lol
'Been here longer than you hun.....
Not that i can recall.
But I am a keen observer.
Split: SAM's intellectual dishonesty and poor moderation
- Thread starter (Q)
- Start date
- Status
lol
'Been here longer than you hun.....
Not that i can recall.
But I am a keen observer.
lol
'Been here longer than you hun.....
Not that i can recall.
But I am a keen observer.
Clearly.
Clearly.
Indeed.
For the record, the Mod I was referring to, clearly, was not you. You're much too intelligent to represent yourself so poorly as to misspell every 3rd word or so.
As to the topic at hand, I'll hold my tongue (sic). All I will say for now is that I have more of a problem with the role of Moderator as defined (????) than as how you might go about fulfilling that role.
So, what exactly are the problems with Sam's moderating again?
She's been deleting too many posts in Free Thoughts again? Is that it?
She's been deleting too many posts in Free Thoughts again? Is that it?
lol
Hey, I've been called much worse.....
I may very well not agree with a number of your positions, and the extent to which your beliefs play a role in your posts, but I could not possibly state that you're an unintelligent and unskilled debater. I say kudos to you for your spirited and knowledgeable defense of your position(s).
As to whether or not those beliefs should play a role in how a Mod is supposed to behave, well, that's another discussion alas.
Are you saying that they do play a role in her moderation?
I've pretty much agreed with every post she's deleted that I've seen. I've not seen them all, true enough, but I've never seen one where she moderated based on her religious beliefs.
Bells
Staff member
Last edited:
No.
What I'm saying is (and this segues off into an entirely different discussion.. one which is needed IMO..) that one could argue that SAM's (for example) bias, regardless of how much she attempts to disregard it, will always modify her behaviour to an extent.
The problem with this line of thinking is that it runs contrary to an imaginary Job Description of a Moderator. Given that we lack such a thing here, it goes without saying that my observation is moot. Nonetheless, it's clear that some (loud) people are having problems.
It's always been my opinion that the 'Rights and Duties' of a Mod here should be clearly and publicly outlined, and part of that Code should be that it is expected that the Mod will always act in such a way as to minimize personal bias to the greatest extent possible.
Bells
Staff member
The deleted posts were not deleted because of bias. They were deleted for being either insulting to another member, off topic and/or would be considered trolling and flaming. There was no personal bias. She was actually a lot more lenient than most would have been.
If someone feels there was bias, the administration have given several recommendations of how to deal with it or other issues a member might have with a moderator. Contact the moderator in question first. If nothing comes of that PM, then PM one or all of the Admin and then take it from there. As far as I can understand, not a single individual screaming "bad moderator" in this instance has done any of that.
What bias? My only bias against shorty is that she ignores the posting rules stickied in Biology and Genetics.
So, she's a bad moderator, not because you've seen instances of bad moderation, but rather because it could be argued that a belief system such as hers is such that one could not hold it and be a good moderator at the same time?
You both misunderstand me. I'm not specifically referring to any particular action(s) taken by SAM.
What I'm referring to is personal bias overall.
On impotence and need
As many as it takes to gratify certain people's needs.
(You know, they need to feel like they're capable of screwing someone.)
On the one hand, that's what some people hope for. To the other, it's not actually that much. It's kind of trendy for cliques to rise up against this or that moderator from time to time. It was my turn, not long ago, while some political conservatives worked off some steam. It was Asguard's turn shortly after that, while anti-authoritarians huffed and puffed. Most days it's James R's turn, with just about anyone willing to complain about the moderators willing to complain about him. This week, it seems, it's S.A.M.'s turn.
Let's see, two by (Q), who has been known to despise S.A.M. because of her religion, one from Phlog that is about religion in general, and one from Draqon, who just wants the attention. There's nothing unusual going on at Sciforums this week, it seems.
USS Exeter said:
As many as it takes to gratify certain people's needs.
(You know, they need to feel like they're capable of screwing someone.)
On the one hand, that's what some people hope for. To the other, it's not actually that much. It's kind of trendy for cliques to rise up against this or that moderator from time to time. It was my turn, not long ago, while some political conservatives worked off some steam. It was Asguard's turn shortly after that, while anti-authoritarians huffed and puffed. Most days it's James R's turn, with just about anyone willing to complain about the moderators willing to complain about him. This week, it seems, it's S.A.M.'s turn.
Let's see, two by (Q), who has been known to despise S.A.M. because of her religion, one from Phlog that is about religion in general, and one from Draqon, who just wants the attention. There's nothing unusual going on at Sciforums this week, it seems.
That's a poor argument.
Especially for sciforums.
Especially for sciforums.
I have to compleatly disagree at this point. I have seen ALOT of instances where things that would have been quite ofensive to her faith have been openly discused with no mention of reigion and no moderation at all. Of course this doesnt sit well with certian members political views that a muslim cant also be a scientist so they have made claims they have been unable to back up. When they have been shown that there is no evidence they fall back on the bush argument, "the fact that the evidence doesnt exist is proof in itself"
Can anyone say WMD?
Can anyone say WMD?
Feel free to explicate.
Regardless, as I've said, all of this is contingent upon a delineation of Moderation that we've yet to see.
What's more, I've never stated I've had any problem with SAM"s moderation.
Nonetheless, a blind person on the far side of the moon couldn't fail to see that SAM has an agenda, one that will inevitably affect everything undertaken by her. And that's fine.
Unless that could play a role in the execution of power.....
- Status