Only in a universe where the political implication of a spelling is the same as correcting their typos.
Can you point out a single instance when I have banned a member in a thread where I was engaged in a discussion with them?
Baron Max banned again?
- Thread starter mordea
- Start date
Only in a universe where the political implication of a spelling is the same as correcting their typos.
Can you point out a single instance when I have banned a member in a thread where I was engaged in a discussion with them?
James R:
I think it is, given that a number of Baron's posts that you consider to be trolling were in response to you.
But there's nothing to stop you from just not reading his posts, or hell, even laughing them off.
What role is that? To punish those who offend your sensibilities?
He thrives on playing Devil's advocate. Whether he does so to piss people off is a contentious issue. I'd argue that those people *choose* to be pissed off, and that there have been many occasions where people whose arguments Baron has criticised have managed to have an honest and civil discussion with him.
I've also noticed that the people whom Baron pisses off tend to be those who are heavy on rhetoric and posturing. Posters who are willing to discuss the issue without being shitheads usually fare better with him.
Usually...
I think it is, given that a number of Baron's posts that you consider to be trolling were in response to you.
But there's nothing to stop you from just not reading his posts, or hell, even laughing them off.
What role is that? To punish those who offend your sensibilities?
Bells said:
He thrives on playing Devil's advocate. Whether he does so to piss people off is a contentious issue. I'd argue that those people *choose* to be pissed off, and that there have been many occasions where people whose arguments Baron has criticised have managed to have an honest and civil discussion with him.
I've also noticed that the people whom Baron pisses off tend to be those who are heavy on rhetoric and posturing. Posters who are willing to discuss the issue without being shitheads usually fare better with him.
Usually...
This is too ridiculous to even respond to. Did you even see the emoticons?
I've never done it. It would be unethical.
If a moderator has a history with a certain poster, they should refrain from moderating them and let the moderating team as a whole handle it. Ideally there would be some sort of review board of regular members to monitor this process, but now I'm dreaming.
Bells
Staff member
Do you think discussing or debating with another poster amounts to having a "history" with said poster?
Other moderators usually discuss bans like Baron's, prior to it occuring.
And who would decide who gets to be on that board? How would they monitor it? And what would happen if one or two monitors think a ban is worthy and the others disagree? There will always be accusations of bias and cheating, even if there was a public vote to have the members appointed.
In the old days, members used to vote for others to become moderators. It became a nightmare when some members created sock's and had their friends create socks to vote for them. The result was an absolute disaster.
Yes. And if that discussion involved the moderator calling the poster a troll, dishonest, and/or a coward, then that history needs to be reviewed very carefully whenever that moderator disciplines the member.
That's good, although I think the complaining mod may do a lot of 'leading' (ie. only presenting their own interpretation of the issue, which may be distorted). Ideally they would just report the contentious post without any other input and allow the moderation as a whole decide (on a vote) whether it is worthy of disciplinary action. They could also consult the poster for clarification.
Ideally this discussion (and the decision) would be monitored by a review board of members.
The complaining mod should *not* ban the poster themselves, that just lends credibility to the notion that some form of bias is in operation.
I know I'm being anal about all this. But when the administrator can use their administrative privileges to coerce an apology out of an individual over a perceived slight, then I have to conclude that something is a little messed up.
Bells
Staff member
And it usually is.
All valid points. But at the end of the day, whether it is the complaining mod who bans the individual or another mod, the results are still the same.
But again I ask, who would appoint the 'review board of members'? Who would be qualified to serve on the board? Number of posts? Worthless these days when you consider that some can rack up to 40+ posts a day and have only been here for a week. Open vote? Again, easily tainted.
So a couple of smilie faces is meant to make it all okay?
Or are you the only one who can do it?
Oh wait.. I left something out:
""
No it requires having a clue, which seems to be a very difficult proposition these days.
If you're moderating someone you're having a discussion with, that would be correct.
As mordea points out, in such cases, the ethical thing to do is declare conflict of interest and ask someone else to objectively assess the situation.
Do you think James discussed this ban before implementing it as tiassa would have?
Bells
Staff member
But it is alright if you do it?
It is not offensive if you put a "
" at the end?You have moderated threads and posts, ie, other people, in threads you were participating in. We all have.
How would I know?
We both know that with ban's involving long term members there would always be a discussion that was ongoing, and then rehashed if another situation arose. We have both participated in such discussions when we were privy to it.
Bells
Staff member
And if he did?
Others have banned members unilaterally without consultation as well. Are you going to start calling for the heads of the whole moderation team as a result?
I'm sure there are other mods have not allowed conflict of interest to stand in their way [there recently a bizarre 60 or 90 day ban for a similar difference in POV]
tiassa however, would have written at least half a page asking people their opinion.
tiassa however, would have written at least half a page asking people their opinion.
Bells
Staff member
Bells
Staff member
Lets just say that my faith has been tarnished. Quite a bit. Hence why I am no longer privy to that forum.
As for always?.. Again, that is something you will need to speak to Tiassa about.
I was privy to the whole.
Blind faith can be a dangerous thing Sam. It can and will lead to disappointment in the long run.
Indeed, which is why its always essential to check the facts. Which means evidence, not vague handwaving, unsupported assertions and ignoring refutations of arguments. And especially not demonstrations of not reading or comprehending simple and basic sentence construction in your one and only language.
Anyway, this is all pointless. Lets leave it here.
That's a good question, and something which merits further discussion. A review board exists on another forum I post at, and selection is based on days active + % activity within the past 30 days + current reputation (you can't have a negative reputation, which only the worst trolls have).
As it stands, I can see a number of methods of selecting a review board. Each would have their own advantages and flaws.
1. Random selection of members.
The obvious disadvantages are that you might get a spammer or two in the pick, and some members might not be interested. The big advantage is that newer members don't have friendships with other people on the forum, and therefore are relatively untouched by bias.
2. Selection based on time spent on the forum.
The big advantage is that you get a group of people who are clued in. Unfortunately, they are also likely to belong to a clique and are susceptible to bias.
3. Selection based on nominations and popular vote.
Here you would get a review board which is representative of the membership. But yeah, sometimes election based on popularity isn't the best thing.
Whatever the method, the moderators would be responsible for disciplining posters. The review board would monitor their activity, review complaints and queries from the membership, and make recommendations to the administration. The administrator would monitor both the moderation and review board to weed out any dickheads, and act on the recommendations of the review board to rectify certain situations or discipline moderators.
They would *not* be responsible for disciplining posters.
It's not a perfect system. The administrator still remains virtually untouchable. But at least the membership would have a voice which is heard by the powers that be, as well as a mechanism to keep moderator groupthink and abuse of authority in check.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
I don't like Baron Max.
I don't like what he stands for.
I would probably be infinitesimally happier if he didn't exist.
However, he is not trolling. Or, if he is trolling, so too are the majority of long term posters here at sciforums.