Sound Off: Opinion Survey (April, 2005)

[Tiassa]

Sound Off - EM&J, April, 2005
Wanted: Your opinions

Every once in a while, I end up choosing to not act on occasional ideas that might (or might not) be of use to members, and even to guests or those who might encounter our corner of the Universe through search engines.

But usually, there's some personal frustration behind it, and that's no reason to go making changes in the way the forum operates. So in this, the first of a (potential) series of inquiries, I would ask your consideration of the following issues:

(1) Should the moderator create and give sticky-status a topic dedicated to the posting of informational links, including but not limited to ethical, moral, and judicial principles, theories, and definitions; vital, demographic, and thematically-relevant statistics; and encyclopedic or other reference resources? (Should we reserve a "useful links" topic?)

(2) Under what circumstances should multiple related topics be combined? (The question should not be construed as to preclude the answer, "None at all.")

(3) Is there any inherent obligation on the part of posting members to "be fair"? (Actually, skip this question in favor of the next two, as this one is hard to define concisely.)

(4) Speaking of inherent obligations: What do you expect of your moderator?

(5) And what do you expect of your fellow posters? (Let's not name names and point fingers so directly, please.)

(6) Parents: Would/Do you let your children view Sciforums?
(6a) Minors: Should your parents allow you to access Sciforums?​

Take your time, think it over. We can hold plenty more of these sessions, or not. We'll see what comes.

Thank ye kindly.

:m:

 

[JohnGalt]

hmm. My parents should allow access to it, but some things need to be restricted, or else they won't be too thrilled. The topic on gay adoption eventually turned into some description of "fucking someone's cornhole"(this is a quote). First, that is unnecessary in most any topic, let alone one concerning mainly gay adoption, not gay sex. I don't think someone should be kicked off or whatnot, but they need to realize some restraint is necessary.

I expect moderators to be active in posting and ideas, but not so in moderating. There job should be minimal, merely moving the occasional post that is off topic. I would also like to have a decent reason as to why threads are locked,as I don't understand why on most occasions.

The usefull links topic sounds fine, but I don't understand why. I guess I do, but I don't think it would be entirely necessary.

 

[whitewolf]

1. Yeah, sure. It's useful.
2. I think the rules say threads may be combined if they are discussing the same thing at the same time.
3. There are no inherent obligations.
4. I expect the moderators to be moderate.
5. I expect posters to be informative.

 

[SpyMoose]

1. Yes, I think this would be handy, though perhaps we could secure some sort of financial contribution from Google in exchange for not creating such a thread.

2. I think threads on a similar theme should be allowed to remain independent only if they can express a valid (to the moderators POV) reason for the separation to exist, such as a previous thread on the same topic having wandered or grown unwieldy and long, or a significant difference in the flavor of the discussion taking place.

4. I expect my moderator to act to remove posts or threads who's content are 95% vitriol or ad hom by volume; remove Spam; move off topic threads to appropriate forums; remind users of policies such as that of cut and pasting text from external sources and plagiarism; complement my avatar; be creative and insatiable in bed; ban anyone whom I instruct him to in PM; not to object when a thread moves off topic as long as the posters do not seem to mind; finally create a color coded system to highlight logical fallacies in, editing users posts accordingly.

5. I expect my fellow posters to be introspective before asserting that they "do not hate" so they may deliver an honest assessment of their current hate status. I expect them to understand that they must address conversation points directed at them multiple times by separate posters in order to maintain intellectual integrity. I except them to use a Microsoft word spell/grammar check level of proficiency with the English language. I expect them to be creative and insatiable in bed. I expect them to write multiple sentences in any given post to be sure that their ideas have been accurately communicated. I expect them to understand why some posters believe demonstratable reason is more important than the dogmas of any one of a myriad of religious faiths.

6. Had I children I would not allow them to view the sciforums. The presence of young children would be detrimental to the quality of arguments on the forums. Also the sort of demagoguery that frequently passes for argument on the forums could scar the poor child’s brain.

6a. As a hypothetical child I would want to do anything that my hypothetical parent from question six forbade me to do.

 

[SpyMoose]

finally create a color coded system to highlight logical fallacies in, editing users posts accordingly.

I wanted to quote this. This thread has been inactive for a while now and I wanted to make sure this suggestion stood out. I was kidding when I wrote it origonaly, but now I think it is a really good idea. Maybe you could try it out for a week.

 

[vslayer]

2 if you want

3 threads sholud be merged if they are follow ons, eg a poll added, a "what did you think of" thread

4 that they use their discretion in enforcing forum rules, eg, allows exceptions to the rules in cases where it would be of benefit to us

5 that they can debate without any personal attacks, or "ha-ha, i won"s

6a: NA
6b: i see no reason why not
[/QUOTE]

 

[kazakhan]

• No
• whitewolf already said it
• Not really.
• To only moderate when absolutely necessary.
• I do not like seeing personal jibes at people because of an idea or opinion. Attack the idea or opinion not the person.
• I wouldn't mind my son(12) reading sciforums but probably wouldn't like to see him posting.

I except them to use a Microsoft word spell/grammar check level of proficiency with the English language.

A good idea indeed

 

[Communist Hamster]

(1) Should the moderator create and give sticky-status a topic dedicated to the posting of informational links, including but not limited to ethical, moral, and judicial principles, theories, and definitions; vital, demographic, and thematically-relevant statistics; and encyclopedic or other reference resources? (Should we reserve a "useful links" topic?)

Yes, I think it's ok to want to shares useful links with each other.

(2) Under what circumstances should multiple related topics be combined? (The question should not be construed as to preclude the answer, "None at all.")

If all threads are continuing along the same vein of conversation

(3) Is there any inherent obligation on the part of posting members to "be fair"? (Actually, skip this question in favor of the next two, as this one is hard to define concisely.)

(4) Speaking of inherent obligations: What do you expect of your moderator?

To prevent threads escalating into flamewars, not to send valid threads to the cesspool and to get rid of unsuitable content quickly

(5) And what do you expect of your fellow posters? (Let's not name names and point fingers so directly, please.)

Not to post meaningless crap, spam and adverts

(6) Parents: Would/Do you let your children view Sciforums?

Yes, there is a lot of informative content here.

(6a) Minors: Should your parents allow you to access Sciforums?

Yes, it's very interesting.

 

[laughing weasel]

I want my fellow posters to argue primarily with facts and if they use opinions then state that they are feelings. I dislike attacks as post and feel sorry for the poor poster who acknowledges defeat by resorting to them especially if I am of a similar opinion. I would prefer the moderator not remove a post entirely. But if they have the time to remove the parts that have no place here. Leaving ********* to let the poster know that they have stepped over the line.

 

[tecoyah]

Sound Off - EM&J, April, 2005
Wanted: Your opinions

Every once in a while, I end up choosing to not act on occasional ideas that might (or might not) be of use to members, and even to guests or those who might encounter our corner of the Universe through search engines.

But usually, there's some personal frustration behind it, and that's no reason to go making changes in the way the forum operates. So in this, the first of a (potential) series of inquiries, I would ask your consideration of the following issues:

(1) Should the moderator create and give sticky-status a topic dedicated to the posting of informational links, including but not limited to ethical, moral, and judicial principles, theories, and definitions; vital, demographic, and thematically-relevant statistics; and encyclopedic or other reference resources? (Should we reserve a "useful links" topic?) These are only my opinions: A sticky should be reserved for threads that may be benefitial to the majority of members. This may be a notice/rule clarification/or useful Data. But, should above all be something that has some bearing on the function of the board.

(2) Under what circumstances should multiple related topics be combined? (The question should not be construed as to preclude the answer, "None at all.") Merged threads should be left to the Moderators judgement....that is after all why they are here. But a PM should be given to both thread starters indicating the change.

(3) Is there any inherent obligation on the part of posting members to "be fair"? (Actually, skip this question in favor of the next two, as this one is hard to define concisely.) I cant skip this, as it is relevant. Fairness is impossible to define, respect is not. From my short time here, I have seen quite a bit of disrespect thrown about.....and have begun to change my online personality to meet the beast head on.

(4) Speaking of inherent obligations: What do you expect of your moderator?
I would hope for even handed Moderation, and a backbone of titanium. To me the key to succesful Moderation of a community is the ability to stop a situation from becoming a problem. This is in no way easy but , can be done in many instances. Part of Moderation requires the occasional slap as well....and the ability to do so without bias, and to use the discipline to garner respect from members.
(5) And what do you expect of your fellow posters? (Let's not name names and point fingers so directly, please.) I expect nothing from other members.....but can hope for the chance to gain insight from them, isnt that why most of us are here?

(6) Parents: Would/Do you let your children view Sciforums?
(6a) Minors: Should your parents allow you to access Sciforums?​

Take your time, think it over. We can hold plenty more of these sessions, or not. We'll see what comes.

Thank ye kindly.

:m:

As requested....and a damn good Idea

 

[Bowser]

(1) Sure!

(2) Whenever

(3) You can always stalk them if it bothers you.

(4) To stay out of the way.

(5) Do what they want. Just don't stalk me.

(6) They are on Myspace.
(6a)

 

[Athelwulf]

(1) Should the moderator create and give sticky-status a topic dedicated to the posting of informational links, including but not limited to ethical, moral, and judicial principles, theories, and definitions; vital, demographic, and thematically-relevant statistics; and encyclopedic or other reference resources? (Should we reserve a "useful links" topic?)

This would be a great idea. The moderator could create the thread. Then regular members could contribute the links they think are necessary, and the moderator could add them to the original post and keep them organized.

(2) Under what circumstances should multiple related topics be combined? (The question should not be construed as to preclude the answer, "None at all.")

I think thread merging is definitely a good idea when the multiple threads in question are just about identical in topic. For other cases, the moderator's discretion would be good enough for me.

(3) Is there any inherent obligation on the part of posting members to "be fair"? (Actually, skip this question in favor of the next two, as this one is hard to define concisely.)

Well I'm not skipping it, so nyeh.

For my answer, I'll define 'to be fair' as 'not to engage in improper behavior while debating'. And my answer is: yes.

(4) Speaking of inherent obligations: What do you expect of your moderator?

I expect him or her not to be a distant entity; that is, I expect him or her to participate actively in discussions just like any other member. Also, although this is a given, I also expect him or her to perform his or her moderator duties adequately and fairly.

(5) And what do you expect of your fellow posters? (Let's not name names and point fingers so directly, please.)

I expect them to engage in proper behavior while debating. That is, they should try to avoid fallacies in logic, they shouldn't use ad hominem attacks, etc.

(6) Parents: Would/Do you let your children view Sciforums?
(6a) Minors: Should your parents allow you to access Sciforums?

I'm neither, but I'll answer both with: yes.

 

[Maurice Furlong]

#1- Yes
#2- The moderators discretion is acceptable to me
#3- "Fair" is a relative term, I believe that any poster that wants their opinion to be credible should adhere to giving their honest opinion, void of deciebtful insinuations, void of name calling and void of insults. Respectful statements and respectful disagreements will go along way to establishing "fair".
#4- I expect the moderator to use their authority to maintain a respectful exchange of opinions and encourage the acceptance of "thought provoking opinions".
#5- I expect the posters to respect the opinions stated, weather or not they agree. Allowing insulting attacks on other posters only degrades the thread itsself.
#6- I would let minor children participate, so they could have a variety of opinions to begin forming their own beliefs and ideas. Controling the minds of our youths by restricting the ideas they are exposed to leads to barriers and may lead to the idealistic based wars that have plagued mankind throughout history.
#6a- I am a parent.