Perceptions of sciforums moderation

Compared to other online forums, the moderation of sciforums is (tick all that apply)

  • not strict enough

    Votes: 9 20.9%

  • less strict

    Votes: 18 41.9%

  • equally as strict

    Votes: 6 14.0%

  • more strict

    Votes: 5 11.6%

  • too strict

    Votes: 1 2.3%

  • much less affected by the personal biases of moderators

    Votes: 4 9.3%

  • a little less affected by the personal biases of moderators

    Votes: 5 11.6%

  • about the same in terms of moderator bias

    Votes: 10 23.3%

  • a little more affected by the personal biases of moderators

    Votes: 7 16.3%

  • hopelessly affected by the personal biases of moderators

    Votes: 4 9.3%

  • applied arbitrarily by moderators without any clear guidelines

    Votes: 7 16.3%

  • applied somewhat more arbitrarily

    Votes: 9 20.9%

  • applied with about the same moderator discretion

    Votes: 7 16.3%

  • more strictly in accordance with the published rules

    Votes: 1 2.3%

  • always rigidly applied according to the rules

    Votes: 2 4.7%

  • hopelessly below par, even for unpaid volunteers

    Votes: 5 11.6%

  • somewhat less competent

    Votes: 4 9.3%

  • about the same in terms of moderator competence

    Votes: 9 20.9%

  • somewhat more competent

    Votes: 6 14.0%

  • very good, given that moderators are unpaid volunteers

    Votes: 21 48.8%

  • I do not wish to participate in this poll

    Votes: 3 7.0%
  • Total voters
    43
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
S.A.M. said:
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.
Click to expand...
Ok, I don't have any examples but I believe you were at least accused of that yourself.

S.A.M. said:
I always justified why I deleted certain posts if asked.
Click to expand...
That's true, although they weren't always that satisfying..
 
Enmos said:
Ok, I don't have any examples but I believe you were at least accused of that yourself.


That's true, although they weren't always that satisfying..
Click to expand...

Feel free to post any such incidents. I am very particular in my approach and will accept it if I was in error. In fact, I tend to err on the side of less moderation. So I would be extremely surprised if you could find an incident where I moderated to delete one point of view and present only the POV I endorse.
 
Yes I would agree with SAM. I think you were very good in handling different opinions. I have gone around and around with you on issues. I don't think I ever agreed with you. But you never deleted posts, lied, etc. You were always fair, dogmatic in your beliefs. But I dont ever recall you abusing your position.

You were good to send rules and educate posters. And that is how I view the roll of a good moderator...educate those that can be educated. Telling new folks to "like it or leave" as happened to me with the mod in question is probably not in the best interests of the Sciforum ownership. I would think the ownership would want to drive more people to their site...not drive them away.
 
Last edited:
S.A.M. said:
Feel free to post any such incidents. I am very particular in my approach and will accept it if I was in error. In fact, I tend to err on the side of less moderation. So I would be extremely surprised if you could find an incident where I moderated to delete one point of view and present only the POV I endorse.
Click to expand...

Like I said, I personally don't have any examples. All I know is that you were accused of it.
By the way, it wasn't my intention to criticize you. Just pointing out that this is yet another witch hunt. Nothing good will come of it anyway.
 
ElectricFetus said:
There are many #chans, I left a link explaining.
Click to expand...

I don't think you should put that link here, it contains links for pedophile materials.

Speaking about pedophile materials, I remember once Scott3x posted something like, "there is nothing wrong by being jerk-off by minors (children)", to which Skinwalker responded "wow, what a fucktard, bring that thought somewhere else", and then Tiassa deleted both of the posts.

Now, let see this post from this thread where Scott3x giving his opinion as a response to Enmos' question about why bashing Skinwalker:

scott3x said:
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.
Click to expand...

I found that ironic. Speaking about detrimental, which post give more detrimental effect to sciforums as a whole? The one doing personal attack or the one advocating pedophile in a "civil manner"? I think Tiassa shouldn't have just deleted the posts, but ban Scott3x as well. Being civil and complimenting several admins and influential moderators from time to time does not lessen the detrimental effect of some of his controversial posts.

I do not know much about Skinwalker activities, so my post perhaps is irrelevant to the topic at hands. Just thought that I'd like to comment to that particular Scott3x's post.
 
Last edited:
inzomnia said:
I don't think you should put that link here, it contains links for pedophile materials.

Speaking about pedophile materials, I remember once Scott3x posted something like, "there is nothing wrong by being jerk-off by minors (children)", to which Skinwalker responded "wow, what a fucktard, bring that thought somewhere else", and then Tiassa deleted both of the posts.

Now, let see this post from this thread where Scott3x giving his opinion as a response to Enmos' question about why bashing Skinwalker:



I found that ironic. Speaking about detrimental, which post give more detrimental effect to sciforums as a whole? The one doing personal attack or the one advocating pedophile in a "civil manner"? I think Tiassa shouldn't have just deleted the posts, but ban Scott3x as well. Being civil and complementing several admins and influential moderators from time to time does not lessen the detrimental effect of some of his controversial posts.

I do not know much about Skinwalker activities, so my post perhaps is irrelevant to the topic at hands. Just thought that I'd like to comment to that particular Scott3x's post.
Click to expand...

Ah Inzomnia.

I do <3 you!

:)
 
Inzomnia:Speaking about pedophile materials, I remember once Scott3x posted something like, "there is nothing wrong by being jerk-off by minors (children)", to which Skinwalker responded "wow, what a fucktard, bring that thought somewhere else", and then Tiassa deleted both of the posts.... I found that ironic. Speaking about detrimental, which post give more detrimental effect to sciforums as a whole? The one doing personal attack or the one advocating pedophile in a "civil manner"? I think Tiassa shouldn't have just deleted the posts, but ban Scott3x as well.

Please. Dont even get me started on that. I agree with you
 
Agreed, don't go down the route of those threads. Too many of them is literally going to cause a site policy change.
 
You don't need a policy change for that. And why does it have to take 'too many'? Those few were not enough?

Inzomnia I almost lost my mind over that thread it was crazymaking.
 
Lucysnow said:
You don't need a policy change for that. And why does it have to take 'too many'? Those few were not enough?

Inzomnia I almost lost my mind over that thread it was crazymaking.
Click to expand...

The problem with policy making is the Bureaucracy. A policy has to be written to be fair and not be open to misinterpretation. I mean it's all very well to say "If a poster posts promoting a particular illegal activity they will be permanently banned without hesitation." however this can be left to misinterpretation. I mean you have a number of people here that admit to taking recreational drugs, they would fall foul of such a policy, or if someone admitted they were going over the speed limit while driving, or watched a pirated film etc.

It's a typical logistics nightmare, especially with those posters amongst you that just love to appeal to what you see as authority. Like I pointed out before, Moderators are volunteers, we are here to try and keep the peace so no government regimes are necessary to take over the websites and shut any freedom of discussion down. I guess you can say we are the last hope for the internet staying free from such tyranny, fighting us is just going to hasten the internet's collapse.
 
Stryder said:
The problem with policy making is the Bureaucracy. A policy has to be written to be fair and not be open to misinterpretation. I mean it's all very well to say "If a poster posts promoting a particular illegal activity they will be permanently banned without hesitation." however this can be left to misinterpretation. I mean you have a number of people here that admit to taking recreational drugs, they would fall foul of such a policy, or if someone admitted they were going over the speed limit while driving, or watched a pirated film etc.

It's a typical logistics nightmare, especially with those posters amongst you that just love to appeal to what you see as authority. Like I pointed out before, Moderators are volunteers, we are here to try and keep the peace so no government regimes are necessary to take over the websites and shut any freedom of discussion down. I guess you can say we are the last hope for the internet staying free from such tyranny, fighting us is just going to hasten the internet's collapse.
Click to expand...

And I think that you folks/mods by and large do a good job of it. It is a largely thankless job...lots of hassles and few rewards.
 
Please, on the internet everything is just a few links away from pedophilia.

joepistole said:
And I think that you folks/mods by and large do a good job of it. It is a largely thankless job...lots of hassles and few rewards.
Click to expand...

What rewards? The joy of having power over someones else no matter how pathetic it is? For some people that all they need and no matter how much they are complained about or called a fascists it only arouses them more.
 
ElectricFetus said:
What rewards? The joy of having power over someones else no matter how pathetic it is? For some people that all they need and no matter how much they are complained about or called a fascists it only arouses them more.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I agree. I cannot think of any myself. But still the forum has some really good mods like SuperString. If he thinks someone is out of line, he counsels them. If the behaviors persist he takes actions. He welcomes new folks to the forums. I think he is an example of a perfect mod. And I suspect he is a very good executive. He certianly exhibits good management skills in forums he moderates. He is a teacher.
 
Stryder said:
The problem with policy making is the Bureaucracy. A policy has to be written to be fair and not be open to misinterpretation. I mean it's all very well to say "If a poster posts promoting a particular illegal activity they will be permanently banned without hesitation." however this can be left to misinterpretation. I mean you have a number of people here that admit to taking recreational drugs, they would fall foul of such a policy, or if someone admitted they were going over the speed limit while driving, or watched a pirated film etc.

It's a typical logistics nightmare, especially with those posters amongst you that just love to appeal to what you see as authority. Like I pointed out before, Moderators are volunteers, we are here to try and keep the peace so no government regimes are necessary to take over the websites and shut any freedom of discussion down. I guess you can say we are the last hope for the internet staying free from such tyranny, fighting us is just going to hasten the internet's collapse.
Click to expand...

But Stryder you don't need a policy change to address that particular issue. That whole saga in no way mirrors posts describing recreational drug use or speeding. There was something insidious about those 'objectively detached' threads and the three new members they seemed to attract. It comes down to the health and protection of the community at large and you don't need a new policy change to do that only close observation and common sense or what is called good judgement. I mean paedophilia has been a topic of discussion on these boards in the past and I have taken part in some of those discussions but it in no way mirrored what was going down in those threads.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top