So while we cannot presume to speak even for ourselves, you presume to speak for all. :roflmao:
Split: SAM's intellectual dishonesty and poor moderation
- Thread starter (Q)
- Start date
- Status
So while we cannot presume to speak even for ourselves, you presume to speak for all. :roflmao:
If, by "we" you mean as Mods, yes.
As to me in particular presuming to speak for anyone, I never made such a claim.
Good luck.. :wave:
Which beliefs should we adapt to?
Of course a public library should adapt to the beliefs of its patrons. This hardly contradicts a belief that it should not do so for the beliefs of the librarians.
After all, librarians fight against censorship.
Look, Sciforums is not a library, nor is its justification on par with a public library. However, if we adapted to the beliefs of its members without any regard for those of the moderators or administration, most of our members would have disappeared to be replaced by people who are much more at home with the juvenile social-network atmosphere that has been attempting to assert itself against, well, the beliefs and intentions of the moderators.
Sorry, we decided this place wasn't going to become a Facebook or Myspace or Twit. I mean, Twitter. Or whatever. And I recognize how insensitive that is to the needs of some of our members, but if you would consider the role some of our moderators have played in discussions over time:
Both our theistic and non-theistic moderators seem to agree on the first. The second is, I believe, uniformly acknowledged regardless of what label divisions we might apply. The third was recently held in place by a liberal moderator who is a harsh critic of his American neighbors.
So let's pick one. How about creationism? Okay, as of tomorrow, the argumentative presumption is that creationism is a science and it's up to atheists to prove that God doesn't exist.
Sound good?
Or would you propose that we should adapt to accommodate only the members who agree with you?
Anyway, let me know. I'll take it up with my colleagues if you want, and see what we can do to enforce insane and insidious argumentative presuppositions.
Glaucon said:
Of course a public library should adapt to the beliefs of its patrons. This hardly contradicts a belief that it should not do so for the beliefs of the librarians.
After all, librarians fight against censorship.
• • •
Look, Sciforums is not a library, nor is its justification on par with a public library. However, if we adapted to the beliefs of its members without any regard for those of the moderators or administration, most of our members would have disappeared to be replaced by people who are much more at home with the juvenile social-network atmosphere that has been attempting to assert itself against, well, the beliefs and intentions of the moderators.
Sorry, we decided this place wasn't going to become a Facebook or Myspace or Twit. I mean, Twitter. Or whatever. And I recognize how insensitive that is to the needs of some of our members, but if you would consider the role some of our moderators have played in discussions over time:
• Creationism is not a valid science.
• Phrenology is not a valid science.
• Mass-murder, despite many valiant efforts, is not an American value.
• Phrenology is not a valid science.
• Mass-murder, despite many valiant efforts, is not an American value.
Both our theistic and non-theistic moderators seem to agree on the first. The second is, I believe, uniformly acknowledged regardless of what label divisions we might apply. The third was recently held in place by a liberal moderator who is a harsh critic of his American neighbors.
So let's pick one. How about creationism? Okay, as of tomorrow, the argumentative presumption is that creationism is a science and it's up to atheists to prove that God doesn't exist.
Sound good?
Or would you propose that we should adapt to accommodate only the members who agree with you?
Anyway, let me know. I'll take it up with my colleagues if you want, and see what we can do to enforce insane and insidious argumentative presuppositions.
And I agree with all of this. It is, to a great extent, the actions of the Moderators who keep this site thriving, and it is an arduous task.
Nonetheless, my point is that:
They key thing you're missing here is that the librarians never write in the books they tend.
Do you write in library books?
Do librarians ever write books that end up in libraries?
Do cooks eat in their own restaurants?
Do bus drivers ever ride the bus?
The idea that a moderator shouldn't be allowed to post is... inane.
and stupid to boot. Why in gods name would a group of VOLENTEERS come here to simply to moderate OTHER people's stupidity if they were getting nothing out of it themselves. We came here first to post (well actually to read but then to post) and then we were asked or put up our hands to be mods. However if it wasnt for our own posts very few (if any) of us would bother comming here. So there for you would HAVE no mods because they would leave as soon as they were forbiden to post
Oh and alot of librarians write books by the way
Oh and alot of librarians write books by the way
Bells
Staff member
No one is allowed to write in library books.
The key thing you have also missed is that librarians also recommend books to people, have top 10 book lists for the month, display some books in more prominence then others. They also discuss books with patrons. But the most important thing you have missed is that librarians also often ask people to be quiet or to leave the premises if they are unable to adhere to the rules of the library itself.
Inane.. from your point of view, limited as it is.
The metaphor was not mine.
Regardless, the idea of 'conflict of interest' should be fairly familiar to most. That is the essence of my position. Obviously, it's difficult; some Mods here cannot even string a coherent sentence together.
In any case, I didn't wade into this argument to stir up some internal conundrum. It's quite obvious that change is slow coming here, which is fine.
After all, it's not like this is a democracy right?
Ahh, but it's you who have missed the key thing: the librarians also have rules by which they must abide when enforcing the rules of the library.
If mods couldn't post, then all you'd have is a bunch of sock puppets modding.
As Asguard said, we mod here because of our interest in the forum. If we couldn't post, we'd lose interest. This is a discussion forum.
You think that modding is better than posting?
And do you think it takes up more time than posting?
You've got the wrong idea about modding, guy. It's just janitorial work, for the most part.
As Asguard said, we mod here because of our interest in the forum. If we couldn't post, we'd lose interest. This is a discussion forum.
You think that modding is better than posting?
And do you think it takes up more time than posting?
You've got the wrong idea about modding, guy. It's just janitorial work, for the most part.
And they are more flexible than those of the patrons, I'm guessing you've never worked in a library.
Besides, they don't volunteer, they get paid for their efforts.
On librarians
Consider two stories, both true.
And besides, librarians used to "write" in and on the library books all the time. Perhaps you're unaware of that. Before a book went on a shelf for public consumption, it was marked on the inside of the front and back covers, along one edge of the book, and on multiple pages throughout the text: "Property of _______ Library". And then a little paper pocket with a printed table was glued into the back of the book, and a card inserted into the pocket. And when the book was checked out of the library, the librarian stamped the expected return date onto both the card, which went into the records, and the table on the pocket.
Having cleared up that misperception, then, I might also point out that the more appropriate comparison is that librarians, like moderators, have the power of content control. And the more people you get whining and complaining and insulting the librarians, the less likely they are to pull any given book. In the long run, what is generally required to move a librarian to censorship is a rational argument supported by real evidence.
In other words, if a publisher's cowardice wasn't enough to censor an author, neither would a petition that says, "Waah! Michael Moore is a liberal! And he's fat, too! And he smells! Waah!"
Doesn't matter how many signatures you got for it.
Glaucon said:
Consider two stories, both true.
• Someone goes into a library. Decides they don't like a book there because their religious views disagree with its contents. The library won't pull the book on that merit, so suddenly it's about every library. The offended parties decide to get together and attempt to pass a law banning that book from all libraries in the state. And, while they're at it, fire teachers, police officers and firefighters, and even the damn state typing pool if those people happen to be contrary to the religious view. Oh, right, and also tell the medical schools to educate doctors according to the religious outlook, and limit the ability of prosecutors to pursue charges if any of the people the religious zealots don't like are, say, murdered. All because of a library book.
• Librarians read in a regular circular from a publisher about an exciting new book. At the last minute, they discover that the book is being pulled by the publisher with every appearance of political censorship. The librarians respond with a coordinated counterproposal: Censor this book, and we'll censor you. Remember that we have the power to keep your entire catalog off our shelves. The book was published, and the author can barely keep from weeping when recalling the noble effort of the librarians in defense of the written word.
• Librarians read in a regular circular from a publisher about an exciting new book. At the last minute, they discover that the book is being pulled by the publisher with every appearance of political censorship. The librarians respond with a coordinated counterproposal: Censor this book, and we'll censor you. Remember that we have the power to keep your entire catalog off our shelves. The book was published, and the author can barely keep from weeping when recalling the noble effort of the librarians in defense of the written word.
And besides, librarians used to "write" in and on the library books all the time. Perhaps you're unaware of that. Before a book went on a shelf for public consumption, it was marked on the inside of the front and back covers, along one edge of the book, and on multiple pages throughout the text: "Property of _______ Library". And then a little paper pocket with a printed table was glued into the back of the book, and a card inserted into the pocket. And when the book was checked out of the library, the librarian stamped the expected return date onto both the card, which went into the records, and the table on the pocket.
Having cleared up that misperception, then, I might also point out that the more appropriate comparison is that librarians, like moderators, have the power of content control. And the more people you get whining and complaining and insulting the librarians, the less likely they are to pull any given book. In the long run, what is generally required to move a librarian to censorship is a rational argument supported by real evidence.
In other words, if a publisher's cowardice wasn't enough to censor an author, neither would a petition that says, "Waah! Michael Moore is a liberal! And he's fat, too! And he smells! Waah!"
Doesn't matter how many signatures you got for it.
Bells
Staff member
As do the moderators on this site.
Again, have you any proof that Sam or any other moderators for that matter, have breached the site rules? Do you have proof that Sam has been religiously biased in how she moderates? No? Ah, but you are arguing a 'just in case' scenario, aren't you? As Invert pointed out, Q is one of our most rabid atheist on this site. But he never once allowed his personal belief, or lack of, interfere with how he moderated his forum. Unless you have proof that Sam is moderating in accordance to the Qu'ran and not this site's rules, this is all really quite pointless.
If you do have proof that she has been religiously moderating, I suggest you send links to the administration immediately. If not, then we are really rehashing over something that has been done to death on this forum.
- Status