thread closures

In future, to make things easier, mods need only post this list and tick one of them.

I have closed this thread because:
a) I can, and I will.
c) Same as reason b.
d) I was being beaten in an argument.
e) Explanations will be given as a courtesy, and if that provokes more complaints there will be little reason to make the effort to extend that courtesy in the future. (classic)
f) The thread criticised a moderator/moderators, and "all has been said". Example. This thread.
you forgot a few:
g) it was a roll of the die, 1, 2, 3 the thread stays open, 4, 5, 6, the thread gets closed.
h) i wanted to make sure my "close thread" button still worked.
i) my wife made me sleep on the couch last night.
 
Sorcerer, you have my solemn promise that anything you report to me, I shall examine without bias - I don't know you, or your history, so you can take that statement to the bank.

However, this DOES mean that if you are being a tool, and I tell you to stop being a tool, that you should stop being a tool :p

That's fair. I shall stop being a tool if you say so.
 
e) Explanations will be given as a courtesy, and if that provokes more complaints there will be little reason to make the effort to extend that courtesy in the future. (classic)

Reminds me of the sign I had on the wall at work: "Attention all employees, the beatings will continue until moral improves!" :)
 
Like I said previously though, it's something that requires far more than a "band-aid" to make any significant changes.

There are plenty of small changes that could be made with no difficulty at all. (They are things that all of the moderators should already be doing now, but in a handful of instances aren't.)

Most important, is that whatever standards of behavior the moderators want to enforce on the board's participants must apply to moderators' own behavior as well.

In other words, if insults, bullying and abuse are out of line for rank-and-file participants, then moderators musn't insult, bully or abuse people. If regular posters can be sanctioned for not being sufficiently attentive to other people's feelings, then moderators must be solicitious of other people's feelings. If emotional provocations are out of line, then they need to be out of line for moderators too.

That's not likely to happen if there's no effective authority above individual moderators, benevolently advising them, but with the power to sanction them (by removing their moderator privileges) if problems persist for too long. There needs to be a reasonable and competent person overseeing things. (JamesR seems reasonable and competent to me, he just needs to find the will to do it.)

Regarding arbitrary thread closures, the deciding variable shouldn't be whether or not a particular moderator is tired of a subject. If the board's participants show any continuing interest in discussing something, then they should have the opportunity to do so.

It seems to me that Sciforums' bottom-line reason-for-being is to attract as many happy participants as possible, so that advertising can be displayed to them, providing the board's owner with some modest income. That suggests that the people that the moderators need to be pleasing are the board's participants, not just themselves.
 
From Kittaramu on 25/1

"I can already tell that myself and many of the other moderation staff are not likely to take your "reports" seriously... especially with an attitude like that."

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?140349-The-Religion-forum/page7
you don't know the first thing about religion and philosophy and how that ties into science and society.
tell you what, zap off a PM to james.
tell him you want to mod the religion forum.
give it your best shot . . . or shut up about abolishing it.
 
you don't know the first thing about religion and philosophy and how that ties into science and society.
tell you what, zap off a PM to james.
tell him you want to mod the religion forum.
give it your best shot . . . or shut up about abolishing it.

I know a great deal about religion and the damage it does, which is why I would like to see it abolished, not just on this board, but in the world. It's people like you who resort to abuse who help to give it a bad name.

I would be happy to to moderate the religion forum, and anyone who was abusive as you would be long gone. One thing you can be sure about is that I would at least be rational and fair about it.
 
It's people like you who resort to abuse who help to give it a bad name.
need a violin?
tell me, what do you know of lifes origins?
be honest with yourself.
what has science demonstrated to you that inanimate matter becomes alive?
the concept, in my opinion, is as ridiculous as some kind of god.
as much as you would like to believe otherwise, the question is far from settled.
 
From Kittaramu on 25/1

"I can already tell that myself and many of the other moderation staff are not likely to take your "reports" seriously... especially with an attitude like that."

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?140349-The-Religion-forum/page7

*nods* I said it, eeyup. And like I said, I'll give any report due shake, but if someone is being a tool I'll call em a tool :) Your attitude in that thread was pretty abrasive and confrontational, hence why I said nobody would take a report made therein seriously; it gives the appearance of simply trying to get someone in trouble for the sake of stirring the pot.

I apologize for being equally abrasive with that comment though; I fear my temper has been a bit short as of late due to several things going on at work that have left me a bit stressed (not the least of which includes watching over a million dollars in server rack equipment get installed in a room with absolutely zero environmental control... I know that stuff is going to overheat like crazy UGH!) but that is NO EXCUSE for my behavior here, and for that I do apologize.
 
*nods* I said it, eeyup. And like I said, I'll give any report due shake, but if someone is being a tool I'll call em a tool :) Your attitude in that thread was pretty abrasive and confrontational, hence why I said nobody would take a report made therein seriously; it gives the appearance of simply trying to get someone in trouble for the sake of stirring the pot.

I apologize for being equally abrasive with that comment though; I fear my temper has been a bit short as of late due to several things going on at work that have left me a bit stressed (not the least of which includes watching over a million dollars in server rack equipment get installed in a room with absolutely zero environmental control... I know that stuff is going to overheat like crazy UGH!) but that is NO EXCUSE for my behavior here, and for that I do apologize.

OK, that's cool (unlike your servers!) and no problem. I may have been abrasive but I wasn't abusive, unlike the person I complained about. I don't object to a robust discussion but calling people names is just schoolboy stuff.
 
What is the essential nature of this forum? Are we dealing with multicultural members? Does subjective hypersensitive viewpoints limit our ability to discuss and debate controversial topics, or even topics that are sexual in nature? Is this conducive to a science forum?

“A better way to mutual respect is to engage directly with the moral and religious convictions that people bring to public life, rather than to require that people leave their deepest moral and religious convictions outside politics before they enter.” –Michael Sandel
 
What is the essential nature of this forum? Are we dealing with multicultural members? Does subjective hypersensitive viewpoints limit our ability to discuss and debate controversial topics, or even topics that are sexual in nature? Is this conducive to a science forum?

“A better way to mutual respect is to engage directly with the moral and religious convictions that people bring to public life, rather than to require that people leave their deepest moral and religious convictions outside politics before they enter.” –Michael Sandel
Does that quote imply that you are a religionist? And are you conflating the moral and religious issues?
 
I fail to see why people tie Religion and Morality together so much... having morals and a sense of "right and wrong" is not something that stems from religion - rather, it is something that stems from... well, being a sentient, sapient living thing. Oragnized Religion simply looks to modify those morals in their favor.
 
OK, that's cool (unlike your servers!) and no problem. I may have been abrasive but I wasn't abusive, unlike the person I complained about. I don't object to a robust discussion but calling people names is just schoolboy stuff.
oh get off your "holier than thou" horseshit.
abrasive and confrontational is all you ever are in regards to religion.
 
I fail to see why people tie Religion and Morality together so much... having morals and a sense of "right and wrong" is not something that stems from religion - rather, it is something that stems from... well, being a sentient, sapient living thing. Oragnized Religion simply looks to modify those morals in their favor.

That doesn't matter.

“There can be no morality or immorality absent relationships between sentient beings.”-Cline

The world is full of horrible things, the world, not just your country. People come here with their convictions. Do you want to put them on the defensive, pretend they don’t exist, or use your power of persuasion?
 
I don't see why any of that needs to be done - different convictions are fine. Now, yes, if someone came here with the idea that it was "perfectly fine to strap high explosives to a six year old and send them into a group of unwary civilians" I'd probably have a pretty strong desire to reach through the internet and stab them in the face with whatever implement happens to be closest... in this case, it would be a small glass cup and a thin flathead screwdriver...

But that's because there comes a point where "belief" needs to be weighed against "basic human dignity/right"
 
I don't see why any of that needs to be done - different convictions are fine. Now, yes, if someone came here with the idea that it was "perfectly fine to strap high explosives to a six year old and send them into a group of unwary civilians" I'd probably have a pretty strong desire to reach through the internet and stab them in the face with whatever implement happens to be closest... in this case, it would be a small glass cup and a thin flathead screwdriver...

But that's because there comes a point where "belief" needs to be weighed against "basic human dignity/right"

But guess what? You can’t reach through the internet and neither can they. This gives you the opportunity to make a difference without the risk of injury or death.

Is this the nature of this forum, vengeance?
 
No, I just take personal issue with people that have the idea that "life is cheap/expendable", especially when they have this viewpoint towards others who cannot make a decision for themselves. I look at it much the same as the kind of cowardice that prompts a person to take a young woman or child as a human shield during a shootout.

soldiers-war-human-shields.jpg


That picture pretty much sums it up
 
Back
Top