Moderator bias

[S.A.M.]

There are admins and supermoderators to listen to your complaints about moderators: also, I moderate Biology & Genetics and Science & Society forums; sometimes a PM is enough. With some people though, nothing works. In that case, I don't reinvent the wheel at every turn, but moderate based on my observations of their posting habits. That is why I have not bothered with warnings or infractions when you troll these forums.

 

[Zakariya04]

I think you act immediately on members who you don't care for.
The others are put to the bottom of your list and then somehow
forgotten.
It is obvious some rules apply to some members and not others.

Hi Shorty,

I hope you are well and have calmed down a bit from the weekend.

it would be good if you could Substantiate the insinuation in your last sentence above.


~~~~~~~
cheers Zak

 

[leopold]

Very well, for the sake of cooperation, I'd acquiesce to the idea of informers only if such reports were posted publicly, with names, reasons, and corroboration.

james said it best:

The point of not including complaints from others in the poll is that it is very easy to kick up a fuss when you have no personal stake in the outcome. I often see unaffected posters jumping on the bandwagon when a moderator is criticised. It's almost trendy to do that. So, I'm trying to gauge real concerns, and not just rent-a-crowd concerns.

no, in my opinion the report system is better than an above board discussion.
although i can see the benefits of both.

 

[Ripley]

james said it best:

Originally Posted by James R
The point of not including complaints from others in the poll is that it is very easy to kick up a fuss when you have no personal stake in the outcome. I often see unaffected posters jumping on the bandwagon when a moderator is criticised. It's almost trendy to do that. So, I'm trying to gauge real concerns, and not just rent-a-crowd concerns.

no, in my opinion the report system is better than an above board discussion. although i can see the benefits of both.

No no no; I didn't mean discussing anything—that's what I meant by such a scheme being impossibly practical—but viewing an aperçu; this would also serve as a deterrent for abuse. A sticky perhaps. somewhat like the ban list. It would also be vastly interesting, and allow members to feel more a part of the system rather than its victims.

 

[Ghost_007]

prove my claims wrong instead of attacking me the person.

You haven’t proven anything. You say Sam is on an anti-US crusade ‘the likes of which this board has never seen’ (lol), tell me, what does anti-US crusade mean? She says bad stuff about America??? Who hasn’t? And who cares? Is she a propaganda poster/troll like our old friend Kiwi123? Is she?

instead of boosting indias image she resorts to such low blows as evading questions, refusing to provide requested evidence, playing the race card, you name it this woman has played it, and practically every single bit of it against america.

India? What the hell has this got to do with India? This is the crap I was referring to. Who is it that is always bringing up poverty in India, the lower-caste mateys? etc. Isn't that low and cheap? the constant digs at sam because of her post-count? You guys have been doing that for ages and you know it, its so damn pathetic and boring that I don't think anyone has bothered to deal with it.

Anyway, aren’t you criticising sam as a poster and not as a mod? This thread is about moderator bias.

since you have failed to prove my claims wrong i have reported your post for abusive language.

Rotfl – you only reported me after I failed to prove your claims wrong? Isn’t abusive language always abusive? Shouldn’t you have reported me as soon as I made that post? I believe you are abusing the reporting system.

 

[leopold]

You haven’t proven anything.

oh but i have my dear sir.
ask sam, spidergoat, string, james, etc.

India? What the hell has this got to do with India?

don't play stupid.

This is the crap I was referring to. Who is it that is always bringing up poverty in India, the lower-caste mateys? etc. Isn't that low and cheap?

uh, no. who is it that brings up crap about america and half the time they have no idea what they are talking about.
besides, i thought you said it's getting old.
so why are you making me say it yet again?

Anyway, aren’t you criticising sam as a poster and not as a mod? This thread is about moderator bias.

the only thing you said i agree with.

Rotfl – you only reported me after I failed to prove your claims wrong? Isn’t abusive language always abusive? Shouldn’t you have reported me as soon as I made that post? I believe you are abusing the reporting system.

a report as soon as you made the post could be construed as taking revenge IF you presented any evidence. since you provided none then that connection cannot be made
i'm not sure, but i believe you are the first person i've reported for abusive language.

 

[shorty_37]

Hi Shorty,

I hope you are well and have calmed down a bit from the weekend.

it would be good if you could Substantiate the insinuation in your last sentence above.


~~~~~~~
cheers Zak

Why? That is my opinion from my experience.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Got a perfect example of moderator bias. This landed in my PM box yesterday. I will remind you all that I got three infractions for that thread in question and that my forum has nothing to do with sciforums since discussing sciforums is highly frowned upon on the other forum.

My answer follows below

The Devil Inside and spuriousmonkey:

I have just reviewed your despicable behaviour in the following thread:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=71389

At the time when you both threw hissy fits and walked out on sciforums to form your little boys' club at spuriousmonkey's forum, I gave you both the benefit of the doubt. I assumed that spurious, at least, might find some maturity and re-evaluate his behaviour. I imagined that both of you might eventually return to become worthwhile members of the sciforums community. For a while, the signs from spurious were quite good, with some posts on science in particular.

I have never worked out what your gripe was when you stormed out of sciforums, The Devil Inside. You were either unable or unwilling to articulate a grievance. But since then, all impressions are that you have found an alternative forum which suits you better, and you no longer value sciforums. Probably you are a moderator at spurious's forum, where you feel powerful and indulged; I don't frequent that forum, so I can't say for sure. But you have returned to sciforums only to troll, as far as I can see. Your contributions here have become essentially worthless.

After reading the linked thread, I was tempted to simply ban both of you, permanently. Your behaviour was childish and consisted of essentially pissing all over other members of sciforums, regardless of who they are, and the forum itself.

I have decided, however, to give you a chance to make a case for why you ought to be retained as members of sciforums.

Perhaps this PM may crystallise your dislike of all things sciforums, and you may decide you don't want any part of this forum any more. If so, that's fine. If not, please let me know why you would like to remain as a member here.

I fear that you may respond to this PM in the consistently childish manner you have been displaying of late, and I can imagine the forms such a reaction may take, but I am willing to take that risk, in case my current assessment of both of you turns out to be wrong.

So, the ball is now in your court. Please respond within 3 days.

Thankyou.

I reject your paranoid accusations and shameless character assassination.

Please never contact me again, unless it is with a sincere apology. And maybe not even then.

spuriousmonkey

 

[shorty_37]

my forum has nothing to do with sciforums since discussing sciforums is highly frowned upon on the other forum.

Thats funny, since you have threads specifically about Sciforums and its members. Your
site is so boring you have to talk about things that happen here lol.
Why do you make such statements when any member here can check out your crappy site ( as I did)
They can see for themselves how you and your boyfriends talk about
this forum. So who actually is doing all this frowning upon?

Also what exactly is the problem with the note James wrote you?
It sounds pretty accurate.

 

[S.A.M.]

reported

Reason: re-opening topic after two threads on this topic have been locked by moderators.

 

[The Devil Inside]

the staff at spuriousmonkey.com/forums would appreciate if the moderators on sciforums.com would put a stop to the defamation of our site.
accusations of childish behavior are unfounded until this is done.
this is the one and only time we will lodge such a request.

thanks for your consideration.

 

[leopold]

No no no; I didn't mean discussing anything—that's what I meant by such a scheme being impossibly practical—but viewing an aperçu; this would also serve as a deterrent for abuse. A sticky perhaps. somewhat like the ban list. It would also be vastly interesting, and allow members to feel more a part of the system rather than its victims.

finally.
the thread begins to bear some fruit.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

 

[Xev]

I think shorty has a crush on the sexy monkeyboy.
Back off! He's mine!

 

[whitewolf]

Spurious is a darling fluffster. He's so innocent and adorable, he's never hurt a soul in his life. I remember when there was a search for a bride for him on sciforums. Ehhhh, I was too young then. =(

 

[Avatar]

How about all those hideous experiments with little fluffy animals?

 

[whitewolf]

Like the cage he made out of his own shit for the rabbit? That's an action of utter kindness and consideration for his neighbor.
http://spuriousmonkey.com/cartoons/cartoons_september_2007/01-september-2007.png

 

[Zakariya04]

Why? That is my opinion from my experience.

Shorty

thank you for your feedback.

usually when one makes an accusation they are expected to back it up with evidence, even GWB does that (ok so its false evidence but at least he tries). If it was your opinion why did you not say "in my opinion."

in you last sentence you state the following

It is obvious some rules apply to some members and not others.

it is obvious...... implies that it is a matter of fact doesn't it????????

usualy people say "i may be worng but i get the impression" or something like that.

Anyway its a pity you havent clamed down sicne the weekend.

~~~~~~~~~
tae it ez
zak
Apologies if

 

[shorty_37]

Shorty

thank you for your feedback.

usually when one makes an accusation they are expected to back it up with evidence, even GWB does that (ok so its false evidence but at least he tries). If it was your opinion why did you not say "in my opinion."

in you last sentence you state the following

It is obvious some rules apply to some members and not others.

it is obvious...... implies that it is a matter of fact doesn't it????????

usualy people say "i may be worng but i get the impression" or something like that.

Anyway its a pity you havent clamed down sicne the weekend.

~~~~~~~~~
tae it ez
zak
Apologies if

I am very calm. How did I sound hostile? Sorry I did not
say it exactly how you think I should have. Do I care?
I think you know the answer.

 

[Tiassa]

It is obvious some rules apply to some members and not others.

'Tis true that we tend to be more patient with members who don't go out of their way to give us headaches. One-times or rare offenders do, in fact, deserve greater leeway than serial offenders. Were we to be ironclad in our applications of the rules, there would be no serial offenders, no rare offenders, and very few one-time offenders as there would be very few members left.

If I killed all the chickens, would there be any point to guarding the henhouse?