Removal of Tiassa as moderator

Status
Not open for further replies.
DaveC426913 said:
I've encountered this kind of sentiment before.

In an ideal world, a moderator would be dispassionate and remain at arms-length from discussion, yet at the same time, monitoring it for any trouble, ready to moderate. And they would do this for free.

This is not an ideal world. It is practically impossible to get someone to volunteer to monitor a forum of some discipline or field unless they're interested in the subject and therefore are certainly going to have things to say. In short, either they get paid and it's a job, or there has to be some other reward in it for them.

It's hardly fair to criticize a moderator for being human, being interested and opinionated, and putting in a lot of volunteer hours.
Click to expand...

What is the reward that a member doesn't already have if we're just talking about interest in the
subject? We're all human so that's hardly a valid distinction. There's plenty of forums, in all subject matters, where the moderators may or may not offer their perspectives without trying to dominate every thread

That's something that usually wouldn't happen without the "power" of being a moderator. It would get annoying and they would just be put on ignore. Some "socialization" occurs among the members and they tend to get along to one degree or the other. That's rarely the case with James or Tiassa, wouldn't you agree?

If this was a business, you were the owner, how would you grade the moderators of a site that has lost most of its traffic? Most of us get along with each other to one degree or another. Tiassa and James seem to get along with no one. That's not an ideal trait for a moderator is it?
 
DaveC426913 said:
In an ideal world, a moderator would be dispassionate and remain at arms-length from discussion, yet at the same time, monitoring it for any trouble, ready to moderate. And they would do this for free.
Click to expand...
I don't think being dispassionate is all that important. Being fair is.

People being people, if someone is passionate about (for example) Trump, then any anti-Trump person who tells someone else "fuck YOU!" and gets a warning is going to see it as a partisan attack from a biased moderator. But that's their fault, not the moderator's. (Provided the moderator isn't goading them or something.)
 
billvon said:
I don't think being dispassionate is all that important. Being fair is.
Click to expand...
I mean 'dispassionate' in a 'not directly involved' capacity.

It'd be nice if there were more people who had the right balance of wanting to moderate some given subject without also wanting to participate in it.
But it's unrealastic.
 
I think participating is fine, just not dominating it. The Crypto thread is a good example. All the talk about ridiculous standards of revealing vested interests such as "did someone pay you to say this", "how much crypto do you have" "you have a vested interest because comments on this forum may move the price of Bitcoin". All that is just beyond the pale.

No regular member could be that disruptive. That's just not what moderation is normally for. That's having a quirky personality and trying to push that off on the rest of the forum and the subjects discussed and not discussed.

Moderators usually try to encourage discussion on the forums. Not here.
 
Seattle said:
I think participating is fine, just not dominating it. The Crypto thread is a good example. All the talk about ridiculous standards of revealing vested interests such as "did someone pay you to say this", "how much crypto do you have" "you have a vested interest because comments on this forum may move the price of Bitcoin". All that is just beyond the pale.

No regular member could be that disruptive. That's just not what moderation is normally for. That's having a quirky personality and trying to push that off on the rest of the forum and the subjects discussed and not discussed.

Moderators usually try to encourage discussion on the forums. Not here.
Click to expand...

are you not entertained
 
Pinball1970 said:
Ok, well that has not panned out. Not on a science site anyway.
Why go for a science site rather than a politics or philosophy site?
Click to expand...

Like I said, there was an occasion when a moderator responded↗ to a complaining member by asking:

So who do you think undermines this forum more?

Someone who goes at length to research what is being posted, is able to back up any claims with evidence? Or the one flaming with one liners and whining about posts that are just too long?

That's a rhetorical question. The answer should be obvious.​

And, sure, three years later, we see how much people disagree with that. It's not like there's any master list to put your name on, but, yes, people can figure out where you stand on that count.

Also, one of the things about being the new guy is that you might say things like "science site". This place hasn't been a "science site" for years; 2017↗, for instance, when my assessment↗ of the question was that Sciforums hadn't been a "science site" for over a decade. So, sure, you're only off by a bit over fifteen years.

And that's the other thing; there isn't any point in pretending your routine is actually new. It's kind of like, yes, I'm sure you're making a fine argument about whatever fancy your imagination has spun, but its relationship with reality is about on par for its general class of make-believe, and just as useless. And we've seen it before.
 
Tiassa said:
And that's the other thing; there isn't any point in pretending your routine is actually new.
Click to expand...
Yeah Pinball, Tiassa likes to shoot first then ask questions, because 'he' knows everybody here is a Nazi, gay bashing white supremacist.
Tiassa said:
Or the one flaming with one liners
Click to expand...
And there's Tiassa doing the same, but taking 'his' usual 1000 words to do it.
Tiassa said:
I'm sure you're making a fine argument about whatever fancy your imagination has spun, but its relationship with reality is about on par for its general class of make-believe, and just as useless. And we've seen it before.
Click to expand...
So, shoot first because you have seen it all before. Lucky this trigger happy mod is now out to pasture.
 
Last edited:
Pinball1970 said:
So, do you care about science? A science site like this?
Mathematics?
Physics?
Click to expand...

Again, the newbie inquisitor is hardly a new routine, around here.

Remember, part of ... oh, right, you wouldn't remember. Anyway, part of what has these people so upset with me is that I'm the moderator who sought reliability in discussions of science. For instance, if I ask you for a scientific definition of beauty, it's not any standard of mine, but part of the "science" that goes on around here.

Your turn: Do you care about the integrity and reliability of the "science"?

(Again↗, it is long-established that Sciforums is not a "science site". The thing is that if people wanted it to be, it could be, but they don't; that part's a longer story.)
 
Pinball1970 said:
I disagree. There are members who are interested in aspects of science and have posted on it.
Click to expand...
There is a difference, though, between what you observe in this statement and this site being a "science site". I mean, we also have members who are interested in aspects of religion, and/or philosophy, and/or paranormal, and/or other stuff, yet we are not a "religion site" or a "philosophy site" etc. It seems this site is, predominantly, a rather casual "talk about anything in any manner" site, as long as you don't cross whatever boundaries the moderator community have seemingly woken up that day wanting to implement. It panders when it suits to the pretence of serious scientific discourse, but, well, it's a paper-thin veneer at best. Not that the underlying chip-board quality isn't useful to those looking for a cheap fix. Ikea have made a fortune from it, after all. ;)
 
I think it is a general discussion site regardless of the site name. It has sub fora for most general topics and I'm fine with that.
 
Seattle said:
I think it is a general discussion site regardless of the site name. It has sub fora for most general topics and I'm fine with that.
Click to expand...
Yes, I'm fine with that too, I would say most are. It's the style of modding letting the site down.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top