To our Administrator James, and rpenner

[DaveC426913]

If it's not yours, then whose is it? And if it's not yours then it is unsurprising when generally solid members say "screw this for joke" and leave. And that is certainly my business as a member of this forum.

(At the risk of opening a very large - if not THE largest door...**) It's the same issue it's always been.

It is just another symptom of the polarized issue of SciFo's vision/mission/purpose.
Some fraction of Mods and some fraction of members hold opposing views on what the site should be.
And I guess the site owner has the final vote, making it what it is.

(It would be interesting to hold a referendum, just for knowledge's sake, to see how it breaks out. But that will never happen. Not officially.)

** I don't really want this thread to be consumed by that. Although, if Pad became a martyr for the cause of site reform, that would be ... strange.

 

[Ophiolite]

(At the risk of opening a very large - if not THE largest door...**) It's the same issue it's always been.

It is just another symptom of the polarized issue of SciFo's vision/mission/purpose.
Some fraction of Mods and some fraction of members hold opposing views on what the site should be.
And I guess the site owner has the final vote, making it what it is.

(It would be interesting to hold a referendum, just for knowledge's sake, to see how it breaks out. But that will never happen. Not officially.)

** I don't really want this thread to be consumed by that. Although, if Pad became a martyr for the cause of site reform, that would be ... strange.

Although normally an optimist, in this context I see no practical chance for reform. My decision is to move in and out of activity and scream obscenities at anyone mod or member who acts like a prick. It's not pretty, but it is what it is. Paddoboy made a genuine positive contribution to the forum. It's a shame he's gone.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Who decides that it was wholly correct?

The Moderators, of course. That's one of our jobs!

And bigger question, Does the accused/convict have the right to publicly abuse the judges?

This is not a temple, so we don't expect people to treat it like one. Nonetheless, we try to maintain some semblance of civilized discourse. In any community, there's a breaking point beyond which the entire population feels that there's no reason to try to be civilized anymore. We Americans are surely going to reach that point after another month or two of Donald Trump running the country in his own inimitable fashion.

And even if accused feels aggrieved and he attempts to approach the larger audience, should he use the expletives for judges?

SciForums has always attracted a steady stream of young people, some barely adolescents. For this reason, we attempt to squelch topics and language that most parents would not want their kids exposed to.

So since I haven't seen the passages in question, it comes down to what, exactly, are we referring to as expletives? George Carlin's "Seven Dirty Words" have been a good guide for decades. But (at least here in the USA), slang terms for bodily functions, intercourse and sex organs have increased that seven to a much larger number. Add to this the many insulting words for ethnicity, gender and religion, and we've probably got more than 100 "dirty words."

So it doesn't really matter if you're talking about another member or one of us Moderators. It isn't the object of your name-calling that is important. It's the name-calling itself.

If you really want to discuss dirty words, the only place that's allowed is in my Linguistics subforum--and even there I have a few standards that I try to abide by.

 

[Ophiolite]

.SciForums has always attracted a steady stream of young people, some barely adolescents. For this reason, we attempt to squelch topics and language that most parents would not want their kids exposed to.

It strikes me as bizarre that an occasional swear word is seen as more damaging to the young mind than tolerance of tired conspiracy theories, defective logic and professional trolls. Not to mention abusive and biased behaviour on the part of some mods.

 

[DaveC426913]

It strikes me as bizarre that an occasional swear word is seen as more damaging to the young mind than tolerance of tired conspiracy theories, defective logic and professional trolls. Not to mention abusive and biased behaviour on the part of some mods.

You took the words right out of my mouth.

It's like removing swear words from a PG movie but leaving in sexist objectification, casual violence, and sadistic human suffering.

 

[Bells]

Mod Note

It strikes me as bizarre that an occasional swear word is seen as more damaging to the young mind than tolerance of tired conspiracy theories, defective logic and professional trolls. Not to mention abusive and biased behaviour on the part of some mods.

He was not discussing the trolls, but was only addressing one point from The God. So perhaps you should not take his response so far out of context and apply something else to it entirely. If you want to know what Fraggle thinks of the trolls, etc, on this site, ask him directly. His answer might surprise you, because it is the complete opposite to what you accused him (and all staff) of.

You should not take his response to one completely different and unrelated issue and apply it to a completely different subject and then level that kind of accusation. What Fraggle is talking about are issues like child pornography, white supremacism, Nazism, denigrating others because of their ethnic origin, sexuality, sex, etc. The language used around these issues, the language used to groom young people by paedophiles.. Graphic sexual scenes, be it porn or written porn, graphic scenes and images of violence.. That is what Fraggle was addressing in that sentence you quoted and applied a different context to. Not the "occasional swear word".

To answer your question, well, accusation..

No, staff do not see swear words as more damaging than trolls, etc. Staff also see the inherent dangers and issues surrounding trolls, etc on this site. But staff are also mindful that we should not just start going on a purge and banning everyone we think or believe is a troll, for obvious reasons. Staff are also mindful of the appearance of abuse of one's position or bias and so regularly review the actions of fellow moderators, when there is every appearance of a conflict of interest or abuse of one's position here or the appearance of bias, which can give the appearance of unfair moderation.

 

[Tiassa]

Not the "occasional swear word".

I would also note I'm just a bit staggered at this bit about the "occasional swear word". Historically, the first moderator was appointed as a content censor under the pretense of avoiding the various internanny software intended to filter objectionable content, per, say, Fraggle's consideration. Historically, though, raw democracy―sheer volume of insistence―won out.

ROTFLMFAO? How about ROTFLUIAWWIA?

One of them doesn't involve a profane word, but that doesn't mean you actually want to know what it means.

But no, seriously, something about the word "occasional" strikes me amiss.

Or the idea that we regularly and routinely would move against profanity. Quite seriously: Who the fuck am I to tell anyone here they can't fucking cuss? Historically speaking, the pretense is laughable.

To the other, there are of, course, case by case issues, but that's true of a lot of stuff.

I mean, what if, you know, there I was, minding my own business using an occasional cuss word when, bam! apparently it's the biggest deal in the world!

And, you know, I would love to see the case.

 

[James R]

I'm closing paddoboy's "goodbye" thread now. More general discussions regarding moderation can be had in separate threads.