Baron Max banned again?

[Doreen]

I have never been moderated for any statements I made against baronmax. baronmax however, has reported and complained about my replies to him over the past few months to at least two moderators. He has even requested some of my statements against him be stricken from public view after a thread was already locked. That qualifies as being image-conscious, and that isn't a positive quality.

As for him always being on topic, nay. One of his troll methods is undermine the topic of the thread and berate people for actually being on topic. Check this post out...

I read that post you linked to a couple of times and I cannot see where he berates people for being on topic. He does impilcitly judge people for what he sees as strange priorities, but that is not a judgment about what they are posting.

Further I don't see him posting there off topic. He is asking why the issue you are focusing on is important to you. I don't know if he is correct about your feelings about starving children or that it is less important, etc., but he is not off topic.

I think his argument is a weak one. I can think of several responses I would make to it, but for being off topic this example is incredibly mild at worst.

 

[Doreen]

One of the most fascinating aspects of posting on sciforums is how some people have to be responsible for how other people read, comprehend and respond to posts.

Whats wrong with controlling yourself?

In the context of this thread and my experience of BM, I agree with this point. But would you then eliminate any moderation of trolling? What kinds of posting, if any, should get warnings and bannings? Or should everything be dealt with via ignore?

 

[S.A.M.]

In the context of this thread and my experience of BM, I agree with this point. But would you then eliminate any moderation of trolling? What kinds of posting, if any, should get warnings and bannings? Or should everything be dealt with via ignore?

When I modded Biology [which is easy to mod], I defined trolling as anything that was a personal attack. When the forum is anything from 10 year olds to 90 year olds from a cross cultural background with wide differences in education, thats the best we can do.

But yeah, there are entire threads in sciforums which classify as braindead. If we are going to wipe out "trolling" lets start with the ones who only take up space. See where I am going with this?

My experience in sciforums is that its all the ones who don't conform to a rigid politically correct world view that fall by the way side. Most of these are highly intelligent people and have something to offer by way of presenting other than the constantly rehashed mundane arguments we see here. What we do at sciforums is cater to stupidity.

 

[WillNever]

Doreen:

That thread was about circumcision. Therefore, all my posts pertained *only* to circumcision. baronmax then attacked me on the basis that I was not discussing starving children as well, which *is* offtopic. For that reason, he essentially was berating me for not being offtopic.

Is he complaining about you?

Nay, I think he realized no moderator was going to act on his complaints against me. They were, after all, emotional and ridiculous.

 

[Doreen]

Doreen:

That thread was about circumcision. Therefore, all my posts pertained *only* to circumcision. baronmax then attacked me on the basis that I was not discussing starving children as well, which *is* offtopic. For that reason, he essentially was berating me for not being offtopic.

No, it's not. He is asking why this issue is so important to you. Let's say you do post elsewhere about starving children. Well, that one on possible answer. You can say. I consider this an important issue because.....but this does not take away from my focus elsewhere one starving children. Or you could explain that circumcision has advocates, whereas very few people actually are FOR starving children. Or you might be forced to wonder why this particular issue gets the focus it does for you when you do not focus on what you might admit is a more important issue.

The reason I say it is not offtopic on his part is you can answer him AND stay on topic.

If he says, What do you think shuold be done about starving children?

you can't answer him and stay on topic.

 

[Doreen]

When I modded Biology [which is easy to mod], I defined trolling as anything that was a personal attack. When the forum is anything from 10 year olds to 90 year olds from a cross cultural background with wide differences in education, thats the best we can do.

Biology would tend, I would guess, to be more civil and more information focused. As opposed to politics or religion, etc. Would you have allowed someone to as a rule gossip in the threads or raise issues, personal or whatever that did not relate to the thread topics?

But yeah, there are entire threads in sciforums which classify as braindead. If we are going to wipe out "trolling" lets start with the ones who only take up space. See where I am going with this?

It sounds like you mean that the moderators would evaluate what the people are contributing to the discussion. (?)

 

[S.A.M.]

Biology would tend, I would guess, to be more civil and more information focused. As opposed to politics or religion, etc. Would you have allowed someone to as a rule gossip in the threads or raise issues, personal or whatever that did not relate to the thread topics?

It sounds like you mean that the moderators would evaluate what the people are contributing to the discussion. (?)

I've never modded politics, so I don't know how I would do it. Madant is quite good at how he moderates, so maybe he could wade in with his insights. I've never had to start a thread about him because he is excruciatingly scrupulous in how he responds and justifies his moderation.

Of course, I don't have a problem with people having a different political outlook [we have over 200 political parties in India] so I think freedom of expression matters. Many moderators here have a very one sided way of looking at any issue. String is notorious and whimsical, but I can even get along with his bipolar style of moderation, because he is willing to let both sides have a say.

 

[Doreen]

I've never modded politics, so I don't know how I would do it. Madant is quite good at how he moderates, so maybe he could wade in with his insights.

That would be good, too. But what do you think? I mean, I think the forums could shift responsibility over the the posters and everyone is encouraged to ignore off topic posts and posters - if that's what you want to do. A problem that arises is that some people will do this and others will not. So you get a poor signal to noise ration. At least I have experienced this in other forums and also here. And, hell, probably contributed to the problem myself on occasion. People come to the thread and join in tangents that have nothing to do with the OP. And the on topic posts become little islands.

The advantage is that it does shift responsibility to the posters. I did get pissed off once recently at a couple of posters who were responding to one person they consider illogical, lost and irritating
as if
he needed to stop
so they could.

That is just loopy.

IOW I agree with you that no one is forced to respond and so feeling compelled to respond should not be a motivation for having official punishment of off topic people or trolls.

But bystanders are also affected even if they do not feel compelled to respond.

 

[S.A.M.]

One of my personal grinds about any moderation is bias. If both sides are treated fairly, then I have no issues. I only wade in when I see people being picked on ONLY when the moderator personally disagrees with their POV [hence you'll never see me debate madants decisions]

That to me is not moderation. Its selective bias.

 

[Doreen]

One of my personal grinds about any moderation is bias. If both sides are treated fairly, then I have no issues. I only wade in when I see people being picked on ONLY when the moderator personally disagrees with their POV [hence you'll never see me debate madants decisions]

That to me is not moderation. Its selective bias.

I find that impossible to disagree with. If only Max was here, he might be able to challenge you on it.

 

[glaucon]

I only wade in when I see people being picked on ONLY when the moderator personally disagrees with their POV

You somehow have this wondrous ability to be able to discern personal bias from reading text? Amazing.

Perhaps you should instead wade in when you have something topically meaningful to contribute...

 

[S.A.M.]

You somehow have this wondrous ability to be able to discern personal bias from reading text? Amazing.

Perhaps you should instead wade in when you have something topically meaningful to contribute...

Yes, its pretty easy to see when the same behaviour goes unpunished when its on the other side of the fence.

 

[glaucon]

Yes, its pretty easy to see when the same behaviour goes unpunished when its on the other side of the fence.

Typical evasive non-response.

However did I manage to deal with such terror through all my years posting here??

 

[James R]

SAM:

I note you ignored my post to you.

You don't like what the Baron says? Use the ignore button.

In other words, "Don't feed the troll!". That's fine for regular users. Moderators, on the other hand, should take a proactive stance against trolls, since they are detrimental to the site as a whole. I know you never did this as a moderator - probably because you couldn't recognise a troll (as you now admit you still can't).

When I modded Biology [which is easy to mod], I defined trolling as anything that was a personal attack.

Personal attacks are mostly a separate category, and generally a more easily identified one than trolling.

I think that the word "trolling" is a construct. It simultaneously invokes notions of the troll under the bridge who lurks in wait for unwary passers-by, and of fishermen trawling for a catch. Thus, a troll is somebody who throws out a metaphorical fishing line from his location under the bridge and waits to see who will bite. i.e. he posts inflammatory or off-topic posts with intent to provoke an emotional reaction of some kind (often anger).

But yeah, there are entire threads in sciforums which classify as braindead. If we are going to wipe out "trolling" lets start with the ones who only take up space. See where I am going with this?

Braindead is also a different category.

My experience in sciforums is that its all the ones who don't conform to a rigid politically correct world view that fall by the way side. Most of these are highly intelligent people and have something to offer by way of presenting other than the constantly rehashed mundane arguments we see here. What we do at sciforums is cater to stupidity.

And you post here more than anybody else. Go figure.

 

[S.A.M.]

Typical evasive non-response.

However did I manage to deal with such terror through all my years posting here??

Tell us, it may help all those who cannot. I'll bet it was something fantabulous, like ignoring it.

 

[glaucon]

Tell us, it may help all those who cannot. I'll bet it was something fantabulous, like ignoring it.

More along the lines of behaving like an adult, as opposed to a whining child who sees injustice at every turn.
The world isn't a fair place, and people often aren't fair. Only children and fools expect that it should be.

Engage in the discussions here instead of engaging in your never-ending meta-discussion.
Or, in short, grow up.

 

[Doreen]

Thus, a troll is somebody who throws out a metaphorical fishing line from his location under the bridge and waits to see who will bite. i.e. he posts inflammatory or off-topic posts with intent to provoke an emotional reaction of some kind (often anger).

This definition would or should elicit a similar skeptical response to the one Glaucon gave SAM above....

You somehow have this wondrous ability to be able to discern personal bias from reading text? Amazing.

We can't see intent here.

 

[S.A.M.]

More along the lines of behaving like an adult, as opposed to a whining child who sees injustice at every turn.
The world isn't a fair place, and people often aren't fair. Only children and fools expect that it should be.

Engage in the discussions here instead of engaging in your never-ending meta-discussion.
Or, in short, grow up.

I'll be happy to take on the argument if you can raise yourself above attacking the poster. Thats how I deal with the issues before me. I don't care who the person is, only what the issue is.

Most of the people I have "defended" against mods are people who would disagree with everything I write and who I would also disagree with in many opinions.

But selective bias is selective bias. Just because I don't agree with an opinion is not a reason to silence someone.

 

[mordea]

1) he definitely uses hyperbole and I think this is a self-referential example of it 2) playing devil's advocate should not be an offense in discussions. People should be allowed to take any position they want in a discussion for whatever their own reasons are. BM seems to like challenging people who he sees as having easy answers. So his contrariness can be aimed at what he perceives as smugness, naivtee or fantasy. He does not need to necessarily be arguing for a position he actually has in his 'real life'.

I agree with very few of BM's opinions - if my sense of them is correct - but he should be free to pretend he has any position he wants to.

That's exactly how I see it. Thank you for providing a more concise and well-worded summary than I can.

 

[mordea]

More along the lines of behaving like an adult, as opposed to a whining child who sees injustice at every turn.
The world isn't a fair place, and people often aren't fair. Only children and fools expect that it should be.

Engage in the discussions here instead of engaging in your never-ending meta-discussion.
Or, in short, grow up.

You are aware that will just motivate S.A.M to complain even more, right?