a mistaken attempt to be kind to bigotry, attracted a tremendous number of bigots.

One thing I don't understand about SF is the need to turn things into something they're not. Member 1 says "A" and Member 2 effortlessly derives "A=B". This is common to several members. Keith's point is kind of obvious; why mutilate it?

/bitchslaps

Tsk tsk. So much hate. What's your issue, tissue?

 

[Anti-Flag]

A poor mod runs off the posters, and damages the poster count.

Nay, a poor mod runs off the intelligent posters and damages the discussion value of the forum. Indirectly this may in turn result in hit and run posters, bigots increasing until being banned from the forum, with little or no long term posters remaining as the integrity decreases.

Perhaps that is why the forum is struggling?