Are you content with the way this site is run?

[Gustav]

When they're programmed to do so.

an admittedly impossible state of affairs due to this purportedly axiomatic offering....

...."without bias" is a recognized practical impossibility.

...from you

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...

i'll try again
reasoned judgments are bias and prejudice's bitches
according you that is

so do try
how have you been compromised?
the community demands an explanation from you

 

[Gustav]

As long as moderators are human, bias will always exist.

the time honored escape clause that enables a plaintive wail that excuses all manner of misconduct....we are only human!

i wonder if sparky here pisses to mark his territory

/wonders

 

[Gustav]

There is a difference between unbiased behaviour and impartial behaviour.

well?

the latter carries a presumption of the former
it is a consequence

 

[Crunchy Cat]

the time honored escape clause that enables a plaintive wail that excuses all manner of misconduct....we are only human!

i wonder if sparky here pisses to mark his territory

/wonders

Reality isn't an excuse. Reality is. Specifically this is a good old fashioned rule of QM, what isn't forbidden (by reality) is obligatory. Human bias isn't forbidden by reality; therefore, it's obligatory.

You can understand it, you can manipulate it, but you cannot change it.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

I would respond but I think its dishonorable to fight a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent

It's amazing how many times the phrase "I think" used, only to be demonstrated false in the same sentence.

 

[Doreen]

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.

But this is just shifting over to a new ideal that cannot be achieved since biases will skew consistency in application of rules and regulations. You did qualify the ideal in brackets, but then I suppose one could have agreed with SAM, but added that you felt some sort of qualification was needed since it is an ideal.

I could see your pretty much full rejection of SAM's wish in a concrete, how do we improve the functioning of the forum sort of discussion, but here where the request is for people's very subjective estimation - see the Poll - of moderation here, SAM's criticism seems OK to me.

While there will always be biases, we need not interpret SAM's evaluation/request as a mathematical one - iow a demand for perfection and complete objectivity.

You mentioned robots in your first post.

Robots would be very biased. They would have the biases of their makers plus whatever errors there were in their programming. Just think about programming something to determine what counts as violating the rules and to somenow come at this objectively in relation to the various cultures we have here.

 

[Doreen]

Reality isn't an excuse. Reality is. Specifically this is a good old fashioned rule of QM, what isn't forbidden (by reality) is obligatory. Human bias isn't forbidden by reality; therefore, it's obligatory.

You can understand it, you can manipulate it, but you cannot change it.

You can strive to minimize it. Or should no official/person in any context be criticized for bias? IOW can 'bias' ever be used as part of a rational and potentially effective critique of how some individual, group or organization dealt with an issue.

This is all sounding rather digital to me.

I mean look at that poll. We can choose, if memory serves me, to say the moderation is ''ok' or terrible' etc..

But suddenly SAM when makes an unqualified use of the term bias and she must mean this as a perfect, mathematically razor clean 100% objectivity?

Is this thread really that kind of context?

 

[Doreen]

There is a difference between unbiased behaviour and impartial behaviour.

So if SAM had said impartial it would have been OK?

But this seems odd to me. Impartial is just as ideal and absolute and by the way is generally defined in terms of bias....

im·par·tial
   /ɪmˈpɑrʃəl/ Show Spelled[im-pahr-shuhl] Show IPA
–adjective
not partial or biased; fair; just: an impartial judge.

And if you think that definition is wrong, let's look at the level of splitting hairs we've reached and then look at the poll and the Title of the thread and ask ourselves if perhaps a bias och lack of impartiality was involved in how a post in this thread was reacted to. Now of course everyone was participating as just a guy or gal on the street, but still.

 

[Neverfly]

I agree on all points.
I just think the term "bias" was a poor one to use.

Then you could have said that the first time instead of calling the point stupid.

Reality isn't an excuse. Reality is. Specifically this is a good old fashioned rule of QM, what isn't forbidden (by reality) is obligatory. Human bias isn't forbidden by reality; therefore, it's obligatory.

You can understand it, you can manipulate it, but you cannot change it.

Although we are human, we have the ability to check ourselves. Sure anyone can make a mistake.

Modertating is MUCH more demanding and draining than membership. If a person thinks being a member is rough, try being a Mod. You must watch yourself like a hawk, get questioned often and have your judgment examined frequently.

However, it is a necessity to counteract that "Human nature."

A mod who is racially or religiously biased is not qualified to be a Mod. Unless that person can reasonably and effectively lay such differences aside for the sake of fair judgment. It IS hard, but not impossible and for many people, it comes pretty easily, somehow. I'm not one of those people, obviously...

 

[glaucon]

So if SAM had said impartial it would have been OK?

But this seems odd to me. Impartial is just as ideal and absolute and by the way is generally defined in terms of bias....

Nope.
The two terms are very different.

 

[glaucon]

Then you could have said that the first time instead of calling the point stupid.

I did.

 

[glaucon]

an admittedly impossible state of affairs due to this purportedly axiomatic offering....

Incorrect.
What you've identified as being axiomatic only, and specifically applies to us humans.

reasoned judgments are bias and prejudice's bitches
according you that is

I have no idea what this means.

how have you been compromised?
the community demands an explanation from you

No, it is you who are demanding.
Regardless, if I am 'compromised', it is in the same way in which we all are: as products of our particular social context, we are invariably biased. How well, or even if, one chooses to be aware of such biases, is entirely contingent upon the individual in question. For myself, I'm aware of a few biases, and do take them into consideration. This is the best any human can do.

So, to be clear: Can we eliminate our biases? Undeniably no. However, we can mitigate our biases, contingent upon the degree to which we are, or are made aware of them.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

You can strive to minimize it.

Bias isn't always a bad thing. It depends on what and how its applied (as well as why in some cases). I do agree that deconstructive bias can be minimized.

Or should no official/person in any context be criticized for bias?

A valid criticism of the use of bias would be when facts show something different.

IOW can 'bias' ever be used as part of a rational and potentially effective critique of how some individual, group or organization dealt with an issue.

Probably.

This is all sounding rather digital to me.

0111011100 .

I mean look at that poll. We can choose, if memory serves me, to say the moderation is ''ok' or terrible' etc..

That's true.

But suddenly SAM when makes an unqualified use of the term bias and she must mean this as a perfect, mathematically razor clean 100% objectivity?

Science deals with the objective, so why not make an attempt to keep things as objective as possible?

Is this thread really that kind of context?

Its any context we choose at this point.

 

[Neverfly]

I did.

Yeah, at the same time you called it stupidity. That doesn't validate it. Are you incapable of admitting to error on your part and taking action to correct it?

Regardless, if I am 'compromised', it is in the same way in which we all are: as products of our particular social context, we are invariably biased.

Assuming this statement as true, these bias' are still within control, from not only the individual but also his fellow Mods checking eachother and balancing eachother.

How well, or even if, one chooses to be aware of such biases, is entirely contingent upon the individual in question.

Such as court room judges?
As I had pointed out, some are better qualified for the task than others. That is WHY there are selected moderators. Otherwise, there would not be judges or moderators.

For myself, I'm aware of a few biases, and do take them into consideration. This is the best any human can do.

Agreed. Along with using fellow peers to help you stay balanced.

So, to be clear: Can we eliminate our biases? Undeniably no. However, we can mitigate our biases, contingent upon the degree to which we are, or are made aware of them.

True as well.
I am attempting to make you aware, above, of the bias at play when you referred to the word usage as in the realm of stupidity as an ad hom attack on that person.

 

[glaucon]

Yeah, at the same time you called it stupidity. That doesn't validate it.

I don't need to.
I've made myself clear.

Are you incapable of admitting to error on your part and taking action to correct it?

I've made no error. The term is well understood. Feel free to take it up with a dictionary.

Assuming this statement as true, these bias' are still within control, from not only the individual but also his fellow Mods checking eachother and balancing eachother.

Of course. As I've noted.

Such as court room judges?
As I had pointed out, some are better qualified for the task than others. That is WHY there are selected moderators. Otherwise, there would not be judges or moderators.

You're not telling me anything I don't know here..

Agreed. Along with using fellow peers to help you stay balanced.

As I've noted.

True as well.
I am attempting to make you aware, above, of the bias at play when you referred to the word usage as in the realm of stupidity as an ad hom attack on that person.

Two points:

First: there is no bias when it comes to definitions of terms. They have a distinct meaning; it is up to the user to understand this.
Second: you need to do more research on what exactly the ad hominem fallacy is; as you obviously don't have a clue at present.

ad hominem

 

[Gustav]

neverfly
meet glaucon
our resident egomaniac

/chuckle

 

[Neverfly]

I don't need to.
I've made myself clear.

Then-- I suppose you have.

I've made no error. The term is well understood. Feel free to take it up with a dictionary.

The error was in claiming you did point out that the word was perhaps not the best choice of words when, in fact, you slung ad hom attacks.

Whether the word applies would be a debate of symantics.
Frankly, I think the word applies (And English is my first language, I know a few things about it...) and that you are making a good demonstration of bias influencing your posts at the moment.

Two points:

First: there is no bias when it comes to definitions of terms. They have a distinct meaning; it is up to the user to understand this.
Second: you need to do more research on what exactly the ad hominem fallacy is; as you obviously don't have a clue at present.

ad hominem

Oh, I have a clue.
Ad Hom is to attack the character or your opponent. Such as proclaiming stupidity as the cause of their remarks. It's quite clear.
If you're unaware of that, it seems you should read up on a few things yourself.

neverfly
meet glaucon
our resident egomaniac

/chuckle

Please tell me that he is not a Mod...

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Although we are human, we have the ability to check ourselves. Sure anyone can make a mistake.

Yep.

Modertating is MUCH more demanding and draining than membership. If a person thinks being a member is rough, try being a Mod. You must watch yourself like a hawk, get questioned often and have your judgment examined frequently.

That is one way to moderate.

However, it is a necessity to counteract that "Human nature."

A mod who is racially or religiously biased is not qualified to be a Mod. Unless that person can reasonably and effectively lay such differences aside for the sake of fair judgment. It IS hard, but not impossible and for many people, it comes pretty easily, somehow. I'm not one of those people, obviously...

There are better ways; however, it requires real cash to make such ways happen. Some of the most successful sites I have seen have community leaders, online psychiatrists/psychologists, and a tiny number of moderators whom are anonymous. Such sites often are a result of hunderes/thousands of dollars per user; however, they do work well.

 

[glaucon]

The error was in claiming you did point out that the word was perhaps not the best choice of words when, in fact, you slung ad hom attacks.

Incorrect.

Whether the word applies would be a debate of symantics.
Frankly, I think the word applies (And English is my first language, I know a few things about it...) and that you are making a good demonstration of bias influencing your posts at the moment.

I'm thinking you meant to say semantics.
Apparently, English is not your first language...

Oh, I have a clue.
Ad Hom is to attack the character or your opponent. Such as proclaiming stupidity as the cause of their remarks. It's quite clear.

Totally incorrect.
I suggest you re-learn how to read.

 

[Gustav]

Please tell me that he is not a Mod...

Dear Gustav,

You have received a warning at SciForums.com.

Reason:
-------
Insulted Other Member(s)


-------

Original Post:
[post]2505063[/post]

neverfly
meet glaucon
our resident egomaniac

/chuckle

Warnings serve as a reminder to you of the forum's rules, which you are expected to understand and follow.

All the best,
SciForums.com

-----------------------------------


umm
about splitting hairs.........one or two is ok but interminably? why that is just downright disingenuous and trollish