Moderator Rules

Should moderators follow the rules?

  • Yes

    Votes: 19 95.0%

  • No

    Votes: 1 5.0%
  • Total voters
    20
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Arditezza

Banned
Banned
Should moderators be held to the same rules as the posters when posting in forums that are not their own?

For example; If a moderator posts vile insults at another poster in a forum that they do not moderate, should they be treated as a member of that forum and held accountable for the same rules and punished in the same way, regardless?

I'm not asking for specific moderators to be banned, just to have them be responsible for their own actions as a member of these forums regardless of their position.
 
Last edited:
I think moderators should follow their rules even in their own forum, let alone others.
 
I'd like to say that the rules are too much in certain areas. Maybe if this passes, it will make a reconsideration of certain rules possible.
 
It's fairly simple ... no, it's not. But it is. Kind of. See?

For example; If a moderator posts vile insults at another poster in a forum that they do not moderate, should they be treated as a member of that forum and held accountable for the same rules and punished in the same way, regardless?
Click to expand...

Technically, we are. See, the thing is that some moderators, when dealing with specific issues, handle it as quietly as possible. Even I, within the last month, have a message from a fellow moderator telling me to lighten up.

It sometimes seems that people measure superficially; an insult for the appearance of an insult; the appearance of an insult must necessarily be an insult.

And I know at least one of our moderators gets all sorts of messages about various stuff; something's wrong with this post, are you really going to let someone else get away with saying that ....

We can either have a huge "prison culture" (e.g. ban list) with many resources devoted to maintaining that camp, or else leave it to people to escalate and moderate their own arguments. People are perfectly willing to escalate, but self-moderation is more challenging a task.

Additionally, circumstances are diverse. I reposted in another topic a stinger that had already been quashed by a moderator specifically because a poster asked me to--now, as unpleasant a situation as that may have created for my fellow moderator, there is only so much he can be expected to undertake. While I don't know what went on between the mod and the other poster, it's fairly hard to complain when you get exactly, literally, what you ask for.

And yet to some, that bomb might stick out like a sore thumb.

Meanwhile, posters are also allowed to prod one another in ways that seem somehow small or insignificant but have the consistent effect of inflaming passions beyond propriety. Muslims are all violent; Christians all hate; Americans are all greedy; Jews are all racists; liberals and conservatives; cats and dogs; chocolate and vanilla.

There's a note in a topic about the Trinity in which a poster asserts that the topic looks like a Muslim anti-Christian topic. Fair 'nuff, but the topic doesn't look much different from the atheist version of the same, so I'm hard-pressed to measure the significance of a Muslim questioning a specific understanding of Christian doctrine. At the same time there's a flagging topic dedicated to retelling a demeaning joke about Christians that receives no objections. Is this a problem in the moderation? No; it's just the way it goes. The Trinity topic should not be cancelled merely because it is a Muslim version of the question and not an atheistic; the joke topic, partially because of its pointlessness, says more about the people bringing punchlines than it does the Christians it lampoons. People need to be free to put themselves through these motions, but they need to be aware that they're going to piss someone off. Many spectacular tantrums around here have been motivated by seemingly-benign but hateful pabulum that, technically, we ought not waste our time on in the first place. Nonetheless, people insist, so if we're going to do this thing, sometimes things are going to get unpleasant.

And our moderators do try to look at how a situation develops. This is where the superficiality comes in. At a broad political level, it's kind of like listening to white people complain about the "discrimination" and "prejudice" inherent in equalization; in that context people feel slighted by the loss of what they perceive as "rights" but are really unfair privileges and advantages. It's the reason people claim their rights are violated if they can't establish superiority over another.

For instance, there was a banning of two people because of an attack topic in World Events; one person posted the attack topic, and the other simply failed to help the situation after having made the choice to enter the fray. It wasn't unfair; a moderator just put a foot down and stomped that one in the bud. In some cases it even comes down to whether or not the moderators are prepared to endure the ripple effects of what would constitute a fair response. Imagine a war in which one side spends its ammo while the other side simply defends and waits it out. Would it really be helpful to the world, once the ammo is gone and the only fighting can be done with sticks and stones, to nuke that side out of existence and spread pollution around the world? And so it is, microcosmically here.

I mean, we could make a thousand specific rules about what you can or can't say, but what those rules are aimed at is the spirit of discussion. The more rules we make, the more this place will become like a political arena in which every word is combed over by experts in order to find a way to do what you're not supposed to do without actually breaking the rules. At this level, the problem testifies only to the focus of the poster(s) seeking to work around the rules. Take the "527" debate in American politics as an example; the discussion now is on how to shut the groups up altogether, though the reason the loophole existed in the first place is that you cannot legally shut these groups up. Thus, it is incumbent on these interest groups to conduct themselves in a manner fitting the American political discourse. Rather, they continue to help define it as a breeding ground for incivility.

In the end, as an example of an argumentative device, should we ban people for misrepresenting themselves? And how complex would that line be? Frequently, in answering "WYWA" (what you Wish You Were Asked) one introduces straw men and quixotic windmills. I've had a particularly nasty tangles in the past with posters that respond to points unrelated to the text they quote, and openly refuse to make the connections clear; their point is to distract a discussion they are incapable of keeping up with. And they're always so quick to express their hurt feelings when people get irritated with them; frankly I think intentionally-provocative bullsh@t like that has no place here, but the list is long before we can get down to that brass tack.

Looking to the background theme of Sciforums--"Intelligent Community"--we might pause to wonder if there isn't some intangible investment of that notion in the moderation. Vicious but otherwise intelligent stingers tend to get more leeway than, "You're a poopyhead!" Honest frustration gets better play here than disingenuous provocateurism. Sciforums, as an intelligent community, could be a testament to the natures of diverse people; at present, its most apparent testament includes the notion that many, if not most, people are afraid to look at their own reflections honestly, to speak nothing of each other.

Technically, I'm less inclined to moderate rhetorical violence in EM&J if it has a legitimate point; however, I cannot let my politics decide legitimacy directly, so I tend to leave a broader leeway. The stupid but innocuous I don't do much about because people have the right to be stupid and innocuous. But people do not have the right to be outwardly stupid and hurtful, even in those natural momentary flashes. No matter how we explain our various techniques of moderation, it all sounds arbitrary unless we legislate the kind of "intelligent community" that breeds an analogous "lawsuit mentality".

Which would be an interesting experiment in and of itself, I admit.

My own posting philosophy combines two dominant methods in response to people: Their rules and When in Rome. I can insult people just as easily with vulgarity (commonality) as I can with separation. I generally assert the broadcaster of information has a responsibility to put said information into a form that can be received by the intended audience; the problem is aptly described in the idea that the Spaniards at first read the Requerimiento and other similar documents in Latin, and then wondered briefly before shooting the indigenous people, why they did not respond more positively. Of course, that question became moot when the Spaniards employed translators. Then, instead of ignoring the Spaniards, the indigenous reacted poorly to being threatened in any language.

It's all in how you say it--all the difference in the world.

Make rudeness a courtesy; in other words, be patient for a while and then oblige the persistently rude. If enough people do so, there will be fewer rude people demanding such courtesy, and perhaps we can move on to more constructive dialogue to support the notion that Sciforums is, truly, an intelligent community.

Of course, it's also helpful if fewer sympathize with the intentionally and persistently rude, as such sympathies only complicate an otherwise simple housecleaning.

Moderators do try to look at the larger picture. Personally, I don't think it too much to ask that others do so as well.

Almost any appearance of inconsistency will be exactly that: mere appearance.

We're not perfect, but things get easier if the community takes the time to live up to its intelligent banner.

Off-duty cops speed; we don't complain about that very much in the world. It doesn't mean they forfeit the moral authority to write speeding tickets when on duty, and eliminating the "selective enforcement" that empowers that circumstance would dramatically affect everyday life in the United States. (Start with three words--auto insurance companies--and imagine from there.) This circumstance, however, says nothing of cops who steal or falsify evidence. Speeding is not nearly comparable to wrongly interfering in the process of justice. To steal or falsify evidence challenges an officer's ability to perform his duty to society's benefit; speeding does not.

So, comparably, please understand that if the moderators treated everyone here in accord with the evidentiary standard posters hold one another to, well, then you could complain as per the analogy of an officer falsifying evidence and undermining his or her ability to undertake properly the prescribed duties.
 
Last edited:
Here's a slightly edited version of my response to this issue in another thread.

Arditezza wrote:

"But if a moderator is the insulting one, even after repeatedly slinging insults, and having reported them... they get off scott free. In my opinion, if the moderator in question posts insults in a forum that they do not moderate, then they are posting as a member and the same rules are applicable to them as they are for all people. Don't you agree?"
Click to expand...

and

"Apparently, moderators have different rules than we do, and are above the law regardless of how vile, stupid or ignorant the moderator acts. Police who break policy get punished for it regardless of how many times he upheld the law." (my emphasis)
Click to expand...

So, are there different rules for moderators? Answer: In practice, yes, there are.

Moderators are either appointed by Porfiry or elected by the members of sciforums. One would hope that Porfiry has good judgment when he appoints a moderator. And where there is a vote, one would hope that the posters on sciforums will (a) generate a bunch of good candidates for a position, and (b) vote for the candidate who will do the best job. Obviously, in the case of a vote, you get the moderators you deserve. You nominate; you vote.

Now, once a moderator is in place, what standard of behaviour is he or she held to? Answer: he or she is expected to act consistently with the site rules. If he or she does not do so, then he or she is a hypocrite and probably not worthy of the position. After all, how can you simultanously force other posters to abide by a rule while at the same time flouting it yourself?

The other question is: should the moderators police each other? My answer: regarding moderation decisions and actions, no, they should not. If a moderator makes a decision, no other moderator is above him or her, and the decision should be allowed to stand. If there is any exception to this rule at all, it is that Porfiry always has the final say on what goes on his forum. Moreover, an argument can be made for the supermoderators keeping an eye on the overall forum integrity, since their responsibilities range over the entire site, as opposed to single subforums.

What about moderators posting in forums which they do not moderate? In that case, I think they should abide by the rules set by the moderator of the forum they are posting in. Clear breaches of those rules can be policed by that forum's moderator if necessary, though maintaining a good relationship between moderators may mean cutting them some slack or perhaps sending an explanatory PM.

Finally, should moderators ever be banned? Well, maybe for severe breaches of forum rules, or acting hypocritically. But if moderators don't police each other, who makes the decision to ban or remove somebody as moderator?

Answer: It is your decision - you, the posters. That is why the Open Government forum exists. Porfiry specifically says in the thread about Open Government that one of the purposes of that forum is to appoint and remove moderators. So, if you think a moderator has so overstepped his or her authority that he or she should be removed from the position or banned from sciforums, don't whinge about it - do something. Start a poll in the Open Government, setting out your case and asking for the removal or banning of the moderator. Provided you get enough votes, and the vote is in the majority, it will be done.

But be careful! I have seen a lot of threads calling for moderators to be removed from their positions, and most of them have been on shaky grounds, or for frivolous reasons. And most of those votes have failed. And mostly, you'll only get one shot at this, because if you start a frivolous Ban thread and it doesn't go through, then further threads of that kind started by you will probably not be taken seriously.
 
Tiassa:
Even I, within the last month, have a message from a fellow moderator telling me to lighten up.
Click to expand...

This much is true. We, as mods, do delete/edit posts made by other mods. Just today I deleted one of WCF posts because it was out of line. We get on one another as much as we do normal members.
 
Unleash myself in WE&P?
Click to expand...

I don't know why, but something strikes me as funny at this point about the idea of Farscape: The Porno. I mean, muppetronic orgasms?

(A note to fellow posters: This is an example of a wasted and useless post. Sure, it might have a half-second's chuckle, but really, who needs to envision Rigel, or, for that matter, Fozzie Bear, at orgasm? I mean, what's next? Piggystyle: The Honeymoon?)
 
Careful Tiassa, you might offend the furries that come here.

Animal and fur fetishes are bizarre, but when someone wants to dress up as one and it turns them on... it gets a bit into the "too weird" for me.

Go look up Furries on the internet.
 
And if they're wearing mascot outfits, at least they don't have to show their faces at orgasm.

Mind is a disease of semen.
All that a man is or may be is hidden therein.
Bodily functions are parts of the machine; silent, unless in dis-ease.
This I persisteth not, posteth not through generations, changeth momently, finally is dead.
Therefore is man only himself when lost to himself in The Charioting.

(Perdurabo, "Psalm 8 - Steeped Horsehair")
​
Click to expand...
 
Alright. I have to say it now. I let it pass earlier. But, now things have gone totally off-topic and seemingly no one else has faced the judgement levied upon me. Why was my earlier post deleted? It was only in regards to the post by Tiassa. Or more properly the formatting of said post, but I don't see why it was deleted.

Which moderators have the power to delete posts in this forum? What powers do moderators have outside their particular subforum?
 
invert_nexus,

the supermods and the administrator have that power, to my knowledge Porfiry, goofyfish and James R.

Moderators have no power outside of their subforums: we can't see deleted post or can't edit threads or posts outside of our subforum. Moderators can’t bannish nor edit polls even in their subforum. We can how ever post in the cesspool and we have a moderator secret government where we plan all of are evil plans!
FIREdevil.gif
 
Last edited:
Tiassa, his name is Rygel the Sixteenth, and you should bow down. He's dominar to over 600 billion people, after all. Oh. And thank you for the notes on Nine Stories. (This is also an example of a useless post.
 
Continuing with the useless posts, although I'm loath to actually start a topic in either Free Thoughts or Sci-Fi--

He's dominar to over 600 billion people, after all.
Click to expand...

--one of the reasons Bill Clinton can do no wrong in so many people's minds is that sexuality is very, very intimate. Millions of Americans--more than one for every dollar spent on the blowjob--have paused to consider Bill Clinton in the same notion as orgasms. And we still respected him in the morning. But such imaginings did seriously challenge his ability to effectively govern.

Which is why none of Rygel's billions of subjects should never have any reason whatsoever to consider the myriad possible expressions on his face when he climaxes. Many people actually resent Bill Clinton because the thought of that man having sex just ... well, when it occurred to them, small parts of them did, in fact, die inside.

Consider: Rygel XVI, arched and stiff, eyes popping out of his head, tongue lolling to the side, an infantile squeal coming from his lips as the muscular contractions of laying his seed incite that rancid, infamous flatulence.

Squealing and quivering and farting, squealing and quivering and farting, squealing and quivering and farting: Rygel XVI, Dominar to over six hundred billions of intelligent lifeforms, truly expressed, lost in The Charioting.

If you thought Crichton had difficulty taking Rygel seriously more days than not, wait 'til the six hundred billion have cause to consider what he looks like at the point of orgasm.

I mean, right now I'm trying to block out of my mind this quivering, sweaty Bill Clinton yelling, "Yeehaw!" while sniffing a fine cigar and appreciating the whitest teeth he ever came across. What a smile, baby. See, it's all in the wrist. Just take the cigar and twirl it around and then throw the thong at the lamp.

Thank God there wasn't a Crisco endorsement in there somewhere.

As to Nine Stories: I hope to not have built a false expectation; after all, even if thousands of people try it that way, there's no guarantee any of them will see the same things I do. Enjoy, though. Well, inasmuch as that's possible with Salinger. I might do RHTRBC/Seymour in the near future because, strangely, I need something to clear my head. (As to that? Even more strangely, I need this damn election over in order to test an idea: To what degree is my perpetual bad mood connected to the Bush administration, 9/11, or their timing in relation to the ongoing blah-blah-blah of the psychobabble-blah-blah of life, the Universe, and everything? I'll be pissed if that's actually what's bugging me, but then again, it's been a shockingly perverse three and half years in the Bush League.)
 
Tiassa, Rygel has no sex parts. He clearly states in one episode that he's "not a breeder". Although, you can get him off by rubbing his eyebrows.

I mean, right now I'm trying to block out of my mind this quivering, sweaty Bill Clinton yelling, "Yeehaw!" while sniffing a fine cigar and appreciating the whitest teeth he ever came across. What a smile, baby. See, it's all in the wrist. Just take the cigar and twirl it around and then throw the thong at the lamp.
Click to expand...

You left out the mints.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top