Sigh for 'em- they're trying their best. In a decade or so, we'll just have boring unemotional AI bouncers.
Perceptions of sciforums moderation
- Thread starter James R
- Start date
- Status
I ant makin no promises... but i mite volenteer to be a grate moderater here somday... an 1 mistake i wont make is... to give smart-azz answrs to peoples questons or coments about moderaton.!!!
Textbook example of a biased moderator.
Yep. Plazma really needs to clean house.
James R namecalls and belittles quite a lot, but like Tiassa, he's clever enough to do so in an eloquent fashion while sandwiching the offensive material between supposition and rhetoric. Tiassa is a master at slipping in barbs and blatant insults in his walls of text, ensuring that only those who actually have an interest in reading his posts will stumble across them. This is probably one of the reasons why he hasn't been busted by the administrator. I'm pretty sure Plazma has better things to do than read pages of crap.
So if you want to get away with insulting a poster, just ensure that you bury your insults in bullshit, more bullshit, and even more bullshit. Boost the word count, heap on the rhetoric and conjecture, and you can get away with murder (metaphorically speaking).
That's the only real difference between (Q) and Tiassa. Both of nasty pieces of work when someone disagrees with their worldview, but (Q) has the balls (or poor sense) to just flat out insult you. Tiassa does so in a more roundabout way, making sure to slip the exceptionally nasty insults in between irrelevancies, anecdotes and posturing.
Expectations: Not low enough
We've long told people to at least put some effort into being insulting, priggish, snide, or whatever. And for years, this has been too much to ask of quite a few of our members. So we keep lowering our standards, and as you demonstrate, we haven't lowered them enough. Pretty soon, we'll probably have to insult ourselves for you.
No, it's the difference between an intelligent community and moronic childishness. Even intelligent people get pissed off.
See, among intelligent people, there is an idea called good faith. Now, I recognize that's confusing to some, but the idea is simple: represent yourself genuinely. Oh, wait, I should probably say that with fewer syllables in order to be more concise: be your real self. There are a lot of self-styled avengers, people who target moderators or other members and make it part of their "mission" (yes, that specific word has been used before) to stage direct opposition. Some of them like to play a useless version of Devil's Advocate in which they chase their favorite members around and ask really stupid questions in order to distract the discussion. Others like to pretend they're stupid. There are a couple who occasionally adopt this really bizarre outlook that suggests one cannot examine the merit of a concept unless one believes it. Or there's the lovely routine wherein criticism of an idea means someone is proposing an ironclad alternative. There's the one where people openly reject the necessary implications of their words. Or pretending to be illiterate. Oh, yeah, how about tilting windmills, also referred to as a straw man. (I couldn't tell you how many people over the years have ignored what I write in order to tell me what I've written.)
None of these routines are honest. And, for the most part, they're not intelligent, either. Over the years, we've seen many objections from the membership that basically proposed that people should be allowed to be insulting, stupid liars and nobody should be allowed to call them out because calling someone ignorant or dishonest is just so evil.
How do they say they're idiots? Let me count the ways ....
In the meantime, I'm sorry we haven't lowered the bar enough to satisfy your needs, C66. But give us time, and we might get there. I mean, hell, at some point in the last couple months, we abandoned a couple of our most comfortable (for us) and controversial (among complaining members) policies, and I'm pretty sure I didn't so much miss the memo as nobody bothered to write one. It's been a long process. Over the past few years we've dropped our "Intelligent Community" motto, retracted many of our demands for rational argument, elevated moderators on a quota system with results we could only wish were cosmetic, endorsed and even protected bigotry, set different standards for posting quality and offense sensitivity depending on people's political persuasion, and even attempted an amnesty for our most chronic offenders. Give us another ten or twelve years, and we might be able to lower our standards far enough to suit your needs.
Copernicus66 said:
We've long told people to at least put some effort into being insulting, priggish, snide, or whatever. And for years, this has been too much to ask of quite a few of our members. So we keep lowering our standards, and as you demonstrate, we haven't lowered them enough. Pretty soon, we'll probably have to insult ourselves for you.
No, it's the difference between an intelligent community and moronic childishness. Even intelligent people get pissed off.
See, among intelligent people, there is an idea called good faith. Now, I recognize that's confusing to some, but the idea is simple: represent yourself genuinely. Oh, wait, I should probably say that with fewer syllables in order to be more concise: be your real self. There are a lot of self-styled avengers, people who target moderators or other members and make it part of their "mission" (yes, that specific word has been used before) to stage direct opposition. Some of them like to play a useless version of Devil's Advocate in which they chase their favorite members around and ask really stupid questions in order to distract the discussion. Others like to pretend they're stupid. There are a couple who occasionally adopt this really bizarre outlook that suggests one cannot examine the merit of a concept unless one believes it. Or there's the lovely routine wherein criticism of an idea means someone is proposing an ironclad alternative. There's the one where people openly reject the necessary implications of their words. Or pretending to be illiterate. Oh, yeah, how about tilting windmills, also referred to as a straw man. (I couldn't tell you how many people over the years have ignored what I write in order to tell me what I've written.)
None of these routines are honest. And, for the most part, they're not intelligent, either. Over the years, we've seen many objections from the membership that basically proposed that people should be allowed to be insulting, stupid liars and nobody should be allowed to call them out because calling someone ignorant or dishonest is just so evil.
How do they say they're idiots? Let me count the ways ....
In the meantime, I'm sorry we haven't lowered the bar enough to satisfy your needs, C66. But give us time, and we might get there. I mean, hell, at some point in the last couple months, we abandoned a couple of our most comfortable (for us) and controversial (among complaining members) policies, and I'm pretty sure I didn't so much miss the memo as nobody bothered to write one. It's been a long process. Over the past few years we've dropped our "Intelligent Community" motto, retracted many of our demands for rational argument, elevated moderators on a quota system with results we could only wish were cosmetic, endorsed and even protected bigotry, set different standards for posting quality and offense sensitivity depending on people's political persuasion, and even attempted an amnesty for our most chronic offenders. Give us another ten or twelve years, and we might be able to lower our standards far enough to suit your needs.
about the only problem I have with the moderation is not all forms of bigotry are treated equally.
Work In Progress
Unfortunately, it seems there's not much to be done about that. We argue about it a lot, but to no good resolution. Right now it comes down to whether or not moderators understand what a particular bigotry looks like, or, in some cases, whether to award bonus points for dragging S.A.M. into it.
Part of it the appearance of endorsing bigotry—at least, the part that doesn't actually involve the endorsement of bigotry—is differing moderation standards. There are some among my colleagues who prefer not to act unless they receive specific complaints. To the other, that's not a guarantee that they'll pay attention, either. Additionally, the specific complaint is all they'll address; they'll pass on a blatant insult in order to moderate something much more subtle because the blatant insulter actually turned around and filed a complaint. Like, "Wah! He called me a name! I never did anything to deserve that! All I ever did was call people names, denigrate whole cultures, and attack people's families! It's not fair! Waaah!"
I think you've witnessed that one in action before.
In other words, it's a work in progress. With much left to be accomplished. And the artists are having creative conflicts. And the director ... well, I wouldn't blame him if he thought the lot of us were fucking bonkers.
PJdude1219 said:
Unfortunately, it seems there's not much to be done about that. We argue about it a lot, but to no good resolution. Right now it comes down to whether or not moderators understand what a particular bigotry looks like, or, in some cases, whether to award bonus points for dragging S.A.M. into it.
Part of it the appearance of endorsing bigotry—at least, the part that doesn't actually involve the endorsement of bigotry—is differing moderation standards. There are some among my colleagues who prefer not to act unless they receive specific complaints. To the other, that's not a guarantee that they'll pay attention, either. Additionally, the specific complaint is all they'll address; they'll pass on a blatant insult in order to moderate something much more subtle because the blatant insulter actually turned around and filed a complaint. Like, "Wah! He called me a name! I never did anything to deserve that! All I ever did was call people names, denigrate whole cultures, and attack people's families! It's not fair! Waaah!"
I think you've witnessed that one in action before.
In other words, it's a work in progress. With much left to be accomplished. And the artists are having creative conflicts. And the director ... well, I wouldn't blame him if he thought the lot of us were fucking bonkers.
A moderator with a bias is not in and of it self a problem, in fact it could be an asset. But when the moderator acts against an individual for simply disagreeing, that is when a problem is created.
It is more important that moderators have honor and honesty.
It is more important that moderators have honor and honesty.
*sigh* Another wall of text from the resident windbag. Why can't you have the decency to condense your posturing, rhetoric, conjecture and petty insults into a paragraph or two?
I certainly agree that it's a serious problem, in some circumstances; it depends what the disagreement is about.
I think what he had to say was quite concise. Not everything can be stuffed into 'a paragraph or two'. I have virtually always enjoyed Tiassa's posts and have in the past taken a great deal of time to respond to them as well. I guess I just believe that not everything can be reduced to a few soundbites.
Perty simple realy... insults are exceptable as long as they involve $10 dollar words... an in ther own mind... that gives the advantage to educated snobs in charge of "rules".!!!
And, you're different from that description how? You're trying to tell me that you haven't thrown "hatemongering tantrums" or haven't been obsessed about certain members? Oh, how the hypocrisy flows from your double-standard pie hole.
It's not likely James or Tiassa or anyone else on this forum won't get frustrated with some posters who simply choose not to use their brains. Of course, there's going to be times when name-calling may arise in the form of 'buffoon' or 'idiot.' And, I have never argued with Skin for giving me that warning. I simply accepted it and moved on.
And, of course, it's going to challenge my patience somewhat if James calls someone a name and gets away with it because he's an admin.
I got a warning, James got away with it, I don't really care that much.
But, when #$*!$@ like Tiassa start ranting about my good fortunes for not getting permanently banned and that I should be grateful is another pile of poo, or hypocrisy.
I suspect that ther woudnt be as many "socks" comin bak for "revenge" if they wasnt called such thangs a "azz-holes" or "douch-bags"... ect... on the ban list.!!!
Even if not on any other subject... moderators discusson moderaton shud be 100% respectful.!!!
The mor respectable moderaton is... the mor respected it will be.!!!
Even if not on any other subject... moderators discusson moderaton shud be 100% respectful.!!!
The mor respectable moderaton is... the mor respected it will be.!!!
Show that you're smart enough to understand what you're talking about (Q)
Your lack of nuance only undermines the validity of your point by suggesting that you can't figure simple differences.
For instance, in your two consecutive posts, you managed to avoid responding to the basic asserted difference:
Until you demonstrate in some way that you actually understand that difference, we're left with the impression, based on your either failure or refusal to address such issues, that you don't.
And that seriously weakens your complaint.
A lot of insults that actually break the rules get passed over. Whether it's because a moderator simply missed that one, reads it differently than you, doesn't actually watch over his subforum, or some other reason altogether, there are plenty of insults that don't get called out.
And make the point, if you want: We should be catching every one of those if we're going to bother with any of them at all. Go ahead.
Take a look at the Action Notes for EM&J. Oh, such tyranny. Tell you what, (Q), I missed Zero Tolerance Week because of a technology crisis. Would you like me to stage one in EM&J and S&S?
I'll start on Monday. How about that? But I'll be, well, not quite democratic about it, but I'll give you a vote. Strict adherence to prima facie, without consideration of member history, immediate situation, or any other potentially extenuating factors?
Easy enough.
(Q) said:
Your lack of nuance only undermines the validity of your point by suggesting that you can't figure simple differences.
For instance, in your two consecutive posts, you managed to avoid responding to the basic asserted difference:
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?
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?
Until you demonstrate in some way that you actually understand that difference, we're left with the impression, based on your either failure or refusal to address such issues, that you don't.
And that seriously weakens your complaint.
A lot of insults that actually break the rules get passed over. Whether it's because a moderator simply missed that one, reads it differently than you, doesn't actually watch over his subforum, or some other reason altogether, there are plenty of insults that don't get called out.
And make the point, if you want: We should be catching every one of those if we're going to bother with any of them at all. Go ahead.
Take a look at the Action Notes for EM&J. Oh, such tyranny. Tell you what, (Q), I missed Zero Tolerance Week because of a technology crisis. Would you like me to stage one in EM&J and S&S?
I'll start on Monday. How about that? But I'll be, well, not quite democratic about it, but I'll give you a vote. Strict adherence to prima facie, without consideration of member history, immediate situation, or any other potentially extenuating factors?
Easy enough.
I think it all depends on what you use it for. If you use it to discuss something that you find to be trivial, then it can be trivial. If you use it to discuss something that is important to you, it can be important.
- Status