If it makes you feel any better, you can't say bad things about Jews.
Perceptions of sciforums moderation
- Thread starter James R
- Start date
- Status
If it makes you feel any better, you can't say bad things about Jews.
Apparently tolerance is exclusively defined by what is agreeable to the personal religious and political positions of those with the power to enforce freedom of expression. Once this is understood it is eminently clear that bias in censorship is a desirable and approved quality of moderation even if it goes against the stated "ideals" of the site. Hence it is possible for a religion moderator on a science forum to dismiss the studied inferences of anthropologists in peer reviewed publications as woo-woo based on unsupported opinions that directly reflect his atheistic stance without once being challenged by the same self righteous upholders of scientific rigor who graciously condescend to abstain from banning me for not immediately providing a citation to data which they too have used from the same source in exactly the same way to support their opinions.
challenge skinwalker to a formal debate on the subject sam.
if i were you i would stipulate that one of the rules would be that the outcome be incorporated into the religion forum posting rules.
You know Web 2.0 threatens to bring more Policing to the internet. It could be so much so that "Free Speech" or our radically "Rublicised" version of it here on this forum could well be under threat. All those moderators you've complained about Biased actions or acting improperly would really be the least of anyone's concern, as Web 2.0+ could have Police and Government surveillance teams cracking down on anyone that so much as sneezes in the wrong direction.
Moderators are like the Deputies from the Wild West and there is always a "Hole in the Wall Gang" trying to get a gun fight out of them. So what will you do if you gun the Deputies down and are left with a Cavalry charge?
(Saying this analogy though, doesn't mean there is an excuse to act a cowboy though
)
Moderators are like the Deputies from the Wild West and there is always a "Hole in the Wall Gang" trying to get a gun fight out of them. So what will you do if you gun the Deputies down and are left with a Cavalry charge?
(Saying this analogy though, doesn't mean there is an excuse to act a cowboy though
)
It would be the shortest debate on record, since Skin does not overtly endorse using unscientific standards for atheists. But you'd be hard put to find instances in the religion forum where atheists have been challenged for their unsupported assertions. You'd also not find one instance where the mod team cracked down on them for it.
I agree with that...Skinwalker is not big on scientific logic. I think a good moderator should invite and stimulate interesting conversation and ideas. It should not be a place for moderators to act on their personal insecurities and emotional immaturity.
SAM you and I rarely agree, but you are always passionate and interesting .
Skinwalker's biased censoring extends far beyond religion, entering into the realms of the paranormal as well as 9/11. I think one of the best examples of his 'don't challenge my assertions' nature was when I simply stated that some moderators (and yes, I meant him in particular) don't truly understand the scientific method. He deleted the post and gave me a warning, stating that I had engaged in "Trolling / Meaningless Post Content"
Then he deletes another post, allegedly because it's 'off topic', even as he gets 'off topic' in exactly the same way (and, ofcourse, doesn't delete his own post). It's all detailed in the first 2 posts of the thread Clarifying when mods are entitled to delete posts in this forum.
Harder to stomach was James' assertion that what he did was fine, however. This points to not only Skinwalker as a problem, but rather the whole moderator team.
In summation, if you hold the views that most of the moderators seem to hold, you can get in trouble; ranging from questioning the status quo on various issues, from 9/11 to the paranormal to certain aspects of sexuality, to certain views concerning Israel, to certain views concerning religion. Here's the thing though; if your views concur with those of the moderators, you can do relatively well. It's only if you don't that you have a problem...
I have rarely if ever encounter SkinWalker, but he sounds like a high class of asshole from these complaints, maybe you guys should complain in mass to the admin?
Perhaps you've never had a problem with him Enmos, but many others have. The people who have dealt with him and have commented (Sam, me and joepistole) aren't name calling him, we just don't believe he's doing a good job as a moderator. Sci forums is not like a normal government; we don't pay taxes to the sci forums moderation team. Nevertheless, I think that if we're not even allowed to criticize the moderators in a civil manner, and thus moderators that are unpopular are allowed to continue doing what makes them unpopular, it can be detrimental to sci forums as a whole.
While this forum is apparently not for criticizing the administration, I think that it should be allowed, atleast in a civil manner. I have already protested 2 times to James concerning post deletions that Skinwalker has made but James was apparently fine with his decision. Seeing as how protesting to the administration doesn't seem to do much, I think it might be better to get the issue out into the open. Nevertheless, I don't think that name calling will help anything. Besides the fact that I haven't referred to anyone in this forum using the term you have used above and don't think it's helpful for a constructive conversation, there is also the fact that while I may disagree with Skinwalker's methods, he has certainly been better then some of the posters here. However, this doesn't mean that there isn't room for improvement.
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
A mod does not have to be popular to do their job. Being disliked by a handfull of people doesn't make him unpopular it just means that there are issues for a handful of people. There are many posters here but few are complaining
True. However, I think there are legitimate reasons for his not being liked by some members of sci forums.
Lucysnow said:
I would contend that not everyone who dislikes his moderation is voicing their opinion here. In any case, perhaps we should focus on the issues instead of the relatively few numbers who have voiced a dislike of decisions of his.. as well as the few who seem to support him?
As I said the problem is not mods with a bias as there are many mods with biases. Problems occur when a mod errects a double standard...one standard for him/her self and friends and another standard for others. There forums in which the mods are definately biased. But they do not let their biases interfer with their ability to serve as a good moderator. Good moderataors do not errect double standards and they do not engage in childish behaviors (delete posts without notice or reason, change someones post, and lie). When a moderator does that, and thank God I only know one who does, then they betray their roll as moderator and are not a value add to the forum.
What forums is???
James it the kind of guy that writes down every complaint and grudge on a kill list, and when the list gets long enough he pulls out the pithier and undertakes the job with extreme prejudice (in a sort of nice guy, passive aggressive, "I think it wise for you to freely resign your position in good faith, and this is not a suggestion" sort of way) it happened to SAM and countless mods before (not me I resigned without a word from James... he just that scary). and with enough complaints silently registered by James it will happen with Skinwalker.
"Hey Stalin we want to talking about your problems out in the open" yeah that will work.
I been able to get by with mild profanity here for what, 8 years, perhaps its because they like my rocking tits or something. Profanity does not bother the admins as much as over all behavior and annoyance, if you annoy the mods and admin in one way or another, they will find a reason to ban you someday. As rule #9 of the internet states this is simply the way of things, can't complain about it and expect it you to get fixed (or even to not get banned), the only way you could fix it is if you made your own forum and ruled it the unbias benevolence you think you can provide... chances are you will becoming an anal retentive power lording asshole, or if not you will notice that there will always be people complain about the administration that you feel is unwarranted but that they feel is completely warranted and will never think otherwise, but you will allow them to stay because you like providing at least the artificial vista of fairness, this latter is something I can live with, it is sciforums and it far better then the former, trust me, I've been there!
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
I only know Skin as a respectable person and mod, I've never caught him acting out of order as a mod.
So put me down as a supporter.
"Yes, comrade, the NKVD will have you standing out in the open with all your questions answered, right down by the wall"
If a mod issued a string of unreasonable infractions, deleted posts etc, how would you be aware of it?
When you determine that a mod is being reasonable, exactly what body of information are you assessing to make that judgment?
His own, clearly... but to be more precise, I don't believe he has really looked at the arguments against Skinwalker; he certainly hasn't addressed the points I've raised, and I don't believe he's addressed SAM's or joepistole's either.
Well if he needs some material for perusing, I can certainly provide it.
- Status