Perceptions of sciforums moderation

[Balerion]

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....

I can't really say if she did or not. What I do know is that she was chosen to begin with, which says very little about the management of this site. Also, her status as a moderator prevented her from being on anyone's "ignore" list.

I do find it a bit shady that our names are being put to our votes. I have to wonder what purpose this is supposed to serve, other than creating a "hit list" of sorts for people who vote negatively.

We'll see.

 

[draqon]

yes Jdawg...it is a hit list.

 

[darksidZz]

This is a survey of the general membership. I am interested to get some kind of overview of opinions here.

The poll is public, because people shouldn't have a problem with putting their names to their honestly-held opinions.

I use to not know what to think, then I found another forum that's so insane and bizarre it blows my mind. This forum I speak of has an actual posting limit imposed, you can only post a # of times that day and are prevented from doing more until the next.

Not only that but it is so weird, you need to post more than 1 sentence, and it must be related to the thread, if not it is removed and you might get banned.

In all honesty the forum I found (which I like) is just so sick in it's moderation I almost laughed the first time I reached the daily post limit. lol

 

[Tnerb]

The moderation here is really fair.

The only problem seems to be how intellectual things are. For example every thread that I visit is always really smart. But with that said the moderation is very difficult to decide. Perhaps there should be a no tolerance rule where the mods obliverate any mis behavior on the part of any violations towards behavior or that of the forum itself or something. I would have to say that the moderation is really fair. From what I've seen anyway. :shrug:

 

[Tnerb]

Let me have another go:

From what I've posted regarding threads where I have actually been moderated, the moderation wasn't really strict
Not really biased either, so fair Long ago I had posted on threads and received warnings and yet it was actually quite fair and seemed to allow myself to receive the proper attitude adjustments. :shrug:

I guess the moderation is likable. It just seems difficult to post such high quality all the time

 

[lightgigantic]

This is a survey of the general membership. I am interested to get some kind of overview of opinions here.

The poll is public, because people shouldn't have a problem with putting their names to their honestly-held opinions.

Since some of the issues deal with personal bias, I think you should recognize that those topics that deal with religion, politics or sex (the three things you shouldn't bring up to keep a conversation polite and also the mainstay of sci) lend themselves more easily to it. IOW "good" moderation in the religious/world events/politics subforum is certainly a different kettle of fish than the physics/chemistry one.

Also as a side point, I only have an issue with one moderator (and that can be attributed to issues of bias .... particularly since he only shares the support of those who share an identical ideology), so I am not sure how I can translate that into a perception of "sci moderation" (since its an issue with an individual, and not the body of others).

Perhaps this might indicate more what I think a mod can (potentially) get away with, as opposed to my perception of the moderation as a whole.

 

[Roman]

I can't really say if she did or not. What I do know is that she was chosen to begin with, which says very little about the management of this site. Also, her status as a moderator prevented her from being on anyone's "ignore" list.

I do find it a bit shady that our names are being put to our votes. I have to wonder what purpose this is supposed to serve, other than creating a "hit list" of sorts for people who vote negatively.

We'll see.

I wouldn't worry about it.

 

[(Q)]

He was going easy on you, (Q). Count your blessings. Whoops, sorry, I mean, appreciate your good fortune. Oh, wait ... make a note of all the positive things in your life.

So, does that mean James may do much worse and it's still ok?

 

[John99]

whats the differnce? were all cut from the same cloth. a damaged cloth perhaps but that is what it means to be human.

 

[John99]

it is less strict and to give an assessment we would need to campare to other forums that are similar to sciforums. the other forums i go to dont really require moderation so i cannot offer an accurate evaluation. obviously there would be much more oppertunities for bias to creep in according to the topics.

 

[scott3x]

He was going easy on you, (Q). Count your blessings. Whoops, sorry, I mean, appreciate your good fortune. Oh, wait ... make a note of all the positive things in your life.

So, does that mean James may do much worse and it's still ok?

We may disagree on many things, (Q), but here I agree with you; what applies to one should apply to all. This is actually the first time I have seen James name call anyone, so it's certainly not common in his case, but there is another moderator who I think does it more often. I also think that a moderator deleting posts for things that they themselves do with impunity is hypocritical as well.

 

[sniffy]

Less; is more.

 

[tuberculatious]

more is too much.

 

[sniffy]

Too much is more than enough.

 

[tuberculatious]

Is that valid for all aspects of life?

 

[Tiassa]

If only things were as simple as your argument, (Q)

So, does that mean James may do much worse and it's still ok?

Actually, given your long history at Sciforums and contribution to this community when you were a moderator, you've received some benefits as well. Your hatemongering tantrums about religion and pointed obsession with a certain member is the kind of thing that should have seen you thrown out of here long ago.

But, as you're well aware, we take more into account than any one given event in and of itself. You know, like the member who showed up here and on her first day declared her intention to pick fights with specific members. She should have been chucked out of here on her ear for that alone. Indeed, her performance since has only proven her intentions. Yet there is much more to that story, too.

The ignorance of how the moderators operate required to give your argument in this case any real effect appears to be a show.

In the case you've provided, when a member is making an extraordinary effort to depict himself as an ignoramus, there's no actionable insult in pointing that out. This has long been a standard at Sciforums, even back to your days as a moderator and before. And it has always been a point of contention for the wanna-be buffoons.

People think they should be able to be dishonest and nobody should be allowed to call them out on their stupidity and lies. When the hell are people going to figure out that's not the case, except occasionally in WE and Politics?

 

[sniffy]

Is that valid for all aspects of life?

Well there are certain things in life that I can never get enough of; moderation isn't one of them.

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

The mods at sciforums are great! All hail big brother! Ignorance is knowledge!

 

[Naturelles]

I haven't had any problem with the moderation on this site.

 

[joepistole]

It just depends on the forum...some are better than others. Some forums are very well moderated, and I would say that is the case for the majority of Sciforums. But there is one in particular where the mod is very biased, egotistical, and not that bright to boot.