Perceptions of sciforums moderation

[copernicus66]

copernicus:

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that as far as moderation here goes, one hand does not know what the other is doing.

So you mean to tell me that every moderator and administrator takes the time to review every action performed by a moderator, and every complaint made by a poster, in their appropriate context? Wow. If that were true, then there would be no need for moderators, Plazma would just do all the work himself.

Why don't you cut the nonsense? Plazma delegates certain tasks to moderators precisely because he doesn't have the time to deal with every minor infraction and blip. He trusts the moderators to perform their duties with integrity, and only reviews their actions when a big enough stink is kicked up by either the moderators or a group of posters.

As a matter of fact, there is an entire moderators' subforum that you cannot see, where moderators discuss problem posters,

So moderators will comb through possibly thousands of posts to ascertain the posting history of the accused and accuser? Impressive!

If you think that whinging to a particular administrator will allow you to play off that administrator against another administrator or a moderator or whoever, think again.

So that's what you think this is all about? Wow. I haven't received fair treatment from the moderators on this forum, so I'm moving further up the hierarchy. I'm going to give my version of events to the source, instead of having the facts distorted by partisan moderators with an agenda.

You won't be telling them anything they aren't already well aware of.

At least the administrator will hear a different perspective, one which you don't want him to hear.

The moderators are way ahead of you in this game.

Oh ho! So you admit that this is a matter of moderators vs. dissenters? "Lock your shields, stay as one!"

Your cabal of moderators has a greater 'influence' on the administrator than I do. But now that I've lodged an official complaint about you, any banning of me won't go unnoticed. Have fun justifying why you would ban someone who posted criticism in a thread on Open Government which is meant to be devoted to feedback on moderation.

 

[copernicus66]

It doesn't just stop there, we know when disgruntled ex-members return under sockpuppet's with their personal vendetta's which they continue to hash out like a scratched recorded.

One in particular might very well be near the end of another life expectancy.

I find it interesting how moderators will summarily dismiss complaints under the pretense that there is a personal disagreement between the moderator and the regular poster.

If anything, complaints made in such a context should be very carefully appraised, to ensure that the moderator in question isn't abusing their powers to pursue their personal vendetta and get the upper hand.

But never mind, I know that the moderators on this forum can't appraise complaints in a fair and unbiased manner, which is why I've went to administration. From now on, *every* complaint goes to the administrator, no dicking around on Open Government. I've been reluctant to do this in the past because I didn't want to bother the administration with trivialities, but I can't see other way to get unbiased treatment.

 

[S.A.M.]

I wonder what the owners would say about the fact that moderators feel that sometimes one can disobey the 'no personal attacks' rule if they think it is merited? Say, that's a good question to PM to Plazma. I'll ask him to clarify exactly when it is permitted to insult another poster. After all, the moderators can't keep their fucking story straight.

Nothing much actually. What makes you think Plazma would devote his time to individual complaints? I've complained to him several times about Skinwalkers arbitrary moderation deleting any posts he does not endorse as "offtopic".

They are all the same, at the end of the day. Stryder and James are not the only ones. Note that all my complaints about them have been about inconsistency and biased moderation and all they do is made ad hom responses.

 

[pjdude1219]

for fucks sake can we just knock of the whiny little bitch convention.

 

[Stryder]

I find it interesting how moderators will summarily dismiss complaints under the pretense that there is a personal disagreement between the moderator and the regular poster.

The problem is that this is the case in regards to some members. Lets for instance look at the imfamous Mountainhare (Perhaps his initial name was a pun, splitting "Mountain" sized hairs.)

Regularly he displayed his personal views/vendetta's driven at particular moderators and eventually this lead (along with a few other things) to a permanent ban. He then reappeared under a different pseudonym burning the same torch (and bridges), aiming for those moderators he was upset at.

It wasn't that the moderators necessarily had to do anything wrong, all they had to do was cross him once to get him into some grudge locked vendetta cycle.

This is why went the Hare appears on the forum from time to time under different forms, we tend not to take his commentary too seriously because we already know what to expect from him.

If anything, complaints made in such a context should be very carefully appraised, to ensure that the moderator in question isn't abusing their powers to pursue their personal vendetta and get the upper hand.

Moderator abuse is less than some would like to suggest. At one point the Ban system which was only open for dealing with spammers when Administrators weren't about did get abused (This is years back), this however got brought up inside the Moderator Subforum and people were scolded for sending people off on permanent vacations. For the most part now, permanent ban's are an Administration level response, although occasionally moderators can still perform them, however they have to make their actions known fully in advance and have all moderators and administrators agree on that action. (Moderators constantly have to deal with people they don't necessarily agree with having on the forum, this is because of the Moderator council. Where a Moderator might have a biased opinion against a poster another might favour them and this means that we get stuck with bureaucratic red tape in regards to responses.)

But never mind, I know that the moderators on this forum can't appraise complaints in a fair and unbiased manner, which is why I've went to administration. From now on, *every* complaint goes to the administrator, no dicking around on Open Government. I've been reluctant to do this in the past because I didn't want to bother the administration with trivialities, but I can't see other way to get unbiased treatment.

By all means if you feel it necessary, PM the Administration, however do remember that while we (And the Administration) might be trying to kowtow to your wishes and keep you happy, you are an individual amongst a forum of individuals. Something fair to you, isn't going to be fair to someone else and vice versa.

 

[Stryder]

for fucks sake can we just knock of the whiny little bitch convention.

Makes you wonder when Killjoy will turn up

 

[Bells]

At least the administrator will hear a different perspective, one which you don't want him to hear.

Psst..

Scroll down to the part where it says "Administrator"..

Every single complaint made is looked at by the administrators (especially Plazma). They can read through every post deleted by a moderator (and member) and view whether their actions are justified or not. So what different perspective do you wish to present to the Administrators of this site that they aren't already aware of?

Your cabal of moderators has a greater 'influence' on the administrator than I do. But now that I've lodged an official complaint about you, any banning of me won't go unnoticed. Have fun justifying why you would ban someone who posted criticism in a thread on Open Government which is meant to be devoted to feedback on moderation.

Trying to set yourself up as the martyr? Got that pyre and match ready?

Seriously dude, cut the melodramatics. All that's missing is the theme music from the Bold and the Beautiful and you with mascara running down your face with fake tears...

If you are banned, for whatever reason, it won't be because of your complaint against James or any of the other moderators. There are many things that can result in an instant ban. Creating a sock puppet after being permanently banned from this site is but one of them. Threatening members is another way to get an immediate ban. Breaching this site's rules constantly and ignoring all warnings is another way. I could go on, but I think you're getting my drift. So as long as you haven't done any of the above and adhere to the rules of this site, you shouldn't be banned. I mean, you aren't a sock puppet, are you? You haven't breached the rules of this site, have you? You haven't threatened anyone, have you?

 

[S.A.M.]

He was banned for complaining about moderators. and the tag line was as he said. It was in the Ban list.

In effect he was banned for being on topic on this thread, a thread started by James.

 

[Bells]

He was banned for complaining about moderators. and the tag line was as he said. It was in the Ban list.

In effect he was banned for being on topic on this thread, a thread started by James.

So asking about perceptions of the moderation of this site is the same as saying "post individual complaints about particular moderator of choice here"?

I guess I can see how that is on-topic.. somewhat.. Hmmm..

The OP asked to give an over-view of the moderation of this forum in general. Not have a bitch fest about the 'hated moderator of the day'.

 

[S.A.M.]

Ah I see, so when we give our perceptions of moderation on sciforums, we should be vague and non-specific, lumping everyone together?

Perhaps there should be a new TOC detailing how we should post/

 

[Bells]

Ah I see, so when we give our perceptions of moderation on sciforums, we should be vague and non-specific.

Perceptions is the same as filing complaints about particular moderators?

 

[S.A.M.]

If you don't want to know what members think about moderation, don't start a thread on it. But starting a thread on it and banning a member for having excessive perceptions is rather ludicrous, don't you think?

What next? We've already covered excessive perceptions of Jews and moderators. Gays? Liberals? Atheists?

The abuse of power is becoming ridiculous..

 

[copernicus66]

Psst..

Scroll down to the part where it says "Administrator"..

Every single complaint made is looked at by the administrators (especially Plazma). They can read through every post deleted by a moderator (and member) and view whether their actions are justified or not.

Do they read through every post in the thread to appreciate the context in which the post was delivered? Do they read through posts made in *other* threads to appreciate the past history of particular members and posters? Do they review the posts on all subforums to gain an appreciation of whether a rule is enforced in a consistent manner?

Somehow I doubt it.

So what different perspective do you wish to present to the Administrators of this site that they aren't already aware of?

My perspective. Surprisingly, interpretations of events can differ, especially depending on the context in which they are viewed.

For example, let's say I called a poster a windbag, and was warned for a breach of the personal attacks rule. Plazma might take a quick look at that post, go "Yep, it breaches the rules, nothing wrong here." and be done with it.

But let's go to the heart of the problem here. Many insults are hurled on this forum, by moderators themselves, and they are far worse than being called a 'windbag'. In fact, there is one particular member here who actively wishes for posters to die particularly violent deaths. And particular moderators have engaged in tag team bullying against members who were suffering from clinical depression.

This raises the question, why do those 'insults' go unnoticed, whereas the rather tame 'insult' I leveled at a particular individual punished? Could it be that they were a moderator? Could it be that I was causing waves by going against the establishment?

Trying to set yourself up as the martyr? Got that pyre and match ready?

I'm not martyr, I'm simply issuing my complaint to an administrator, as Stryder and you suggested. And now that I'm taking you up on that advice, you're still bitching? Wow, you really are 'one of them'.

Seriously dude, cut the melodramatics.

"LOCK YOUR SHIELDS. STAY AS ONE!"

If you are banned, for whatever reason, it won't be because of your complaint against James or any of the other moderators.

Funny, I was banned for simply offering up criticism of the moderation on sciforums.

Perhaps you'd like to highlight exactly where in the rules that it says that offering feedback on moderation on Open Government, in a thread DEDICATED to moderator behaviour, is a bannable offense?

There are many things that can result in an instant ban.

Going against the establishment?

So as long as you haven't done any of the above and adhere to the rules of this site, you shouldn't be banned.

Interesting. Lepus timidus was banned for dissent. Is it against the rules to offer negative feedback regarding moderation?

 

[copernicus66]

Perceptions is the same as filing complaints about particular moderators?

LOL. This is beyond hilarious. Do you even read through the stuff you type before posting it?

 

[Enmos]

Nothing much actually. What makes you think Plazma would devote his time to individual complaints? I've complained to him several times about Skinwalkers arbitrary moderation deleting any posts he does not endorse as "offtopic".

They are all the same, at the end of the day. Stryder and James are not the only ones. Note that all my complaints about them have been about inconsistency and biased moderation and all they do is made ad hom responses.

SAM isn't it a bit ironic that you are complaining about the moderators ?

 

[Enmos]

Going against the establishment?

No, keeping on whining about it for weeks on end.

 

[S.A.M.]

SAM isn't it a bit ironic that you are complaining about the moderators ?

Not really. I also did it when I was moderator. There are some excellent bitch fests in the mod forum too.

I see no difference if I am mod or not, if someone is acting like an arse, he's acting like an arse. Admin or mod, should not change the rules. After all, GWB was POTUS. Incompetence can reach any level. Pretending it does not exist will not change anything.

 

[Enmos]

Not really. I also did it when I was moderator. There are some excellent bitch fests in the mod forum too.

That's exactly what I mean.
You deleted some of my posts in the past as well, ones that I didn't consider off-topic. But I didn't bitch about it, did I ? On occasion I just PM-ed you to ask what your reasons were.

I see no difference if I am mod or not, if someone is acting like an arse, he's acting like an arse. Admin or mod, should not change the rules. After all, GWB was POTUS. Incompetence can reach any level. Pretending it does not exist will not change anything.

Yes, but you just admitted to doing it as well, when you were a mod. That is what I mean by ironic.

 

[S.A.M.]

That's exactly what I mean.
You deleted some of my posts in the past as well, ones that I didn't consider off-topic. But I didn't bitch about it, did I ? On occasion I just PM-ed you to ask what your reasons were.
Yes, but you just admitted to doing it as well, when you were a mod. That is what I mean by ironic.

Not at all, there is a difference between deleting posts and deleting posts while pretending to conform to a scientific method but endorsing your personal ideology. Hence I made specific complaints, outlining exactly what my problem was with Skins moderation. I always justified why I deleted certain posts if asked.

My problem with Skin is not that he deletes posts, but that he is unscientific and uses the religion forum to evangelise.

 

[Enmos]

There are some excellent bitch fests in the mod forum too.

I think they should be made public