What is the level of discontent about the way the site is run?
Last edited:
Are you content with the way this site is run?
- Thread starter Captain Kremmen
- Start date
- Status
Moderators are many, they are different. Anyway, I voted very well (this is for Enmos, Dywyddyr, BenTheMan, Hypewaders, etc. long list)
The poll is not about the members SAM, other than members who are also moderators.
I'm surprised at such a facile interpretation.
Anyways, to answer: not exclusively, no.
Getting back to the point though, "without bias" is a recognized practical impossibility.
Do try and read up on it.
Excluding oneself from bias is no easy task.
But even if it's technically impossible, a person in position of Authority can still fall within Reasonable effort.
Being a moderator is a very difficult task. No matter what you do, someone will think you're doing a bad job of it.
It's often a thankless task.
That aside, a big part of what makes it difficult is the necessity for one to remove himself from his own emotions, beliefs, opinions or personal judgments.
Although one can claim it to be impossible, it's perfectly possible to do so within reasonable human limits.
This is the same thing required of a boss or supervisor or military officer or police officer...
Some folks fail at it on occasion. That's why other officers or supervisors help keep them in check.
To balance eachother out.
I agree with everything you say here.
Thus, my pointing out that what SAM calls for is not only impossible, but also wishful thinking, if not just stupid.
Instead of unbiased behaviour, what is ideal [and what is practiced as best as possible] is simply consistency in application of the Rules and Regulations.
And as you mentioned, there is peer review amongst the Moderators.
As for the poll, I elected not to cast a vote. I wouldn't want to unduly bias the results, given how assuredly unbiased all non-moderator votes will no doubt be.... :bugeye:
How so?
SAM did not say, "I want the impossible, with Ice Cream and cake and some lego's to play with."
She said, "I want unbiased Moderatorship.
Well... I WANT Unbiased Moderatorship, too.
So even if you can say that SAM asked for something impossible, you cannot say she asked for something Unreasonable, much less wishful thinking or especially Stupid.
If people want the impossible- I suggest you do Everything In Your Power to achieve the impossible and hope others are forgiving if you don't technically make it. Mods are held to A Very High Standard.
If paying for a service from a company means you recieve Customer Service from an employee- You expect Customer Service.
You would not take kindly to an employee suggesting that you want the impossible. Clearly, you do not want something impossible- You have expectations of standards that they are expected to meet for the job they accepted to do.
Consistency is harder to maintain than a lack of bias is!
Unless all mods can see everything across the board and interpret everything everyone says to perfection...
The Best course is to refrain from emotions, be as unbiased as you can be and try to keep eachother on track.
Apparently- publicly on the forum, as well.
Not such a bad thing from what I can see.
Reasonable means [in this context] fair and equal treatment. As I've explained, the practice of this would be consistency.
As you've noted, unbiased is impossible. Given that impossibility, it is anything but reasonable to desire it.
There is a difference between unbiased behaviour and impartial behaviour.
Incorrect. All that is required is that there are Rules [which there are] and that they are applicable to all members in the same way.
We may be disagreeing on definitions here.
By Unbiased, I would think a Mod must not weigh the value of a member on differences of opinion, belief, race, gender or expressive style when deciding if Restrictive Action (Suspension, warning, ban) is being considered.
It may be technically "Impossible" but it's more than reasonably possible.
It can be difficult for some people to do...
ETA: To expand on my point:
Complaining that "so and so" got away with "such and such" is a futile effort. The mods cannot be everywhere all the time. This is a given... If someone got away with breaking a rule, they got lucky.
However, complaining that a Moderator is partial, picking on people he dislikes while favoring ones he likes can be a valid complaint if if someone points out how "So and So" is being Moderated with an Iron Fist. That shows a Bias on a mods part much more compellingly than does complaining about a guy that got lucky.
Example: "It's not fair! Joe Schmoe ran a red light and he didn't get ticketed! Why am I getting a ticket?" << Futile
"Officer Jones apparently gives twice as many tickets to black people as he does to white people."
This does not mean Jones IS Racist. perhaps circumstances conspired against him. But the charge carries much more weight and suggests that Jones should be investigated for a Bias.
Last edited:
no thanks, mr condescension
i rather you elucidate on a few situations where you are simply unable to put aside your prejudices.
ja
tell me where necessity demands you shit on reason and logic
oh
your answer..
do robots emote?
/snicker
ja very
robots are code written by these allegedly biased humans unable to transcend their miserable fate. i wonder at what point these robots undergo the miraculous transformation to overcome their condition
/snicker
I agree on all points.
I just think the term "bias" was a poor one to use.
I agree completely.
No thanks; given that it's impossible for anyone to 'put aside' all prejudices.
I see your grasp of reason and logic is as tenuous as your ability to communicate.
It all makes sense now...
When they're programmed to do so.
Objectively define *better*.
Your desire is incompatible with reality. As long as moderators are human, bias will always exist.
- Status