Perceptions of sciforums moderation
- Thread starter James R
- Start date
- Status
Will you take the feedback into serious consideration, or is this simply to assess who the dissenters are?
sciforums is not a democracy
Why "compared" to other forums? If I post here, why should I care what other forums do or do not do? Are the guidelines based on what other forums do?
Since the poll is obviously slanted I will merely outline my issues with the moderation policy so far:
1. Personal ideologies are permitted to bias moderation to the extent of breaking of rules by the moderator/admin
- addressing the poster instead of the issue
- flaming and baiting
- selective deletion of posts to biasedly only show the desired POV
- deleting posts that counter arguments and which weaken the position held by the moderator
- locking threads that run counter to the moderator or admin's political views, while permitting flame fests that blatantly flout forum rules
2. Ignoring complaints or being confrontational about the above unless publicly held accountable, but still advising posters to go the route of PM.
3. Suppressing dissent by being critical of posters who dissent rather than addressing the issue raised
Last edited:
I already have a fair idea who the "dissenters" will be. I'm hoping this poll attracts responses from more people than just the usual dissenters.
Because I'm interested in how members think that sciforums moderation compares to the moderation of other forums. Obviously.
Nobody is requiring you to care. I know that you seldom answer these kinds of polls anyway, because you want to keep your options open to change your opinion to what is convenient at some later time.
Partially. Most moderators are aware of what happens at some other forums, and I'm sure many have looked at the kinds of rulesets that other forums use. Many minds are often better than a few.
Really? How interesting. I note you give no specifics, but just allege bias.
The disconnect between the title and the question is evident enough.
Note that I usually answer such polls.
Its when they don't accurately reflect any position I hold that I refrain from answering.
In almost all such cases however, excepting Stryders latest demographic efforts, I have attempted to explain my position in the thread concerned. Which contradicts your observations, i.e.
This is unwarranted and reflects your bias. Or does your experience now enable you to read minds and gauge motivations based on what I have not done?
Last edited:
As for my vote with "not strict enough," I say this because there are times I wouldn't hesitate to lay down the ban hammer. Back when I was a mod around here, there were people I really wanted to ban but we had rules about such things...
But then again, Satyr was banned. That was too strict.
But then again, Satyr was banned. That was too strict.
I agree. Satyr was politically incorrect but scientifically, he expressed his observations of human nature as he saw it.
Similarly for Dr Lounatic. However, politcal correctness and the ideologies of the mods/admin now supercede the science forums nature of the site.
Instead of challenging the posters to uphold an evidence based discussion, we are now concerned with protecting idiocy and political correctness.
Wow, you pretty much hit the nail right on the head. I couldn't have said it better. Isn't it amazing that two posters such as ourselves, who are so ideologically opposed, are actually in agreement regarding this issue?
What disconnect? The title is "Perceptions of sciforums moderation". The poll question is "Compared to other forums, sciforums moderation is..."
I'd say the poll question exactly matches the thread title.
When the poll gives you options ranging over the entire spectrum of possible views, how can one of them not accurately reflect any position you hold? That's a nonsense, SAM.
You have thousands of posts, SAM (55000+ - yikes!). I think I've had quite a good opportunity to assess your motivations. In fact, it could be said that you're the dominant poster on sciforums, by a long shot. Admittedly, I do make the occasional mistake. Nobody's perfect. Of course, if I've got the wrong end of the stick, that's easily corrected with a simple post.
Satyr/Wanderer was/is nothing but a troll with an unrealistically high opinion of himself. He imagines himself to be a great philosopher, but his philosophy is one track, self-serving and pedestrian. He believes the world owes it to him to recognise his obvious greatness, but he makes no useful contribution. He treats others as beneath contempt, yet he demands respect for himself. He claims to be "above" posting on mere internet forums, yet keeps returning here time after time to further troll the forum.
Basically, he is an insignificant waste of space. There are a hundred Satyrs scattered over the internet. There are whole sites full of self-important homophobic misogynists just like him.
Unfortunately, he couldn't help but keep expressing his racism.
Racism is not scientific. Neither is misogyny. Neither is insulting other posters.
Both of the above-mentioned posters were challenged. I easily demolished Wanderer/Saytr's silly "philosophy" that women are inferior to men - to the extent that he carries a grudge even now.
Complaining about "political correctness" is, I find, mostly a resort of those who think politeness and respect are not virtues. It's often part of a pattern of behaviour that goes with self-importance and a sense of entitlement - entitlement to belittle other people in various ways.
You've read all of them?
What are my motivations?
Not if one does not post enough on other forums to be able to give a comparison. Ironically enough, the one other forum where I do post, it is once again Skinwalker who is a problem and no other moderator.
Last edited:
I agree wholeheartedly with this statement. There are too many people who spatter post... they never back up their claims, they just repeat them ad nauseum.
And I don't think that Dr. Lou or Satyr should have been banned. If nothing else, they drove away the blatherers. And we have a tremendous amount of people who say almost nothing at all, and barely add to any conversation except to make wise remarks or be obnoxious.
I had high hopes when I first came here. Now I barely post in the regular forums because it's both tedious and futile when you have so many idiots mucking up every post and not being moderated at all. I would much rather a sciforums like old, where idiots were rightfully ridiculed and then ignored, and the jousts were exciting. This mamby pamby bull is demoralizing to people with actual intelligence. We really don't need to be coddled and treated like children. If the children don't like it, there is plenty of places they can go... it's not like we're the only show on the strip.
Heaven forbid!
Believe it or not, SAM, I do have a life outside sciforums.
You're asking me for my character analysis of you? Do you really want it?
You're the one who claimed to have an opinion of my motivations based on my posts
Absolutely.
I don't know. I've always gotten along with the mods even when we've disagreed and when I've reported someone, it's been fine.
Liebling:
That's all very well, but consider the alternative. If we had a forum full of Satyr/Wanderers and Lou Natics then sciforums would be a place nobody would want to visit. It would be a white boys club (other races and women being excluded by mindless prejudice) where the boys would pat each other on the back and tell each other how wonderful they all are, while lying in wait for any new member to accidentally blunder in for a beating by their self-judged "higher intellects".
You complain about the "blatherers" and the obnoxious, while failing to recognise the truly obnoxious - people who are actually smart enough to know better, but who choose not to be better.
That's all very well, but consider the alternative. If we had a forum full of Satyr/Wanderers and Lou Natics then sciforums would be a place nobody would want to visit. It would be a white boys club (other races and women being excluded by mindless prejudice) where the boys would pat each other on the back and tell each other how wonderful they all are, while lying in wait for any new member to accidentally blunder in for a beating by their self-judged "higher intellects".
You complain about the "blatherers" and the obnoxious, while failing to recognise the truly obnoxious - people who are actually smart enough to know better, but who choose not to be better.
I don't need to read all of Shakespeare's plays to have an opinion of them.
I'd really rather not, SAM. While I would have many good things to say about you, there'd be a few things that might be hurtful. It's not worth it.
- Status