Rate Sciforums Moderation.!!!
- Thread starter cluelusshusbund
- Start date
Bells
Staff member
If I am a tyrant, can you please explain how and why you and certain other individuals are still here and posting? Just out of curiousity?
Because if I was a tyrant, you would not be. At all. None of you would be. If I was a tyrant, I certainly would not be removing myself from moderating certain individuals because of the problem they have with me or I with them, or if there is a history of conflict there. I would certainly never ever request that other impartial and non-biased moderators review certain threads, yes threads, not even posts, but threads.. Instead, I would do what a tyrant does and stomp all over you all whenever it would please me or bring me joy. I would certainly have stomped on you and kicked you out as a tyrant does, for the rape prevention laptop example you tried to pass off.. GeoffP? Well, if I was a tyrant, he'd have been gone years ago and I would certainly have never ever requested that if moderation is required for certain individuals, that everyone reviews it.. Bring issues up for discussions in the back room? Fuck that! A tyrant doesn't do that either, but I always do, so much so that some of my colleagues complain that I want to just talk about everything first instead of just wielding my ban hammer like a true tyrant should.
I'm not tyrant. I'm just a "bitch" and all the other choice names I've been called in this place. Which is why you're all still here.
And yes, LG is still banned. That often happens when a ban is permanent.
Unless of course you are Reiku..
Marking it off with red "X" on a calender? Or scratching it into the wall?
bells, in my opinion, has a great point.
in my irrelevant opinion,
majority of the ridiculous individuals here should receive the full effect of tyrants(an unjust and oppressive exerciser of authority ).
majority,
and i do mean majority, of individuals here deserve it.
in my irrelevant opinion,
majority of the ridiculous individuals here should receive the full effect of tyrants(an unjust and oppressive exerciser of authority ).
majority,
and i do mean majority, of individuals here deserve it.
I originaly rated Sciforums moderation a "8"... but after the past week i can confidently change that to a solid "9".!!!
What i have seen is... the mods have ther heads together---backin each other up like never before an bein more consistent in ther moderation.!!!
What i have seen is... the mods have ther heads together---backin each other up like never before an bein more consistent in ther moderation.!!!
One thing that does confuse me... if we are as "tyrannical" as some wish to claim... then why are we not simply removing those whom we disagree with?
I will offer a confession though ... while it is not against the rules, there have been times where I have been tempted to ban a member for egregious acts of stupidity... especially when said act of stupidity is nothing more than them "playing dumb" to try to avoid answering otherwise direct questions. I am a staunch believer that a site originally about scientific discussion should require members to be capable of having scientific discussion and following a basic sense of the scientific method and logic process...
Unfortunately, I guess, for me anyway, such a decision is not mine to make; granted, bans for intellectual dishonesty can and do happen... though sometimes the onus of having to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" can make that difficult; where in real life you could prove it by the smug smile someone wears as they say something knowingly false/stupid while thinking they are being clever or coy, over the internet, you do not have that body language, vocal measure, or other non-verbal queues to allow making such an assessment. It is also troublesome that people feel the anonymity granted by the internet allows them to act in ways they would NEVER consider and say things they would NEVER say in real life... since they know full well that saying such things would likely get them smacked or worse...
I will offer a confession though ... while it is not against the rules, there have been times where I have been tempted to ban a member for egregious acts of stupidity... especially when said act of stupidity is nothing more than them "playing dumb" to try to avoid answering otherwise direct questions. I am a staunch believer that a site originally about scientific discussion should require members to be capable of having scientific discussion and following a basic sense of the scientific method and logic process...
Unfortunately, I guess, for me anyway, such a decision is not mine to make; granted, bans for intellectual dishonesty can and do happen... though sometimes the onus of having to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" can make that difficult; where in real life you could prove it by the smug smile someone wears as they say something knowingly false/stupid while thinking they are being clever or coy, over the internet, you do not have that body language, vocal measure, or other non-verbal queues to allow making such an assessment. It is also troublesome that people feel the anonymity granted by the internet allows them to act in ways they would NEVER consider and say things they would NEVER say in real life... since they know full well that saying such things would likely get them smacked or worse...
Good pont... otherwize ther woud be about 5 people perma-baned in the last week alone.!!!
I tell you what... if people start gettin baned when they avoid direct questons or abuse the scientific method it woudnt take long for that type of behavior to be grately reduced.!!!
As long as the mods continue to work together any changes in Sciforums moderation can easily be made.!!!
That's the thing - contrary to popular belief, the mods don't "run the show". We act in the interests of the ownership and administration... and right now there is a big push for increased site traffic, even if it means a... relaxation... of the "science" aspect.
Mods stickin toghther have the power to run the show/make this a real science forum which will atract quality posters... an ther ant a dam thang administration or ownership can do about it... accept eat crow about a year from now when site traffic is beter than ever.!!!
Well... technically they can remove the mods... so yeah. mutiny wouldn't work well lol
If 50 % of the mods walked this place woud go to hell an administration knows it.!!!
If only half the mods stuck together they coud run the show.!!!
I mean... whats at risk... losin the headache/responsibility of bein a mod.!?!?!?
Oh No.
It's here! It's here!
It's here! It's here!
For your colleagues.
That speaks volumes.
The other shoe should be along any minute now.
That speaks volumes.
The other shoe should be along any minute now.
Subtle... like a brick to the face.
I didn't mean you.
You are a trainer, not a shoe.
On the other hand, you did have a vote in the LG carve-up.
If I might be so bold.
Which way did you vote?
You are a trainer, not a shoe.
On the other hand, you did have a vote in the LG carve-up.
If I might be so bold.
Which way did you vote?
Dude, the way work and life have been the last few days, I can barely remember what I did last week, much less over four months ago
I'll see if I can dig up the discussion thread after work today
Bells
Staff member
Let's just say it was a joke about 'commin fer ye men folk' agenda accusations with a giant eye of sauron image and its unfortunate case of mistaken identity with chlamydia.
I thought it was a vote, not a discussion.
If it was not a vote, that brings up further problems, but it solves a mystery.
How could a jury of people come up with the unjust decision that was made?
How could a majority of people agree
that someone who only said something in line with other things that were being said
be singled out and banned?
It was grossly unfair,
especially as he was a valued and long serviced member.
Are people like this to be cast aside because some mod decides to be super-sensitive about what they say,
even when they have just used similar language themselves?
If it was not a vote, that brings up further problems, but it solves a mystery.
How could a jury of people come up with the unjust decision that was made?
How could a majority of people agree
that someone who only said something in line with other things that were being said
be singled out and banned?
It was grossly unfair,
especially as he was a valued and long serviced member.
Are people like this to be cast aside because some mod decides to be super-sensitive about what they say,
even when they have just used similar language themselves?
So... you are saying that, even if one does blatantly violate the rules, they shouldn't be punished just because of being a long-serviced and valued member?
Also, if the initial permban was unjust, it should have been contested correctly. Instead, LG made a sockpuppet to evade the ban... so the permaban is pretty much super-permanent now.
Oh, also, lightgigantic had SIX PAGES of infraction, most of which were for harassment/insulting other members.
Whatt?????
The Eye of Sauron is connected with Chlamydia?
I was going to ask you to explain,
but please don't.
Added later.
I've just done a google check, and I can't find any links for these two things.