What is wrong with the moderators?

[MetaKron]

The moderators pick fights and ban people for fighting back. That's a really low standard.

 

[visceral_instinct]

Yeah, right. If you don't want the mods having a go at you, use reason and not insults.

 

[shichimenshyo]

Yeah, right. If you don't want the mods having a go at you, use reason and not insults.

Good call

 

[spidergoat]

There is no such thing as "picking fights". Either you obey the rules or not. I do intentionally go after certain posters sometimes, but I think sometimes there are good reasons to do so. Also, we are often selected to be mods based on our level of participation here, so we are naturally going to be the most talkative.

 

[Enmos]

Haha, yeah.

Some people have only one X and a vagina...some have 3...

and some have 2 Xs and a penis.

lol yea... the wonderful world we live in

 

[James R]

MetaKron:

They interfere with freedom of speech.

Yes, they do.

sciforums is not, has never been, and never will be a free-for-all in terms of "free speech". There are site policies that limit speech here. Those policies are clearly displayed in a number of sticky threads in various subforums. Those policies exist in order to create and maintain an atmosphere in which useful discussions can take place in an environment of mutual respect and civility. People who find themselves unable to conduct a civil conversation are free to leave sciforums and find somewhere more amenable to their inclinations. If they push things, we'll even show them the door.

They close threads and delete messages concerning abuse of moderator powers. Some of them use their powers to push a feminist/sexist agenda.

Please note that a feminist agenda is not the same as a sexist agenda. You have made a category error.

You are also incorrect. sciforums has no policy of pushing a "feminist agenda". We do, however, have a policy which limits sexism, in the same way that we have a policy against racism, homophobia and other forms of hate speech.

Well, I finally found a statement of the rules, and they say that the moderators have the final say, no arguments will be entered into, blah blah blah. The problem is that several of the moderators have the habit of picking fights and then using their moderator powers against people who protest the way that they act. In the fights that they have been in the last few days, the moderators have been banning people who haven't actually broken any forum rules.

Please link to specific examples.

I have also seen moderator behavior like personal attacks, unnecessary threats, name-calling, false accusations of being off-topic, false reporting of non-existent violations of the forum rules. These are against the forum rules.

Please link to specific examples.

Did you read the rules and find out that there is no rule against sexist comments?

There is a rule against sexist comments.

The actual statement that more than one person tried to make was that women have the right to contribute to household expenses according to their capabilities, and that some of us do have the problem of living with women who won't.

So, don't live with women who don't. That's entirely up to you.

There was and still is no call to delete a thread about that. Certain moderators are attempting some kind of coup or something.

A coup seeks to overturn a government. The moderators are the government here.

In any case, I call for the moderators to show more tolerance and more integrity than they have been showing lately.

Tolerance of what, specifically? Sexism?

 

[MetaKron]

Where is the rule against sexism?

 

[James R]

When you register on sciforums, you are explicitly required to agree to a statement of forum policy, which says:

By agreeing to these rules, you warrant that you will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-oriented, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws.

The owners of SciForums.com reserve the right to remove, edit, move or close any thread for any reason.

"Sexually-oriented", combined with "hateful" means sexism.

 

[MetaKron]

James, that doesn't even make sense. "Sexually oriented" is not the same thing as "gender discrimination." Also, for a statement about a woman to be sexist, it has to accuse her of being that way because of her gender, rather than accuse her of being one woman who uses her gender as an excuse. Of course, loose definitions of sexism do serve a purpose, just one that is not appropriate for most forums. The "hateful" part is also not served when the statements are truthful.

Also, WHEN are you going to make it so that people can FIND the forum policies to re-read? Many people including myself have been here long enough that those policies have been revised, and I don't think the Wiki is current either.

 

[Stryder]

MetaKron,
how about:

"or otherwise violative of any laws"

Laws in my country make "sexual discrimination" illegal.

There is no point you nitpicking over whether a rule is to the letter or not.

Quite simply you've done something against the rules again, You've created a thread on the subject of moderators and yet again railroaded into another controversial thread that's resulted in closures and deletions. I'm closing this thread, One more post like this Meta and I'll have to ban you.