Nobody for Intelligence & Machines?
So you think you can moderate
- Thread starter James R
- Start date
- Status
Nobody for Intelligence & Machines?
A new system.
No ban. Paid a fine.
Is divided between other members.
hehe..i thought my comment would be too vague...think leather and handcuffs..
Heh, I mostly hang around in sci-fi and free thoughts - just a guy with a love of pursuits of the mind and body trying to make it through this crazy world
I second those nominations.
I thought it was that I took offense too easily?
I'd ask you to provide some proof of this, but I've been disappointed before. I think you mean anti-Islamist bias. I did mean to ask, though: how did your anti-Catholic bias affect your moderation?
Bells
Staff member
At the time, in that thread, I wondered why you named me specifically. I guess you were waiting for opportunity.
At the time, it was something I had discussed with one administrator and they couldn't put their finger on your reasons why either.
If you had nominated yourself 2 years ago, I would have supported you. At the time I had even brought up your name in the backroom to replace me when I had originally resigned, as a suitable replacement. At the time, you and I were barely speaking.
Since then however, something became blatantly clear. You do offend too easily, at times to the point of irrationality. And your openly anti-Islam bias would make you thoroughly inappropriate. It is something you have even been banned for on this forum.
:bugeye:
You have switched to "human models" from other types of models recently and so you think this now makes you an appropriate moderator?
So you have an understanding about conditions like depression? You know, since you have now switched to "human models"?
You would not allow free discussion because you are conceited enough to believe you have to "run" the forum. Your role would be like the forum janitor. You only step in when it is required and your actions should be minimal. You don't "run" the forum. It is not something you can or should direct. It is not a "model" in a study that you can control or push towards a desired result.
I know it was a photo essay. But what did you wish to discuss about it?
There was no true discussion point.
Geoff, you are anal. You would fall apart if there was a thread that had the word "Jew" in it and if you thought it was remotely anti-semitic. If someone started a thread denying the Holocaust you would shut it down instead of trying to educate and allowing discussion to point the individual onto the right path. You are not rational. You would not distance yourself from such discussions in how you moderate. You would not step back and request a review, for example.
Let me ask you a question. How exactly would you react if a thread was started on the bones found in Israel, that were not human bones, but which was used by the State at the time for political reasons... How would you cope if someone started a discussion on that but from a psychological perspective or an anthropological perspective? How would your recent switch to "human models" allow you to handle such a discussion? Would you "run" it so that it has the result you want it to have?
I think you would.
And that is why you would not make an appropriate moderator.. or any forum. Because you would interfere and stomp in and "run" the thread and the forum too much.
You are conceited and you are up yourself.
:shrug:
I never once, not once, did I moderate you. Nor did I ever respond to you as a moderator. You knew that. The administrators and the moderators can back me up on this.
You could not do the same.
Do I think you did "spy"? I honestly do not know. The thing is that I actually could not put it past you.
The thing is Geoff, it is not that you post there that makes you inappropriate as a moderator. See you can't even get past that point now, can you? It is your attitude and tantrums, your seeing libel in everything if the discussion is not going your way, your openly anti-Islam bias, your over-sensitivity.. that is why you would not be appropriate.
You are not an open minded or fair individual. Far from it.
You see libel even when there is no libel Geoff.
That is the point..
You would over-regulate.
You know you would.
If someone disagreed with you, you'd moderate and scream libel.
The fact that you word it as "run" the forum shows how you would not be fair or even handed.
You would not be able to distance yourself if someone posted something against you or as you put it, posted something you considered to be "libel". You use that term so often in this place.. It is funny really.
Well well.. Now you know how it feels Geoff.
If you become a moderator, expect this to be a common occurence from the members. And if you can't cope now, you will not cope then.
See, you don't get it.
You would make a bad moderator for the same reason that Sam was deemed inappropriate for a moderator by the owners and administrators of this site. You are too anti-Islamic and you would be biased.
That aside, putting you as a moderator would be akin to when we had Fetus as a moderator.. Old timers like Gustav will remember what that was like..
Bells
Staff member
You do.
You take offense too easily. Like you are right now..
I don't have an "anti-Catholic bias".
Do you want me to dredge up the Kaffir episode or your reaction to the "Ground Zero Mosque" as a prime example?
Because I magically knew that James would be looking for new mods. Is this really necessary?
A wrongful ban, as James himself alluded to. What can I say? :shrug:
Er...in that I'm working in human science? Human biology. Well, surely that can be no advantage in a human science subforum. Where in my statement did I diverge from your definition of moderation below?:
And how does my use of human models in disease - in other words, experience in human science - now translate to "running a sub-forum like a model"?? That's sort of a frightening connection. Why are you drawing it up?
*glances behind himself*
How is any of your example after this 'anal'? Sure, I don't tolerate anti-Semitism. There's sort of a bad history behind it. Showing someone the right path is all well and good, although I'd be interested in seeing where almost any Holocaust denier got himself edumacated into becoming a functioning member of a liberal democracy.
And, in point of fact, shutting down such a thread doesn't really diverge from forum rules either. Generally speaking, it would probably end up being a soapbox for more negativity. You might find value in such an experiment, but I think we can predict the outcome. But surely you realize that this is all just supposition, Bells? How can I say what my actions would be when I have no idea what the exact arguments are that this hypothetical person would make?
As for rational distancing, I've an idea: why not give the person supplying their name the chance to do so? Surely a mod can be unmade as easily as made: and, naturally, my irrationality and bias and so forth should shine through, illuminating my unsuitability. What's to fear? My suspicion is that all this comes out of your own personal bias. I mean, you called me a frigging spy for James. Now you seem to think I had a plot to unseat you? ...which doesn't seem to have been a very good plot, since you actually resigned instead. Those things are not rational, Bells. I'm sorry, but they. Are. Not. You are worrying me.
Oh, and BTW: yup, you could say that I have a decent comprehension of human psychological issues.
Bells, you make a theoretical example below, but you argue it a little dishonestly. Let me show you:
??? What's the thread trying to argue? On what evidence is it based? Has any member lodged a complaint?
Again: what arguments are they making? What's their point? Although perhaps it would be good for OP statements in Human Science to include a hypothesis statement: nothing too rigorous, just a statement of the general objective, unless the subject is just a review of a phenomenon or condition. Actually, I think those are really good ideas.
Well, how would your inexperience in all kinds of genetic analysis allow you to 'handle' such a discussion if the OP author started bringing in genetic data? We can run with all kinds of theoretical examples.
I think you're making a little too much out of the word "run".
Well, your opinion is noted.
*looks behind self again*
Actually, you used your mod status like a shield, blasting and libelling those who disagreed with you, sometimes following with a grande mal disconnected bout of paranoid association. I'm sorry, but this is so. You could not be made to follow forum rules, and discussion suffered accordingly. Another mod did have a go at "modding" me in your stead; did you call him off? Come on.
The sad thing in this is that you actually believe that. This is frightening, Bells.
I'm not sure how this connects to the spy thing. It ran with the same paragraph, so I assume there's some kind of linkage. Or no?
Or, more accurately, if someone is libeling the hell out of me. some discussions Shave done wonders for my thick skin on SF.
Regrets, again, but that is preeetty unfounded given our history.
Look, I sort of swept out the rest as it was repeats. You're free to believe what you like, Bells: but as a moderator I'd function much the same as the other successful ones do now, by keeping arguments from becoming massive flame-outs detrimental to the forums, and by handling requests from the members and kicking ideas upstairs with recommendation or censure. That, I think, makes a good mod. I'm sorry if you felt "singled out" by my disagreeing with you and responding to your character assassinations. We will have to agree to disagree.
**********************************************************************************
Regrets, but you are rabid in your hatred of Catholics and Catholicism, Bells. Again: I am sorry to say so, but it's a fact. I've known other people worse or better (my father had little use for Catholics also) but it's pretty clear, Bells. I wish you would look inside and think about it a bit.
Best,
Geoff
Your case of single malt is in the mail..per our agreement.
Oh, now my new spy cover is blown.
Damnit.
Bells
Staff member
I don't trust you.
That's the thing.. I disagree with many people on this forum, but there is usually an element of trust there. How can I put this.. Lets look at Lucysnow as a prime example. She and I have battled it out, sometimes viciously. But I trust her. I don't trust you. If she were to nominate herself for that role, I'd support it. Even though she and I disagree on so many things and we have fought like cat and dog on this forum, I would support her. Why? Because I trust her. I do not trust you.
There is always an ulterior motive with you. I think you are sneaky, sleazy and conniving.
I mean look at our own history Geoff. We don't get along. Everyone knows that. Yet, a few months ago, you and I started to chat via PM. You were friendly and approachable, or at least appeared to be. And then, a few weeks after that, you start that thread and target me specifically. It is things like that that make me not trust you and why I think you are conniving and sleazy.
A wrongful ban for a blatant breach of this sites anti-bigotry rules?
I don't actually care how your background in human biology would benefit Human Science as such. Human Science is not about biology, but we can look past that for the moment. I don't doubt your scientific qualifications or your qualifications as you so openly doubted mine and requested a re-shuffle.
I doubt your integrity and lack there of. I doubt that you could be unbiased and fair in how you moderate. I doubt that you would be able to maintain a distance on many subjects discussed in that forum and I doubt that you would be able to maintain a professional distance in the event you have to moderate anyone, and I also doubt that you would step back if you had to moderate someone you dislike or had issues with. That is why I don't think you should become a moderator of any sub-forum on this site. I think you become offended too easily and are too quick to see libel in anything and everything and as soon as you do, you are unable to control yourself and yes, you would moderate those individuals you charge with libel, when in reality you should never EVER moderate anyone you are actively discussing anything with or disagreeing with. You could not maintain that separation. You can't even do it now.
Do you understand now?
Because that is who you are Geoff. You are a control freak.
You demand politeness and niceness. Remember how you reacted when you thought I was laughing at your 'possible mental illness'. You took an online test to see if you were autistic and you scored high. You then took my chuckle at your reaction to said test to mean that I was laughing at your supposed self diagnosed mental illness.. I have to admit, in the darkest moments when I try and find something to laugh about, that is one of the ones I turn to for a good chuckle.
That aside, you are a control freak. You are also anal and cannot understand that even amongst what you would view as impolite banter is on-topic and interesting facts.. You would not be fair and unbiased in how you moderated.
This is why I think you are sleazy.
You are free to nominate yourself, but in that, there is also freedom for members to say why some people should not be moderators. Or more to the point, would be an inappropriate choice. You are one such individual. You would kill that forum.
Because you cannot understand how that forum works or operates. You are the last person I would recommend to replace me there.. If that makes sense? Not because we don't get along. As I pointed out, there are others here who I vehemently disagree with and I would recommend them in an instant if they would nominate themselves. I cannot say the same for you because your personality would mean that you could not be unbiased or fair and you have control issues.
In short, I do not trust you to do the right thing.
It is that simple.
It is Human Science. You don't think such a thread would apply to anthropology, archaeology and psychology, a national psychology and belief system?
As for complaints.. Heh.. People lodge complaints all the time, you should know this first and foremost..
It should never be the first reason to shut down a thread..
This is what I mean when I say that you could not be without bias in your moderation. You would not be capable of distancing yourself from the subject being discussed.. Ie:
There's sort of a bad history behind it.
That should be irrelevant.
You would not be able to make that distinction.
And you would not step back and have someone review the thread because you lack that distinction.
Most people do that already.
You can't have a set format Geoff.
Again, you would kill that forum if that is what you expect or demand.
I would request help from Hercules and have him double check the analysis. In other words, I would do the research and if I was not satisfied or unsure, I would have someone 'in the know' double check it (eg have them review it).
I think the fact that you used it so liberally in your self nomination post is a concern.
That is your perception.
I never once used my position like a "shield" when I discussed or fought like a feral beast..
Quite the contrary.
I was very very distinct when I posted as a moderator or when I gave an opinion as a moderator. The fact you fail to notice that is a concern also.
Not as frightening as the fact that you could become a moderator of this forum.
No.
The point, Geoff, is that you would not be able to distance yourself from it. You would use your mod status as a "shield".
See, if I thought you could do that, I'd support you.
There is a reason why I do not support your self-nomination.
It is because I do not think you could do that.
I mean you even took a bit of an alluded jibe at me in your self-nominating post.. You view my saying why I think you would be a bad moderator to be a character assassination. You would act on your bias and you would moderate anyone you thought was "libelling" you. When the reality is that you should never do so because it would mean biased moderation.
I have said why I think you should not be a moderator. Our history has nothing to do with it. I have "history" with other members here who I would recommend and beg the admin to take on as moderators, because they would not be baised. I cannot say the same for you.
There is also the simple fact that your beliefs against Islam would make you as inappropriate as the Admin ruled in regards to Sam and her beliefs against Israel.
Now go and find where I moderated based on my supposed bias and hatred and get back to me.
With links..
Last edited:
Bells
Staff member
A moderator pretty much just keeps an eye on things to make sure that things don't get out of hand.
A lot of it is value judgement based in that you would have to decide what breaches the sites rules and what is inappropriate or not. Your role would involve cleaning up spam threads and banning spammers in your sub-forum. Keeping an eye on threads to make sure it's not veering way off topic and to check that it even belongs in the sub-forum you moderate. You would have be unbiased if the need arises where you have to moderate individuals.
When moderating individuals, you need to think outside the box, so to speak. It's not just a matter of zeroing in and focusing one that one individual statement, but you would have to use your judgement to see if that individual was goaded or flamed into responding as they did, as one example.. And you would have to be fair about it. Your personal beliefs or thoughts on the subjects being discussed should never enter the fray when you moderate a thread or member.
In short, a moderator is a glorified janitor. The running joke in the back room for a long while was to request 'clean up in aisle 2' while linking a problem thread, post or member for example.
The most important thing is that you would remain in the background and maintain some distance. That is your role. To maintain distance and remain in the background while identifying and dealing with any issues, that may arise, without bias. You would also have to handle complaints from members and posters and communicate with them directly at times via PM's. There is a reason why mods have way wayyy more PM space than regular members.
In handling complaints, you would have to look at the background at times (very recommended) and keep abreast of any issues that arise. Again.. moderator = janitor is probably the simplest way to describe it.. Invisible but at times necessary to clean up if someone vomits in aisle 2.
alright you two, this isn't the place to hash this out..
you both communicated your sides..if you want to hash out who is right and who is wrong do it in PM..otherwise its time to move on..
you both communicated your sides..if you want to hash out who is right and who is wrong do it in PM..otherwise its time to move on..
Bells
Staff member
Well, if a moderator = janitor... then yeah, I'd not mind cleaning up sci-fi I used to work in damage restoration and remediation... I've cleaned up everything from asbestos and deadly molds to dead bodies and feces... I doubt there's much that could phase me in that respect That patience I would carry over to here
I used to work in damage restoration and remediation... I've cleaned up everything from asbestos and deadly molds to dead bodies and feces... I doubt there's much that could phase me in that respect That patience I would carry over to here
Bells
Staff member
I think you'd be fine..
So dead bodies huh?
Anywho I digress. My morbid desire for details aside.
I think you would make a great moderator and if the powers that be do look to this thread for possible nominations in the back room, I do hope you are short listed (psst.. put your name down for Human Science as well)..
Don't make me beg!:bawl:
True. I'll conclude this way: much of Bells' antagonism appears to be the result of some surreptitious paranoia about my contributions. Can't help that much; but it seems to be also clear that it's based off this comparative standard for Sam - 'some of the admins thought Sam was bad for reason X (not that I agree), so Geoff is bad for the inverse of reason X (with which I heartily agree!)'. You see the double standard.
And this is a bad sign. We have moderators...or ex-mods in this particular case... playing favourites. Every issue must be decided on balance of alliances and enemies. Human personality and language are sufficiently complex so that the facts can be shifted away: I note...well, most of Bells' post in this regard. A lot of it is "word-putting": you say X, and I say you said Y, et cetera. This is exactly the kind of behaviour that SF doesn't need. It's part and parcel of the damage that some mods have done and which I described earlier. Examples out of Bells' post: a person lodges a complaint, that must mean you'll shut down the thread. Got experience in biology? Well, that'll never help you. But if Bells doesn't have the same experience...well, she can just ask Herc. She has no religious prejudices. Then, she does, but they've never affected her moderation. I could go on and on.
And this is (in my humble experience) one of the overriding problems at SF, from all parties: the inability to discuss or discern independently of someone's feelings. Or perhaps it's inevitable: there are certain individuals from whom you don't expect much (and it's obvious, I suppose, who this is for me), and this can colour your judgement. As a moderator, however, is that your call to make? Those are conflicting and powerful positions. This is why I try to take an evidentiary process on this: what is the evidence? What is the point? Why is a dangerous question to ask, regarding motive. I think we at SF have got] to stop putting words in the mouths of others to justify our personal dislikes, among other things; my gut feeling is that this is an emerging trend. (Although at the same time there does seem to be a recent upswing in polite discussion on the forum, which is refreshing.)
Bells is actually right when she describes a moderator's job as essentially janitorial: the objective is sorting out massive flame-outs and keeping things reasonably civil. I can promise one change for certain: I would never use a moderator status to freely libel or insult posters. There has been too, too much of this kind of thing, and the venom is killing both the mood and the readership, IMHO.
Anyway: sorry to, indeed, be hashing it out here a little, but Bells had the first word about me, and it's my right to have the last. So, to re-re-reiterate: no to overmoderation, no to slandering the hell out of people, and yes to encouraging friendly discussion where possible. As to who wants what, that is theirs to decide.
Bells
Staff member
Not at all.
If one cannot be a moderator for bias against a group, then it should follow that others with similar bias should also be restricted.
From the OP:
James said:
Your last contributions and record of posting in Human Science:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.ph...&postcount=143
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.ph...&postcount=145
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.ph...4&postcount=24
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.ph...5&postcount=22
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.ph...0&postcount=14
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread....18#post2743318
It speaks for itself.
If you want to take it seriously, then I would suggest you start posting things of value instead of drivel.
I want you to understand something clearly Geoff. This is not about you, or my disagreements with you. This is about your personality not being suited to that particular role. If Kittamaru had nominated himself for Human Science, I'd be saying 'god yes!'. Simply because he has the personality that won't stifle it. You do not have the ability to step back and be unbiased. You do over react and I know this because you are so overly fond of the report button for any and every little thing that you think is offensive. And to me, I think if you react like that, then what are you going to be like as a moderator?
I'll be honest with you. I did PM James with my concerns about your nomination and why I do not think you and a few others would not be suited to that role. You also have to understand something. Human Science is like my baby. I am very attached to it still. The decision to step down was somewhat heartbreaking to me. I adore that sub-forum because it is a free space and has been my home for a very long time. Discussions flow freely for the most part and it has its own fluidity in how it progresses with minimal interference required. It evolved over the years of discussing the human condition and what drives us as a species, for lack of a better term (*cough* not 'did she do it' questions which would be more at home in EM&J *cough*).
And sometimes it is impolite and it is down right rude sometimes. But the content is 99.99% of the time valid, even though it may be rude or be deemed offensive. It is a way to delve into the psychological drive that would push someone to post some things. There had been a few times where I would seek advice or a review for threads or posts that did push the boundaries, but rarely was the advice of my former colleagues to come down with a heavy iron fist. Because that is not how that forum operates. In other words Geoff, one does not run that forum. It runs itself.
And I don't think you have the personality to understand that about that sub-forum.
Bells...NM asked for an end to it. You've had your say...although I'm not really sure that was being asked for in the OP anyway.
As to your point: the point is that you feel that Sam, with her religious bias (as you define it, and not I) is unsuitable only on basis of the admin's position on religious apologists, not on your stance on religious apologists, or at least in Sam's case (though I wonder what you'd do if a Catholic priest showed up to take the reins of Human Science). My stance is and has always been that extremist Islam is necessarily a bad thing. I don't back down from this statement, and I am not required to; a Catholicism of the Inquisition would be as bad or worse. This is not the converse of being a religious apologist. Nor exists there a necessary perfect polarity of opinion, consent or fact in conflicting parties: that is, if Hell is hot, it does not mean that Heaven is cold.
Exactly how does humorous chit-chat disquality one from becoming a mod? I was given to understand previously that this was quite acceptable. Anyway, I've already explained my interests in Human Science. Biology and Genetics is neatly sown up by the excellent Herc, and of the positions requested by James, Human Science is the closest to my area of expertise. I wish to contribute in the role of Moderator. I'm sorry if you disagree.
Actually, this is explicitly about your personality conflicts with me. It's supposition that validates your own conclusions. For example:
Well, I'm sorry, but my record here shows otherwise. I can be astoundingly neutral, even frustratingly so. I'm sorry: but what can I tell you?
Also demonstrably untrue. :shrug:
Interesting. You're implying that you think a moderator should behave in a manner not consistent with moral obligation, or that one normally does - as you see it, anyway. I note "react" in most of your statements, which implies provocation on your part. Correct me if I malign you.
That's ok. I've PMed various people at various times about your unsuitability as a moderator. I've never felt you had the ability, reasonability or perspective to be in that group, because every argument with you is like treading through a minefield of your personal grudges and petty dislikes - and the mines are veeery sensitive. Most of your arguments with me inevitably end up about my personality rather than facts or details and go nuclear relatively quickly. Perhaps that's a joint problem, but I see it with other people also. Is it because I'm too persistent? Anyway, that's fine: all people must be free to register their own opinions as they best see fit. (Although maybe not in this thread, per request.)
The other problem you had was, as described, slandering away with argument terminators like there's no tomorrow from behind your Moderator shield. Some people will certainly disagree with my analysis, and I'm sorry for that: naturally different people have different experiences of you. But, yes, I think you were an unsuitable moderator, because of your posting behaviour. This is nothing new in our ongoing discussion, of course.
Then I'm sorry for you that you resigned from it. But frankly, griping about the new possible tenant - and one with whom you have a strong personal conflict - just smells like sour grapes, and I've already deflated this absurd pretention about "iron fists". I mean, really now.
So can we finish now, please? You've had your say, I've responded, and I don't want the thread derailed any further than usual, because it's actually been requested by another poster that this discussion desist. I mean, yes, I understand that your intent is to derail my nomination for personal reasons, but the nomination is already in and will be discussed by our betters. I suppose it's your right to contest it. :shrug: But why not put it on PM or in a different thread?
Thanks,
Geoff
We did that (a long time ago) already. Unfortunately it doesn't always imply the best are chosen by a public showing, just look to politics to see why. (A candidate with a decent spin doctor could easily manipulate people.)
Bells
Staff member
And spin he did. How long did he last? A few weeks wasn't it?
And the damage lasted for quite a while.
From memory he was made a moderator of Politics and World Events as well..
*Shudders at the memory*
- Status