SAM as Moderator and Representative

Since there have been in the past elections to Moderator positions, perhaps impeachment should also be an option.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I agree, but is this forum a democracy?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No... It is more like a gang.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Right on!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

So sam is an okay mod but is dishonest....

 

I haven't seen Sam moderate unfairly.

 

Apparently intellectual dishonesty is using the terms atheist and agnostic as they are defined in most dictionaries, and trying to stay focused on the topic when people argue about semantics?

 

You have to admit that a religious moderator at a science (or at least wannabe science) forum is rather unusual.

It does bring up some delicate issues of how seriously someone's religion is to be taken, how liberal a science community should be to still be called "scientific", and whether a person's function as a moderator can really be strictly separated from other postings of same person (in forums they do not moderate).

 

What I know that there has been a great decline in bullshit nonscience threads in Biology since SAM was appointed as mod.

 

Options 2 and 3 are nonsensical.

A person cannot both moderate fairly and yet be intellectually dishonest - it takes intellectual honesty to moderate fairly.
Someone intellectually honest will not moderate unfairly.

 

S.A.M. is one of the actual scientists that post there. If she can be a religious scientist, she can certainly moderate a scientific forum.

 

Newton was religious too.

 

And how do you know that SAM is a scientist?

 

That's what I'd call someone with a job in biological research.

 

Well how do you know she has a job in biological research?

 

Have some faith, you're named after a saint, act like it.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

As far as her field goes, she appears competent to me.

I have in fact posted a couple of somewhat biology-related threads in Free Thoughts because the B&G forum seemed too serious for them. So this is a good sign.

I do have some trouble with the notion that a moderator should be assessed as a moderator only by the work they do in the forums they moderate, while what they do in other forums should not influence this assessment.
Although the idea is good, I'm afraid it is realistically impossible to act so, especially with moderators who also post a lot in other forums.

A person's reputation within a community is after all built on everything that person does within that community.

 

well dont you think these guys are a little gullible.

 

She must own the company.
:crazy:

 

We're pretty much all in the same boat, as far as relevant credentials go. Unless people give very specific data (but which due to protection of personal data they probably won't) so that their credentials can be independently verified, we're left with taking their credentials on faith and whatever verification we do get.