SAM as Moderator and Representative

What do you think of SAMS ability to moderate and represent Sciforums?

  • I think SAM moderates fairly and is intellectually honest.

    Votes: 1 5.3%

  • I think SAM moderates fairly but is intellectually dishonest.

    Votes: 7 36.8%

  • I think SAM does not moderate fairly but is intellectually honest.

    Votes: 2 10.5%

  • I think SAM does not moderate fairly and is intellectually dishonest.

    Votes: 9 47.4%
  • Total voters
    19
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Q

(Q)

Encephaloid Martini
Valued Senior Member
Since there have been in the past elections to Moderator positions, perhaps impeachment should also be an option.
 
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.
 
1. I think SAM moderates fairly and is intellectually honest.
2. I think SAM moderates fairly but is intellectually dishonest.
3. I think SAM does not moderate fairly but is intellectually honest.
4. I think SAM does not moderate fairly and is intellectually dishonest.
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
Avatar said:
What I know that there has been a great decline in bullshit nonscience threads in Biology since SAM was appointed as mod.
Click to expand...

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.
 
John99 said:
well dont you think these guys are a little gullible.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top