Enmos
Valued Senior Member
James has my vote on this one.
Perceptions of sciforums moderation
- Thread starter James R
- Start date
- Status
James has my vote on this one.
You would if you were giving an opinion on Shakespeares plays, rather than just the one you read.
Then don't ascribe motivations you are not willing to describe.
My mistake - I was a little sloppy in my wording. Some people would certainly want to visit. For comparison, there are people who want to frequent neo-Nazi forums.
So, insert the word "reasonable" or "decent" into my statement in the appropriate position.
As for the poll, the answer is obviously "No, I haven't." You can, if you wish.
Please. SAM's a big girl, if it was constructive I am sure she would have no issue.
You claim to know SAM's views, but, frankly, they seem purely chimerical. I'm sorry but you seem awfully evasive. Personally, though, I feel that the moderation of this site seems competent. The moderators do an efficient job keeping the forums clean, but I can still appreciate the desire for further clarity on when rules should/are to be applied. My experience from other forums also deems this site somewhat more affected by moderator bias. Though I think this could possibly stem from the fact that moderators do not neglect their right to post, and do so frequently, meaning that their own personal stance is more well known, and therefore more likely to be seen/confused with effecting their moderation.
There seems to be a huge schism developing about the direction of these forums.
Without having an adequate experience of other forums I can't vote and can only compare moderators on this forum.
I think all most people want here is non-bias and consistent moderation. I don't think there's much bias in the moderation, those who feel there is tend to be the ones who are bias and unable to back up their assertions so they feel victimised for their beliefs when in reality this is a science forum and requires proof.
The consistency is more of an issue, obviously with a lot of mods they have different personalities and some people will let things go that others don't. You can call people/trolls out for acting like an idiot or behaving childishly on one subforum, but on another you can receive warnings for the same comments. Likewise with deletion of comments, what constitutes an "insult", or what is regarded as a reasonable argument is different depending on the mod in question.
The worst thing is when the same mod is inconsistent. Although it can be hard to tell if they've taken action short of noticing deleted posts or what they've left standing, it can be pretty baffling why they haven't taken action on some insults or trolling. Especially if they're posting in the thread in question.
On the whole the mods are fine, but there are always some exceptions or circumstances.
I think all most people want here is non-bias and consistent moderation. I don't think there's much bias in the moderation, those who feel there is tend to be the ones who are bias and unable to back up their assertions so they feel victimised for their beliefs when in reality this is a science forum and requires proof.
The consistency is more of an issue, obviously with a lot of mods they have different personalities and some people will let things go that others don't. You can call people/trolls out for acting like an idiot or behaving childishly on one subforum, but on another you can receive warnings for the same comments. Likewise with deletion of comments, what constitutes an "insult", or what is regarded as a reasonable argument is different depending on the mod in question.
The worst thing is when the same mod is inconsistent. Although it can be hard to tell if they've taken action short of noticing deleted posts or what they've left standing, it can be pretty baffling why they haven't taken action on some insults or trolling. Especially if they're posting in the thread in question.
On the whole the mods are fine, but there are always some exceptions or circumstances.
I was here long before SAM showed up. I am aware of her entire posting history. Although I have not read all her posts, I have read enough to form an informed opinion of her views on many matters. SAM was a moderator for a time, too. With only 70 posts or so, Clucky, it may seem to you that I can't know SAM very well, but with respect you're not really in a position to judge.
---
Clucky said:
Both worthwhile comments. Thankyou.
Clucky said:
In my experience, once any forum gets beyond a certain size in its membership, subgroups tend to develop and disagreements arise. Huge schisms often seem to be possible, but they rarely happen in such a way as to fundamentally change the forum. Mostly, huge schisms tend to end with one subgroup leaving for greener pastures (in their opinion).
I don't think there's a huge schism developing about sciforums.
Don't worry, that's a perfectly fair comment. I am obviously only judging from what I have seen during my short time here.
Last edited:
I'm actually not a moderator there but an administrator.
And the one or two interactions we had there were good, or so I thought. But I don't usually post there much -I just do the admin work, mostly deleting spam and doing behind the scenes help with suspending accounts/unsuspending accounts, moving/splitting threads, etc. at the requests and suggestions of the moderator team.
I frequent a few other message boards beside this one. I don't post a lot, but I have been here for a long time and am a regular reader. Most of my time is spent in Biology and Genetics, since that's where my interests lie, and where my education is. SAM was a great moderator there, as was Spurious before he stepped down. Hercules is doing a good job there now. From that perspective, I'm happy with how things are.
Compared to the other message boards, moderation here seems a bit more active, but that's a necessity because the user volume here is higher than other boards I visit, and the topics cover a wider range. The other communities are also more towards the "anything goes" mindset, which sciforums is clearly not.
Compared to the other message boards, moderation here seems a bit more active, but that's a necessity because the user volume here is higher than other boards I visit, and the topics cover a wider range. The other communities are also more towards the "anything goes" mindset, which sciforums is clearly not.
An n of around 1,200 is enough to infer what the other 53,800 are.
Hahahaha.
Nice horse, asshole.
I don't think I can sum up my feelings for sci fi by 'clicking all that apply'. I'll take the very first clickable as an example:
Not strict enough, in relation to what? Talking about certain taboo issues? Or letting the insults fly? And what forum are we talking about?
In terms of biases, in the new forum I'm at, democratic underground, I've barely glimpsed a moderator; but I've only been there a few days. Things seem to be pretty good in the 9/11 forum, but seeing as how that's the only forum I've ventured in there, I can't really comment on the others.
In other forums I'm at, such as ones that are dedicated to talking about 9/11, they may indeed bit a bit too strict with official story supporters; but 2 wrongs doesn't make a right.
Anyway, I've decided to click on 2:
•about the same in terms of moderator competence
•very good, given that moderators are unpaid volunteers
Not strict enough, in relation to what? Talking about certain taboo issues? Or letting the insults fly? And what forum are we talking about?
In terms of biases, in the new forum I'm at, democratic underground, I've barely glimpsed a moderator; but I've only been there a few days. Things seem to be pretty good in the 9/11 forum, but seeing as how that's the only forum I've ventured in there, I can't really comment on the others.
In other forums I'm at, such as ones that are dedicated to talking about 9/11, they may indeed bit a bit too strict with official story supporters; but 2 wrongs doesn't make a right.
Anyway, I've decided to click on 2:
•about the same in terms of moderator competence
•very good, given that moderators are unpaid volunteers
For me... the moderaton has balanced out perty good.!!!
Ive never felt the need to send a private complant about anybody or a post... an i dont like real strict groops... i prefer a bit of wakyness... an ive been able to discuss issues that interest me... so i jus picked this answr:::
"very good, given that moderators are unpaid volunteers"
Ive never felt the need to send a private complant about anybody or a post... an i dont like real strict groops... i prefer a bit of wakyness... an ive been able to discuss issues that interest me... so i jus picked this answr:::
"very good, given that moderators are unpaid volunteers"
You need to show me where those other forums are. Sciforums is by far the most lenient board that I frequent. This forum doesn't even have a swear filter. I've also seen members get away with stuff that would have gotten them banned first time on other boards.
While I do like how lenient the moderation is here at times, I have to say that I most often find it to be woefully lacking when it actually does make a decision. Now, I am only speaking on the moderation I have seen in action, which mostly includes (now former moderator) SAM. She was absolutely abhorrent.
It's also a disgusting practice to not allow (until this thread, anyway) members to vent about the perceived unfair practices of moderators in the 'open government' forum.
By the looks of it, moderators were chosen purely by post count, which is probably why there have been so many complaints about many of them.
All that said, let me shower praise on SkinWalker and Spidergoat, who are both excellent contributors. I know very little of their moderating (though Skin has dropped an infraction or two on me, but he was right for doing it) but I really enjoy both of them as posters.
It's also a disgusting practice to not allow (until this thread, anyway) members to vent about the perceived unfair practices of moderators in the 'open government' forum.
By the looks of it, moderators were chosen purely by post count, which is probably why there have been so many complaints about many of them.
All that said, let me shower praise on SkinWalker and Spidergoat, who are both excellent contributors. I know very little of their moderating (though Skin has dropped an infraction or two on me, but he was right for doing it) but I really enjoy both of them as posters.
Her behavior, as a moderator was fine. Other than moving a few thread, I don't think she actually did anything as a moderator. As a poster, though....
- Status