PDA

View Full Version : Excessive moderation



Pages : [1] 2

JohnD
2010-Feb-16, 01:17 PM
All,
This may not be the right thread, but I'm not allowed to post on the "Forum Rules and Information" forum.

I've seen, and been the victim of, some moderation recently, that IMHO was excessive. In particular, some mods seem to wish to prevent any thread drift at all - see the one about the Moon and Great Floods - and to be most pernickerty about any mention of alternative theories. And when I have posted, politely, about it, I have been told not to protest moderator decisions in a thread.

Two things on that:
1/ The Rules, as written by the BA himself, make no mention of thread drift.
2/ and the Rules don't say anythinfg about protesting mod decisions, on or off thread.
I'm glad to be corrected, but are some mods making rules up as they go along?

What's wrong with thread drift? It's what happens in any conversation. The only conversations in which it is not allowed are a debating society or a seminar. Either of which this board is not.
And where should I protest about a mod decision? Doing so in private to the mod themselves won't be helpful. It should be to a less involved moderator.

John

grant hutchison
2010-Feb-16, 01:34 PM
- see the one about the Moon and Great Floods - I presume, from internal evidence, that this (http://www.bautforum.com/space-astronomy-questions-answers/100551-moon-artificial-celestial.html) is the relevant thread.

Grant Hutchison

antoniseb
2010-Feb-16, 01:40 PM
... And where should I protest about a mod decision? Doing so in private to the mod themselves won't be helpful. It should be to a less involved moderator. ...

This is the place to post such a thing.

Tensor
2010-Feb-16, 01:59 PM
All,
This may not be the right thread, but I'm not allowed to post on the "Forum Rules and Information" forum.

I've seen, and been the victim of, some moderation recently, that IMHO was excessive. In particular, some mods seem to wish to prevent any thread drift at all - see the one about the Moon and Great Floods - and to be most pernickerty about any mention of alternative theories. And when I have posted, politely, about it, I have been told not to protest moderator decisions in a thread.

Two things on that:
1/ The Rules, as written by the BA himself, make no mention of thread drift.


2/ and the Rules don't say anythinfg about protesting mod decisions, on or off thread.

I'm glad to be corrected, but are some mods making rules up as they go along?

What's wrong with thread drift? It's what happens in any conversation. The only conversations in which it is not allowed are a debating society or a seminar. Either of which this board is not.
And where should I protest about a mod decision? Doing so in private to the mod themselves won't be helpful. It should be to a less involved moderator.

John

Note below, I think these cover just about all your concerns and puts to rest your claims that specific things aren't in the rules. Note especially the bolded.


16. Reporting Bad Posts
If you feel a post breaks one of these rules, please report it by clicking the 'report' button (the red triangle with the exclamation mark inside it, located at the top right hand side of every post). Do not talk about bad posts or anything else you consider to be inappropriate user behavior in the forum itself or suggest, speculate on, or threaten what the moderator response should be. All reported posts are reviewed by moderators or administrators, and are treated very seriously (so do not report frivolously). If you have concerns, please PM a moderator or administrator.

17. Moderator Actions

If there is a rule violation, then a moderator will take action. This may include: the deletion of a word or phrase (if it breaks the rules), the removal of an entire post (if it is beyond redemption, or if it's a spam, etc.), the merging of a new thread with an existing one on the same topic, the closing of a thread if it wanders too far off-topic or gets too heated, a gentle warning to a user or users, a not-so-gentle-warning, and as a last resort, the banning of a user. This banning may be temporary or permanent, as outlined above. If a moderator gives you advice, we advise you to take it.

If you disagree with a moderator action, then PM or email the moderator, a different moderator, or an administrator. If it's a post by a moderator that you disagree with, you can report the post using the usual mechanism. We will review the case and take action as needed.

HenrikOlsen
2010-Feb-16, 02:37 PM
Seeing that it was a thread in Q&A you should perhaps note that thread drift has been known to bring out the ATM crowd hoping to piggyback their idea on a legitimate thread, it's quite possible the mods tried to prevent this by preventing topic drift.

Also, Q&A is a better learning tool when you can search for a subject and expect to have the thread actually be about that subject.

Glom
2010-Feb-16, 02:51 PM
All reported posts are reviewed by moderators or administrators, and are treated very seriously (so do not report frivolously).

what constitutes frivalous? Because I reported a post via the mechanism purely because it looked like it was in he wrong forum and suggested it be moved but I never heard back nor was the thread moved. Was that frivalous?

antoniseb
2010-Feb-16, 03:12 PM
what constitutes frivalous? Because I reported a post via the mechanism purely because it looked like it was in he wrong forum and suggested it be moved but I never heard back nor was the thread moved. Was that frivalous?

No, that was not frivolous. That was a good use of the system. Sometimes such a request comes at a bad time, other times we look at it and it looks like its not clear whether it should move or not. By frivolous, we're talking about jokes, or a few people who are pushing each others' buttons and reporting everything the others post.

01101001
2010-Feb-16, 03:15 PM
Because I reported a post via the mechanism purely because it looked like it was in he wrong forum and suggested it be moved but I never heard back nor was the thread moved. Was that frivalous?

Without having seen it, probably not. Moderators don't always agree with a report or take the action you expect. (And, mods, personally, I'd prefer not hearing back if there is only action to report or lack thereof. I get enough PMs.) That doesn't mean you were not serious about the report. I'd expect you'd get some feedback if your reports were suspected of being frivolous. Don't worry about it until it's time to worry about it.

Otherworldly
2010-Feb-16, 03:41 PM
If a moderator gives you advice, we advise you to take it.

Well that's rather recursive.

antoniseb
2010-Feb-16, 04:20 PM
Well that's rather recursive.
One of the themes of Godel, Escher, Bach was that no set of rules and meta-rules could be complete, and on close examination, all had some recursion. We are not above all that.

Jim
2010-Feb-16, 04:28 PM
... What's wrong with thread drift? It's what happens in any conversation. The only conversations in which it is not allowed are a debating society or a seminar. Either of which this board is not.
...

Some fora are very conversational in nature (OTB and SMA spring quickly to mind) and a great deal of latitude is allowed for "thread drift." However, some fora (ATM, CT, Q&A...) are more closely aligned with debates or seminars - targeted learning experiences - and should stay on topic.

JohnD
2010-Feb-16, 06:09 PM
OK, mea culpa, Rule 17 Re: protesting mod rulings.
I should know the rules better.
"learn something every day"!

But I retain my point about a taint of excessive control creeping in. It worries me. As I've said before, I'm with Voltaire on the right to say things, even if he didn't say it. And I've made my case for letting conversation flow.

John

korjik
2010-Feb-16, 06:52 PM
It could have been as simple as the OP reporting the post because they did not think it was relevant and did not want it discussed on their thread.

If you want to drift a thread, make a new one instead.

01101001
2010-Feb-17, 02:22 AM
As I've said before, I'm with Voltaire on the right to say things, even if he didn't say it. And I've made my case for letting conversation flow.

I will defend to the death M. Voltaire's right to determine the manner in which you may use the discussion forum he created, maintains, and finances.

JohnD
2010-Feb-17, 08:41 PM
ntx

JohnD
2010-Feb-17, 08:48 PM
It could have been as simple as the OP reporting the post because they did not think it was relevant and did not want it discussed on their thread.

Does the OP have ownership rights on the thread they started?
I've started threads here, asking in the OP for focussed contributions, to help another poster but to no avail. No knight-moderator rode to my assistance, protecting the purity of the thread with the shield of conformity and the sword of discipline.

John

NEOWatcher
2010-Feb-17, 08:55 PM
ntx
Interesting, this post started with an analogy that I was going to question?


I've started threads here, asking in the OP for focussed contributions, to help another poster but to no avail. No knight-moderator rode to my assistance, protecting the purity of the thread with the shield of conformity and the sword of discipline.
Were you expecting them to just find the comments, or did you report it?
Was the derail obvious? If not was the problem explained?

I've seen the mods react to derails without a report, but it's usually when the mod themselves are interested in the thread. Visibility to the problem can change the outcome dramatically. So will the way it's described.

Moose
2010-Feb-17, 09:18 PM
Generally, we'll act to prevent topic drift under four circumstances: if the OP-question hasn't been adequately answered, if the thread-jack is genuinely disruptive (especially if intentional), if the topic's drift is likely to cause overheated posts, or if the drifting is taking the topic to forbidden waters.

The specific forum and thread will matter too. We'll generally let threads in SMaL and OTB drift further than we would in Q&A or ATM.

But ultimately, we have to see the thread before we can evaluate it. And we have to have time to deal with it. Some issues just aren't emergencies.

PetersCreek
2010-Feb-17, 09:26 PM
As I've said before, I'm with Voltaire on the right to say things, even if he didn't say it. And I've made my case for letting conversation flow.

In spite of the quote above, this isn't directed at anyone in particular. I've seen a few comments loaded with noble words such as "freedom", "rights", and "free speech". As has been said before in response to comments like these, I say again that free speech rights are not without natural limits. In this case, they are limited by the ownership rights of our BAUT benefactors. We can't reasonably claim a right to say anything we want in any and every place we want to. They are not obligated to provide us a venue or otherwise subsidize our free speech. If they wish to allow us that opportunity, it is their right to define the limits within which we may do so. It's their site, their money, and their rules. Our rights do not trump theirs in this regard.

Further, free speech is not necessarily free of social consequences. When each of us registered for membership on this privately-owned board, we agreed to the terms of membership...including the requirement to abide by the rules. If we later decide to violate those rules in the name of free speech, we should be fully prepared for the potential consequences of doing so, whether it's a warning, infraction, suspension, or banishment.

Jim
2010-Feb-17, 10:06 PM
... The specific forum and thread will matter too. We'll generally let threads in SMaL and OTB drift further than we would in Q&A or ATM. ...

I seem to recall reading that somewhere before.

Moose
2010-Feb-17, 10:13 PM
Heh, there isn't a single comment in this thread that hasn't been repeated almost verbatim a dozen times or more. Nearly all of my previous post was copy-pastaed from stuff I wrote last summer.

Tensor
2010-Feb-17, 10:50 PM
Heh, there isn't a single comment in this thread that hasn't been repeated almost verbatim a dozen times or more. Nearly all of my previous post was copy-pastaed from stuff I wrote last summer.

Yeah, that's what you get for being around here such a long time.

tommac
2010-Feb-17, 11:31 PM
The excessive moderation has gotten better as of late. Thanks guys.

EDG
2010-Feb-17, 11:58 PM
Generally, we'll act to prevent topic drift under four circumstances: if the OP-question hasn't been adequately answered, if the thread-jack is genuinely disruptive (especially if intentional), if the topic's drift is likely to cause overheated posts, or if the drifting is taking the topic to forbidden waters.

The "HP Lovecraft on Science" thread in Small Media has long since devolved into an argument between two people, one of whom has been told twice by a moderator (several pages back) about how he should stop being involved in the thread.

HenrikOlsen
2010-Feb-18, 12:01 AM
So did you report it so they had a chance to know it wasn't working?

EDG
2010-Feb-18, 12:36 AM
So did you report it so they had a chance to know it wasn't working?

Me? Several times. First couple of times were I guess what made them give the warnings to KenG, but they don't appear to be doing anything about it now though.

korjik
2010-Feb-18, 01:15 AM
Me? Several times. First couple of times were I guess what made them give the warnings to KenG, but they don't appear to be doing anything about it now though.

Did you report it again?

Even if you did, SMaL does have a bit lower priority.

EDG
2010-Feb-18, 01:47 AM
Did you report it again?

Yep.


Even if you did, SMaL does have a bit lower priority.

Maybe so, but KenG seems to have a history of being argumentative for its own sake. It's up to the Mods anyway, but I'm just surprised that they warn the guy twice about not posting there, then let him get away with making up his own justifications for continuing to post there.

slang
2010-Feb-18, 01:50 AM
So did you contact the moderator that issued the warning? Asked him why no further action was taken?

PetersCreek
2010-Feb-18, 02:45 AM
Reminder: Rule 16 disallows public complaints about specific problem posts and/or members. A moderator discussion thread is open on the matter. I don't immediately recall it's current status but I'll give it a nudge.

BigDon
2010-Feb-18, 07:10 AM
Why do I think I'm the only one here who looks at this like a football game? You read the rules for posting here.You commit a foul and you get flagged on it. Some are flagrant fouls like face masking and sometimes you just get drawn offsides by a motion from the other team. Both are fouls. I don't take it personally.

I'm a grown man, I know when I'm pushing it and I only grumble when I'm surprised something was misconstrued as badly as it was, on occasion. I'm not bragging but I've been suspended by both Toseek and Anton. The first one I lost my temper with extremists and deserved the heave-ho, the second I feel was a misunderstanding, but what? It's past tense now, water under a duck's back and all that.

Peter'screek here has dinged me twice since November for language violations. (And Toseek twice in one shot) I know why the language rules are in place, but I've been a bachlor too long (16 years) and I've lost a lot of the domestication the ex imparted on me, so I slip* on occasion.

And you should hear the mouths of some of the guys I worked with. I thought sailors had potty mouths. Try folks that have done ten and twelve year stretchs in San Quentin. Hard to believe they eat with that mouth, and all that. (And they tend to bob back and forth when they talk to you. Seen more than one do that.)

Part of the job of senior guys on moving crews is to remind the younger guys that when it comes to language, the client's house isn't a bar. Though sometimes when one of the authority figures, like a driver, let's rip with a particularly sulferous blasphemy as only running a moving crew could provoke a body to do, I have been known to pause and say, "You know, Keats would have said that differently."

Every time, that got me a harsh look followed by laughter once it sank in.



*Scott, I've found that glueing little duck decals on the ends of my fingers prevents further slippage.

Gillianren
2010-Feb-18, 07:21 AM
Not enough people are familiar with Keats, alas--I'm glad you are.

Glom
2010-Feb-18, 07:36 AM
I know why the language rules are in place, but I've been a bachlor too long (16 years) and I've lost a lot of the domestication the ex imparted on me, so I slip* on occasion.

You try working for a year offshore and then talk to me about losing the domesticated dialect. The offshore dialect would be shocking to some people here. Yet everyone is really, really nice (at least on the platform I worked) so the meaning of words changes. You stop considering such language as automatically profane purely by virtue of its vocabulary because, well, it isn't, at least not in any meaningful sense of the word. They aren't being rude and neither are they insulting any deity.

It does rather make culture clashes more likely.

EDG
2010-Feb-18, 08:40 AM
Reminder: Rule 16 disallows public complaints about specific problem posts and/or members. A moderator discussion thread is open on the matter. I don't immediately recall it's current status but I'll give it a nudge.

Well, that's good to know, I'll drop the subject here then.

01101001
2010-Feb-18, 02:01 PM
The excessive moderation has gotten better as of late. Thanks guys.

I think you mean your perception of excessive moderation has improved.

Otherworldly
2010-Feb-18, 02:07 PM
Though sometimes when one of the authority figures, like a driver, let's rip with a particularly sulferous blasphemy as only running a moving crew could provoke a body to do, I have been known to pause and say, "You know, Keats would have said that differently."

Maybe Keats would have said it exactly the same way, were he running a moving crew :)

mahesh
2010-Feb-18, 03:20 PM
I love the way you say things / write, BD.

captain swoop
2010-Feb-18, 05:34 PM
Maybe Keats would have said it exactly the same way, were he running a moving crew :)

Or working with a Stage Crew with 4 articulated trailers full of sound and light to take down and get into flight cases before they can have a beer.

dgavin
2010-Feb-18, 08:04 PM
*climbs onto a soap box*

In support of the moderators, I've found neitheir thier moderation to be excessive, or lacking.

Point in fact I've been modded myself twice atleast for stepping over the bound of decorum. (albeit one was justifiable, but not excusable).

JohnD,

In the case of your original sited example thread, a person was repeatedly bringing religion into it. And yes "Great Flood" quoted like it was is religion. The moderators asked him to stop once, he didn't so they took action.

That was quite appropriate.

Also the Purpose of Q&A is to answer a question, usually scientifically. The thread was continualy drifting into the realms of alternate theories that were only losely related to the origianl OP question, and were not contrubting to the direct answering of said question.

A more stern term to use here is it was being subtly hijacked, which is also against the rules of this forum. On BAUT, One is not allowed to take an alternate gravity thread an redirect it into a geology discussion.

Again the Moderators were properly enforcing the rules, and were being kind about it by calling it "drift", instead of just locking the thread as it was being hijacked. Which if they had locked the thread they still would have been in the right.

The plain and simple truth is, is that BAUT is not a free speach forum, it is a science/space science forum, with strict guidelines on disscussing any item that is not science (ATM, CT, AltSci).

Being a science forum means if you say something here, you also need to be prepared to back it up with real evidence. Which is the #1 rule violation I see on both the CT and ATM forums, sometimes in Q&A also; and probably the major source of a lot of the percieved excessive moderation.

When point in fact, the Moderators have been doing thier jobs properly. And Thanks for that Mods!

*climbs down of soap box*

JohnD
2010-Feb-18, 08:45 PM
Yes, I'm complaining about a tendency, as I see it, towards excess control that is minor in the larger scheme of things.
There has to be some control, we all may have been at the wrong end (and dare I say the right end?) of inflammatory exchanges via a message board or emails. Moderation is a necessary evil, but one that msut be critically assessed from time to time, like a police force or a system of law.

Please have a look at the thread which lead me to raise this question:
http://www.bautforum.com/space-astronomy-questions-answers/100551-moon-artificial-celestial.html
You can see the sequence for yourself, but the OP, playtime 2010, asked if the Moon was artificial and associated with the Great Flood. He backed up his assertion with a rather old book. Moderator Sticks offered him the name of a more modern book and gave him a warning about straying into religion.
The OP then posted, "But now I cannot explain that why the Great Flood came from the same direction? And according to the stories of the Great Flood, when the flood came quickly, and went away quickly like it came? Was there any celestials' gravity effected the earth?"
and Moderator Swift came down like a ton of unobtanium, quoting Sticks and saying that playtime had been "warned once not to advocate Against the Mainstream or religious ideas in this thread. The idea of "The Great Flood" is such an idea."

That, I suggest is a rather large assertion of association. Playtime had not mentioned religion, the Bible or any Alternative Theory. The discussion proceeded along the line of historical, archeological or geological Great Floods, until Sticks came in, declaring thread drift and that further posters must confine themsleves to the origin of the Moon. That any theory of the origin of the Moon other than strictly astronomical ones would automatically be ATM must have escaped him.

Which brought me in, asking why it was forbidden to discuss Great Floods in the strictly conventional terms that had been used.

So two Mods were involved, both imputing associations to previous threads and posters that just weren't there.

But recognising my first statement above, I withdraw the "excessive" moderation allegation, and substitute "over-zealous". Please mods, let the thread roll, until the course is clear before exerting your large and necessary role.

John

PS I went to the website that playtime signs off with, http://watchsky.weblog.com/ , in case the mods found a clue there about playtime's thinking, and known it to be antiscience, religious or ATM. The site isn't, it celebrates playtime's first sun eclipse, with his own (?) photos. Moreover, he's Chinese, so much allowance should have been made for English as a Foreign Language. J.

cm10
2010-Feb-18, 11:17 PM
Good day,

This site is one that I visit daily. I love astronomy and visiting here daily has taught me a lot over the past few years so I can really appreciate what you have going on here. But at the same time I must say that I agree with JohnD. As someone who sits back and reads the interactions between the people that post of this board I am often left shaking my head at the actions of some of the moderators and regular posters here. Some of it is downright rude and embarrassing.

Now I know that you have a set of rules that all must abide by and that is cool. I can understand why you would want that. But what I don't understand is how so many people can be given power here, and then seemingly pick and choose when they want to flex said power. I won't mention any names but I get the sense that some moderators patrol threads just looking to start trouble and pick fights, because they add nothing else to this board. There are a heck of a lot of people that sign up to this board, post a few times, and then are never heard from again. Granted, some present an argument and then flee before stating their case properly. But most of the time it is someone that is looking for a little friendly conversation and they are usually met with an attitude by a group of long term posters or a moderator, or both that make them feel stupid. It happens all the time, and not just in the ATM and Conspiracy Theory sections. Lets not forget that there are a lot of questions still unanswered in the Universe, and just because you can search it out on Wikipedia, does necessarily make it a true fact.

Like I stated before, I love this place and would regularily contribute here, but there are a few too many sheriffs around looking for trouble. I can only hope that one day you decide to fix your rules (this is 2010 after all), start treating your newer members the same as you do your older ones, and get rid of a few of these horrible moderators because this board is a terrific idea. But the execution is very poor. You can disagree all you want to. I don't really care. It's just my opinion.

Thanks

tommac
2010-Feb-18, 11:56 PM
I think you mean your perception of excessive moderation has improved.

Well it depends on how you look at it I guess.

01101001
2010-Feb-19, 02:29 AM
Well it depends on how you look at it I guess.

Well, sure. For instance, if someone thanked me for lessening my advocating of nonsense in Q&A, I doubt I would be grateful.

That would be backhanded.

DrRocket
2010-Feb-19, 03:17 AM
Has anyone stopped to think that "excessive moderation" is rather unusual phrase, some might say self-contradictory ?

Swift
2010-Feb-19, 03:18 AM
Has anyone stopped to think that "excessive moderation" is rather unusual phrase, some might say self-contradictory ?
:lol:

Maybe I have been excessively moderate and should try to be more extreme in the future. ;)

Tensor
2010-Feb-19, 03:24 AM
:lol:

Maybe I have been excessively moderate and should try to be more extreme in the future. ;)

Why don't you try being moderately excessive?

DrRocket
2010-Feb-19, 03:38 AM
:lol:

Maybe I have been excessively moderate and should try to be more extreme in the future. ;)

Presumably, you would then be extremely moderate.

Is "extremely moderate" more or less moderate than "excessively moderate"? Either sounds a bit stodgy.

Tensor's "moderately excessive" is qualitatively different, and ought to be a lot more fun.

chrlzs
2010-Feb-19, 03:51 AM
I think excess is good.

But only in moderation, of course.


Sorry.

ToSeek
2010-Feb-19, 03:59 AM
Moderation in all things, including moderation.

chrlzs
2010-Feb-19, 04:22 AM
BTW, When I saw the title, I thought this might be about the current state of the CT Forum, which seems to have reached a rather low point to put it mildly..

Are there no conspiracies left? No CT-er's willing to enter the arena? Are we just too tough? :mad:

Otherworldly
2010-Feb-19, 04:25 AM
BTW, When I saw the title, I thought this might be about the current state of the CT Forum, which seems to have reached a rather low point to put it mildly..

Are there no conspiracies left? No CT-er's willing to enter the arena? Are we just too tough? :mad:

Well, I could try one. Is one required to believe one's own conspiracy theories in order to post them there?

chrlzs
2010-Feb-19, 04:55 AM
Well, I could try one. Is one required to believe one's own conspiracy theories in order to post them there?

Well, I guess as long as you can support it to some extent, even if you don't believe in it, then why not? I must confess to being tempted to do that exact same thing - is that a form of trolling?

It's more playing the devil's advocate, I reckon. :)

Otherworldly
2010-Feb-19, 04:58 AM
is that a form of trolling?

I think it would qualify - posting solely for the purpose of provoking a reaction.

But now that I have mentioned it here, everyone (or at least everyone who read this thread) would know it isn't genuine. Maybe it wouldn't be trolling then.

Tobin Dax
2010-Feb-19, 05:25 AM
I've been wanting to make puns in this thread for days, but have held back. Then a *moderator* has to go and do it first. :mad: This is what I get for being good? Of course, I've been here long enough to know better. :lol:

grant hutchison
2010-Feb-19, 11:47 AM
Is "extremely moderate" more or less moderate than "excessively moderate"?There a remote-ish hill in Scotland I once saw described in a guidebook as "infrequently frequented". We passed a bit of time on the long walk in to climb it, musing on whether "infrequently frequented" was better or worse than "frequently unfrequented".

Grant Hutchison

aastrotech
2010-Feb-19, 12:12 PM
Back to the topic. Maybe the OP realized that a title like "moderator abuse (ht*tp://www.enc*yclopediadramatica.co*m/Mo*derator)" would have gotten this thread shut down too quickly. But to put it in a nutshell; The moderators here seem to be so socialy inept and ignorant that they don't know that moderator abuse (ht*tp://w*ww.encyclopedi*adramatica.com/Mode*rator) is so common on message fora that it is easily recognisable (ht*tp://ww*w.encyclopediadram*atica.com/Mo*derator). I guess like spam and other banes of the internet abusive moderators just have to be put up with.


Clicking on these links to encyclopedia dramatica will open other unwanted windows.
tusenfem


pzkpfw: I've broken the link on purpose as a member reports possible malware. If one really wants to go to that link, just remove the asterisks.

Tensor
2010-Feb-19, 12:35 PM
I guess like spam and other banes of the internet abusive moderators just have to be put up with.

Yeah, just like the many posters here who don't add anything to the forum except for the whining and the belittling the volunteer moderators for doing the best job they can. Fortunately, unlike those people in the previous sentence, I haven't noticed any abusive moderators here.

BetaDust
2010-Feb-19, 12:58 PM
Back to the topic. Maybe the OP realized that a title like "moderator abuse (http://w*ww.encyclopediadram*atica.co*m/M*oderator)" would have gotten this thread shut down too quickly. But to put it in a nutshell; The moderators here seem to be so socialy inept and ignorant that they don't know that moderator abuse (http://w*ww.encycl*opediadramatica.co*m/Mod*erator) is so common on message fora that it is easily recognisable (htt*p://ww*w.encycl*opediadramatica.com/Moder*ator). I guess like spam and other banes of the internet abusive moderators just have to be put up with.


Clicking on these links to encyclopedia dramatica will open other unwanted windows.
tusenfem


All 3 links go to the same article here: encyclopaedia dramatica: Moderator. (http://ww*w.encyclop*ediadramatica.co*m/Mod*erator) ***Warning!*** A lot of foul language in that article.


--Dennis


pzkpfw: I've broken the link on purpose as a member reports possible malware. If one really wants to go to that link, just remove the asterisks.

Glom
2010-Feb-19, 01:00 PM
It's blocked by websense too.

Tensor
2010-Feb-19, 01:25 PM
Clicking on these links to encyclopedia dramatica will open other unwanted windows.
tusenfem


It does? I didn't notice any extra window......oh wait, I have a Mac. Never mind.

captain swoop
2010-Feb-19, 01:26 PM
As always, if you think a Moderator is being abusive in word or action then report it. Either to anther Mod or one of the board Admins.

Swift
2010-Feb-19, 03:24 PM
The moderators here seem to be so socialy inept and ignorant that they don't know that moderator abuse (http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Moderator) is so common on message fora that it is easily recognisable (http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Moderator).
I might be socially inept and ignorant, but I think personal attacks on any group of our members, even moderators, are against our rules. Might be time for some appropriate moderation, and some use of the infraction system.

And linking to websites with adult language, and not posting some sort of warning is something else we frown on.

Otherworldly
2010-Feb-19, 03:30 PM
I might be socially inept and ignorant

I know I am, but I'm not a moderator, so it must be a necessary condition, but not a sufficient condition.

Paul Beardsley
2010-Feb-19, 03:40 PM
I guess like spam and other banes of the internet abusive moderators just have to be put up with.
Spam is something I have to put up with. But abusive moderators - nope, never been a problem for me. Must be visiting the wrong boards.

But posters harping on about the same thing for months on end without any supporting evidence - yes, that's something a lot of us have to put up with.

Swift
2010-Feb-19, 03:44 PM
OK, I've just about had enough of this thread and it is about a thread-width from being closed. If you have anything to contribute with regard to the OP, that's fine. But let's drop any further comments either in favor of or opposed to any specific members.

BigDon
2010-Feb-19, 04:14 PM
Swift. is there really anymore to be said here?

Somebody's going to garner weinie points sometime today in this thread, you just know it.

Swift
2010-Feb-19, 04:40 PM
Swift. is there really anymore to be said here?

I suspect not. If there is nothing more to be said, the best outcome, as far as I'm concerned, would be for nothing to be said and for this thread to just fade away. It avoids that whole "you closed that thread before I posted my very important contribution" problem.

Glom
2010-Feb-19, 05:31 PM
The one indisputable superior policy here is to take action against the poster rather than the post for points of order offenses like hijacks or more mild incivility. Other places just delete them, which interrupts the flow of the thread especially when the post contains stuff that is proper.

HenrikOlsen
2010-Feb-19, 06:09 PM
Swift. is there really anymore to be said here?

Somebody's going to garner weinie points sometime today in this thread, you just know it.
Isn't it whiner points that are getting accumulated by these threads? :)

mugaliens
2010-Feb-19, 08:23 PM
The one indisputable superior policy here is to take action against the poster rather than the post for points of order offenses like hijacks or more mild incivility. Other places just delete them, which interrupts the flow of the thread especially when the post contains stuff that is proper.

Only if they've already been quoted. Otherwise, it's like passing through a tree that was never there...

danscope
2010-Feb-19, 08:35 PM
There is always a learning curve when you step on board of a civilized
forum such as this one. You will have to moderate your ego, and try to stick with the facts. Of course we will disagree with many of the concepts advanced here, especially because we have a collective youth engaged in such advanced topics, and considering their experience ,they are sure to enjoy their exasperations. This is a good place for them to mature and gain for themselves the talents which will serve them well now and in the future.
Advancing an idea in the light of scrutiny is never easy or readily accepted.
Know that in advance. But don't take out your frustrations with 'ready acceptance' on individuals. That tempts chaos. It remains our luxury to have moderators who will lean on us all if we stray. I welcome their attention and applaude their time and efforts. I have seen the products of unmoderated boards. It gets ugly fast.
We have a nice place here. And cheers to our moderators for the good works they do. Best regards to them, always.

Dan

Centaur
2010-Feb-19, 08:43 PM
Iím briefly back after having been banned for three days with the concurrence of the bad astronomer himself for my comments. They were in post #47 of the locked thread in the question and answers forum in which a 16-year-old Chinese boy asked if the Moon were artificial and caused a great flood. What could be more appropriate subjects for a ďbad astronomyĒ forum? Discussion was going along fine with no arguments, just people adding pieces of information for the enlightenment of others. Then overly officious moderators started sticking their noses into the otherwise friendly conversation. They claimed the thread was drifting due to explanations of the causes of floods rather than the alleged artificiality of the Moon. However, the OP had asked about the Moon-Great Flood relationship in his initial post. So members were correcting some obviously ďbad astronomyĒ notions.

The moderators upset some very conscientious and scientifically minded participants with their meddling. There were certainly no trolls or woo woos involved. The moderators became indignant about participants answering criticisms the moderators made against them in the same medium in which they were originally made. I felt compelled to defend a member being reprimanded by complaining myself. I implied that we were in a free society and should not be subjected to inquisition-like policy enforcement in which public criticism of supposed authorities is squelched. For that it was deemed I had broken rules about discussing politics and religion and must immediately be banned. If the moderators hadnít interfered, no one in that thread would have written anything that might have led to punishments. Rather than solving problems, moderators were the source of them.

In my 64 years I had never previously been officially rebuked by anyone anywhere. Not in school, the army, workplaces, businesses, highways or numerous internet message boards. Iíve never even been given notices of warning (and a personal one was not provided here). If I had been, my late mother would have skinned me alive! Sorry, Mom, but occasionally principle must prevail.

In business management school we were taught that a companyís policies were never to be considered rigid. A good manager should know when to be flexible and to employ discretion rather than falling back on ďthe rules are the rulesĒ. Of course we all have come up against prissy mid-level officials who rely on that excuse. Unlike many other message boards, the moderators here seem inflexible and intent on finding and punishing even the slightest appearance of infractions. Thatís hardly in the spirit of scientific inquiry. Perhaps they are not to be blamed. If they have a supervisor who insists they try to unearth every possible rule violation with no allowance for the application of common sense, then they are relatively blameless.

For those of you whoíve appreciated my posts providing alerts and related essays whenever Iíve created new graphical previews of astronomical events, Iíll still be posting on other astronomical message boards. I hope to meet there many of the good friends Iíve made here. My alias is always Centaur with the same avatar. In any event, I hope the Bad Astronomer has continued success in his otherwise fine efforts to debunk woo woo misconceptions, and wish perpetually clear skies and congenial discussion companions for everyone.

ToSeek
2010-Feb-19, 08:59 PM
Iím briefly back after having been banned for three days with the concurrence of the bad astronomer himself for my comments.

This phrase is kind of ambiguous. If you mean the Bad Astronomer concurred in your suspension, that is incorrect. If you mean that your sentiments concur with those of the BA, then that is quite possibly correct, but irrelevant. The BA talks about a lot of issues on his blog that he himself would be cautioned for (based on the standards he himself established for this forum) were he to bring them up here.

As for the general issue, a suspension for what appears to be a first offense is harsh, and I apologize for that. Overall, though, the handling of that thread seems reasonable to me, if somewhat on the strict side given that the OP was a newbie and English is probably not his primary language.

Centaur
2010-Feb-19, 09:18 PM
ToSeek, I thank you for your reasonable response and apology. To clarify, I did indeed mean that the Bad Astronomer concurred with the moderatorsí actions. Since while banned I was unable to communicate with the moderators, I e-mailed Phil Plait directly. Below is pasted a sentence from one of his replies, which essentially sums up his position in the matter.

The moderators acted according to the procedures set out and which have been made clear to everyone. I support their decisions. -Phil

slang
2010-Feb-19, 10:00 PM
The moderators acted according to the procedures set out and which have been made clear to everyone. I support their decisions. -Phil

And that nicely puts to rest (even more) the sentiment seen here a couple of times that "UT" mods supposedly have "taken over" against BA's wishes, or something to that effect.

As for closing this thread to prevent w[something] points, a new thread would just pop up. Give it a couple of weeks.

JohnD
2010-Feb-19, 10:50 PM
I called this thread "Excessive moderation" with no thought of using "moderator abuse". I have not been abused by a moderator, nor have they, IMHO, abused their office. I do feel that some pursue their task with too much zeal, are precipitate in thieir decisions.

That cod Wiki page was fairly unpleasant, and seemed to be infested with malware. Certainly my firewall lit up. Please don't do it again.

Centaur, I suspect that your mention of the - oops, your use of a religious comparision - was considered to be a potential trigger that would lead to an acute need for moderation. This is an example of what worries me. The comparision was of the moderating policy of this board with an autocratic (not to say autodafe), didactic and undemocratic regime. Well, up to a point, Lord Copper, but the moderators here are none of these, and you used it as a comparision, not to introduce a religious argument into the thread. So close it down?

I believe that these threads have prompted a moderators dicussion of policy implementation. Will the result be announced or will any change become known through use?

John

captain swoop
2010-Feb-19, 11:41 PM
As well as for the content content, Centaur was reprimanded for posting comments on Moderator actions after 3 seperate instructions by Mods not to persue 'Meta' discussions of Mod actions in the thread. Length of membership, number of posts or percieved 'contribution' to the board don't get anyone a dispensation from the rules or their enforcement.

Howmany times have we reminded people to either PM or report if they are unhappy. They are even allowed to start a thread in this forum to discuss it.

BigDon
2010-Feb-20, 01:39 AM
ToSeek, I thank you for your reasonable response and apology. To clarify, I did indeed mean that the Bad Astronomer concurred with the moderatorsí actions. Since while banned I was unable to communicate with the moderators, I e-mailed Phil Plait directly. Below is pasted a sentence from one of his replies, which essentially sums up his position in the matter.

The moderators acted according to the procedures set out and which have been made clear to everyone. I support their decisions. -Phil

Awww! I got an entire nastygram from the BA! (Another misunderstanding) Shoot, it's the only correspondance we've had.

Which sort of distresses me.

Jim
2010-Feb-20, 02:15 AM
Originally Posted by BigDon
Somebody's going to garner weinie points sometime today in this thread, you just know it.

Isn't it whiner points that are getting accumulated by these threads? :)

Actually, BigDon has it right. It's a little known aspect of the infraction system, but when you've received enough points we send you a certificate good for a free hot dog at James Coney Island.

pzkpfw
2010-Feb-20, 03:39 AM
But we don't tell you what's in the hot dogs.

Tensor
2010-Feb-20, 03:50 AM
Actually, BigDon has it right. It's a little known aspect of the infraction system, but when you've received enough points we send you a certificate good for a free hot dog at James Coney Island.

A lot of good that does me, living in Florida.:)

Otherworldly
2010-Feb-20, 04:22 AM
A lot of good that does me, living in Florida.:)

Do they ship?

mahesh
2010-Feb-20, 11:08 AM
Actually, BigDon has it right. It's a little known aspect of the infraction system, but when you've received enough points we send you a certificate good for a free hot dog at James Coney Island.

Make mine for a pizza, please, Jim.

mahesh
2010-Feb-20, 11:16 AM
Iím briefly back ...
...For those of you whoíve appreciated my posts providing alerts and related essays whenever Iíve created new graphical previews of astronomical events, Iíll still be posting on other astronomical message boards. I hope to meet there many of the good friends Iíve made here. My alias is always Centaur with the same avatar. In any event, I hope the Bad Astronomer has continued success in his otherwise fine efforts to debunk woo woo misconceptions, and wish perpetually clear skies and congenial discussion companions for everyone.

Dear Mr Renz, I'm so sorry the events transpired the way they have.

I wouldn't want you to go away. You enrich the BAUT forum. So much.

Please reconsider.

slang
2010-Feb-20, 11:50 AM
Actually, BigDon has it right. It's a little known aspect of the infraction system, but when you've received enough points we send you a certificate good for a free hot dog at James Coney Island.

From the C.M.O.T. Dibbler franchise, hopefully.

antoniseb
2010-Feb-20, 11:56 AM
From the C.M.O.T. Dibbler franchise, hopefully.

Well, right, because we believe in excessive moderation in all things.

geonuc
2010-Feb-20, 12:14 PM
If Centaur indeed leaves BAUT, it will be a loss for this community and cause for reflection. Hopefully, the apology offered by ToSeek will be sufficient to forestall Centaur's departure.

BigDon
2010-Feb-20, 12:31 PM
Make mine for a pizza, please, Jim.

Mr Mahesh, if you ever get to my side of the world I highly, highly recommend Di Napoli's pizza. Of all the restaurants in South San Francisco it's the only one I have on speed dial. :)

Man! I haven't eaten anything in three whole days and I was on clear liquids two days before that!

(I'm kinda I'm surprised I'm not more grouchy. :confused:)

mike alexander
2010-Feb-20, 01:52 PM
Not to derail anything, but if you want a Coney Island hot dog, you go to Coney Island and belly up to Nathan's Famous. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan%27s_Famous)

clint
2010-Feb-20, 04:44 PM
There's one aspect in some of the above complaints (referring to that Q&A thread and its moderation) that I really don't understand.

What's so difficult about just opening a new thread in order to continue a legitimate, but off-topic, discussion?
I really don't get that (at all).

I've done it several times myself, and it worked quite well.
I usually link the new thread from the old one, so anybody interested can hop over.
Anybody who isn't, stays where he was, and that's it - everybody happy.

I fail to see any limitation here, it's quite natural to proceed this way.

EDG
2010-Feb-20, 05:59 PM
ToSeek, I thank you for your reasonable response and apology. To clarify, I did indeed mean that the Bad Astronomer concurred with the moderators’ actions. Since while banned I was unable to communicate with the moderators, I e-mailed Phil Plait directly. Below is pasted a sentence from one of his replies, which essentially sums up his position in the matter.

The moderators acted according to the procedures set out and which have been made clear to everyone. I support their decisions. -Phil

I should point out that (from my experience) site owners generally say that anyway. They appoint moderators to police their boards, so they trust them to enforce the rules that they've made. I'd be very surprised if they were to contradict their mods, or even if they particularly care about what's going on.

I've been kicked off one board a while back because one mod unilaterally told me to stop posting on a thread because... well, to be honest I don't know. I was having a civil discussion with a group of people who disagreed with me, and I guess they or he got tired of me being there. He banned me, I complained to the admin that I had been booted when I hadn't broken any rules, and the admin just said pretty much the same thing as Phil told you, and had no interest in intervening.

I've been kicked off another board recently because one of the members there was stalking me by posting insults about me on every thread he could find (and usually derailing them), all because he disagreed with something I said years before. Two years of complaints about it from me to the site owner (who also was supposed to be moderating that board) got me a load of crap about how it "wasn't his job to moderate" and actually got me banned because he got bored of the whole thing. Meanwhile, the abusive stalker is still there.

I left another board where the admin is rarely even around, and the mods enforce the rules in a very draconian, rigid, and often irrational way, and are at best annoying members and at worse antagonising them and causing them to leave. The admin there usually couldn't care less about what goes on, and whenever he does return he just bans anyone he doesn't like anyway.

And there's another board where the mods were literally afraid to do anything about a particularly obnoxious contributor who happened to contribute a lot to the program being developed. So, this guy could just intimidate, threaten, throw tantrums or do anything else he liked because the mods were afraid that he'd stomp off, and the admin didn't want to do anything because he didn't want him to leave the project.

Mods aren't infallible, and neither are admins, and sometime's there's background politics that cloud the issue. Personally I don't have any real problems with the mods or admin here at all, though I do think they sometimes allow some people to get away with things that they shouldn't be allowed to get away with. To be fair, I think rules should be applied equally to everyone, even those with high post counts or who contribute lots or who have been here for a long time, and that's what I'm trying to do on the forums that I am myself now a mod and admin on.

Swift
2010-Feb-20, 07:27 PM
What's so difficult about just opening a new thread in order to continue a legitimate, but off-topic, discussion?
I really don't get that (at all).

And, if there are posts in the original thread they people would like either split off into a new thread, or, if a new thread is already started, moved into the new thread, we can easily do both.

tommac
2010-Feb-20, 08:12 PM
What would be interesting is if we put this thread or a similar poll on the board and asked mods and admins not to post in it. This would allow a true general consensus about the level/quality of moderation on the board.

personally i feel it has improved greatly over the past couple months and i am very satisfied with the job the mods are doing here. In the past i may not have had that same opinion.

But if you really care about what the registered user has to say why not have a no-moderator thread to discuss?

Swift
2010-Feb-20, 08:16 PM
What would be interesting is if we put this thread or a similar poll on the board and asked mods and admins not to post in it. This would allow a true general consensus about the level/quality of moderation on the board.

Go ahead and start a poll in this forum. Its been done before on similar topics. I promise I won't vote in it.

tommac
2010-Feb-20, 08:23 PM
Go ahead and start a poll in this forum. Its been done before on similar topics. I promise I won't vote in it.

I will leave that up to John D or someone else. As I stated I am happy with things ( other than this stupid math stuff ). but just thought it would be interesting.

HenrikOlsen
2010-Feb-20, 08:25 PM
This would allow a true general consensus about the level/quality of moderation on the board.
Not really, in such a poll people with (possibly imagined) grievances would have a stronger incentive to vote than general members who think things are all right. Respondent self-filtering is one of the hardest error sources to eliminate in polls.

And as I've seen no indication that you're a professional in the polling industry, your chance of putting together a question and 5 possible answer that won't skew the result is close to zero.
Please note that I'm assuming you are trying for an unbiased result, I'm just saying you're unlikely to have the knowledge to achieve that result.

BTW, by explicitly excluding moderators and admins from voting, you've already invalidated any claim to unbiased results as you've pre-selected a non-representative subset of the users to ask.

The poll won't give a true consensus.

Tensor
2010-Feb-20, 08:36 PM
Not really, in such a poll people with (possibly imagined) grievances would have a stronger incentive to vote than general members who think things are all right.

snip....

The poll won't give a true consensus.

Well, what other response would you expect from an former moderator. ;) :razz:

Daffy
2010-Feb-20, 09:12 PM
So many message boards degenerate into mindless name calling (JREF went though that some time ago, and is why I left there). The moderators here prevent that from happening...they aren't perfect, sometimes I wonder about their reasoning, but, overall, they do a great---and largely thankless task---of keeping debates here on topic and professional.

If someone is not happy with it, they can always waste time somewhere else where it's OK to spit mindless venom and call it debate.

Moose
2010-Feb-20, 09:41 PM
Or we could have a thread and poll all about Tommac, in which Tommac isn't permitted to participate or defend himself if misinformation, mischaracterizations, exaggerations, or outright lies are presented as fact. I can't see any way that someone with a personal axe to grind against Tommac might abuse such a thread.



There's a reason we don't permit ad hom threads or posts, especially when that person isn't able to defend him(her)self in person. I've never had a problem with users expressing opinions about our mandate, but I doubt there are many circumstances where I'd agree to bind my own hands on factual matters, no matter what is claimed.

JohnD
2010-Feb-20, 11:53 PM
Hendrik, why would a poll without mods be biased and invalid? It's unenfranchised users of the board who are unhappy, and a poll of them would be a valid sample of their feelings.
BUT,
tommac, Swift,
No point in a poll - this isn't a democratic society.
Only would be if the mods could be voted out.

No, I'm happy, nay grateful, for the opportunity to air those grievances in company with other malcontents. Bit like a round robin of mutinous sailors complaining to the Captain that the Master at Arms is being a bit free with his rope's end.
Though in a community of reasonable people, I hope the Captain will take on board (!) the complaints.

John

HenrikOlsen
2010-Feb-21, 12:26 AM
Hendrik, why would a poll without mods be biased and invalid?
JhonD, because the moderators are also members, and for an unbiased result you have to have a representative sample of all members..

tommac
2010-Feb-21, 03:20 AM
JhonD, because the moderators are also members, and for an unbiased result you have to have a representative sample of all members..

Again this is a poll to see how Registered Users view the amount of moderation done by moderators and admins. A moderator, although they can have a secondary group of Registered Users, are not Registered users.

In any case they can vote on the poll ... but it would be best that they didnt participate in the poll's thread as to not bias the findings.

Swift
2010-Feb-21, 04:45 AM
BUT,
tommac, Swift,
No point in a poll - this isn't a democratic society.
Only would be if the mods could be voted out.

I know its not a democracy, it has been said many times. We do listen to suggestions from the membership, and have even adopted some of them. I said a poll was fine, I didn't say I would abide by its results.

The Backroad Astronomer
2010-Feb-21, 04:09 PM
I welcome our excessive overlords.

JohnD
2010-Feb-21, 04:55 PM
JhonD, because the moderators are also members, and for an unbiased result you have to have a representative sample of all members..

Hendrik,
Yes, if you want an unbiased sample of all members.
But there are two populations of members, one, the mods, marked by exclusive powers while the rest are restive about the application of those powers. If you want to know what plumbers think, poll plumbers.


Swift,
I wasn't complaining that this is a democracy, just pointing out the futility of a poll.

How would an MsB that WAS a democracy work? An ideal of the democray, that the Internet has enabled but no one has dared to implement, is continuous polling. Every issue up for voting on, say once a day for every voter. Many MsBs have intermittent polls, but on non-board issues, usually.
I know that in the USA, unlike the UK, many public servants who are not politicians are voted into office, from police chief to dog catcher.
Is Moderator a post that could be voted on? If you agree with their action on an issue, give them a vote. If you disagree, deduct a vote. One vote per member, per issue, you have to use your vote within 24 hours of the decision. Any mod that has less than X votes at any time does not have the confidence of the members and must step down.
That maintains mods in post, or not. How to recruit new mods? Decide on the number needed, a 'college' of mods. Existing mods get grandfathers rights and do not need to be elected. Candidates may be invited to stand OR put themselves up for election OR, using the original Greek idea of the Demos, they are selected at random from members! Members 'in good standing' - Kilopis? One vote per member per vacant post in the college, as many candidates win as there are vacant posts.

Pipe smoke or workable?

John

HenrikOlsen
2010-Feb-21, 05:37 PM
...while the rest are restive about the application of those powers.
And you base that sweeping generalization on what?
Whinings of a few people who got their wrist slapped for breaking the rules and didn't like it?

captain swoop
2010-Feb-21, 05:52 PM
How would it work? would the voting be compulsory for everyone? if it wasn't then those with an agenda or a motivation would vote far more than the general member who has no interest in board politics or a personal axe to grind.

As for
the rest are restive about the application of those powers.

What evidence do you have that any but a tiny minority are 'restive'?

HenrikOlsen
2010-Feb-21, 05:57 PM
Pipe smoke or workable?
I'd say not only pipe smoke, but what's burning in the pipe isn't tobacco.

For one thing, it fails the 13 year old board gamer test.

It's incredibly easy to find ways to abuse your suggested system in ways that'll have the board implode.

Tensor
2010-Feb-21, 08:49 PM
It's incredibly easy to find ways to abuse your suggested system in ways that'll have the board implode.

That raises the question as to what the degeneracy pressure of BAUT is and whether it would implode into a white dwarf, neutron star or black hole.

Or,in the case of BAUT is it a question of imploding into a weinie or whiner.

JohnD
2010-Feb-22, 10:16 AM
I'd say not only pipe smoke, but what's burning in the pipe isn't tobacco.

For one thing, it fails the 13 year old board gamer test.

It's incredibly easy to find ways to abuse your suggested system in ways that'll have the board implode.

Did I say tobacco?!!!!!!
Actually, more likely fumes - That Shiraz last night was 14.5%.

But ignore the implementation for the moment. What about the principle?
Should 'moderator' be a job for life? Or one that demands the confidence of the people?
If the latter, how is that to be regulated?

Dr.Rocket has started a poll ( http://www.bautforum.com/forum-introductions-feedback/101080-straw-poll-public-complaining.html#post1685583) but as is so common with polls (in public, not necessarily here) the question is biased, "The public complaining about moderation is: About right/excessive" For balance, the polled should be allowed to answer "Not enough". Anyway, I started this thread because I thought that some moderating was excessively zealous, which is question, not Dr.Rocket's.
Dr.R's question could mean "Is there an excessive amount of complaining by the public" or " Is it excessive for the public to complain (at all)" or " Are there an excess (meaning a large, majority section of) the public who are complaining". See how difficult it is to write a poll question?

John

Moose
2010-Feb-22, 10:25 AM
a) Dr. Rocket didn't start that poll.
b) "Not enough" complaining doesn't make sense as an answer and would not serve to balance the poll.

Yes/No polls with complex clauses are written that way to be misleading, over-nuanced, and thus to push an agenda. This poll was intentionally written in very simple terms with very simple choices in neutral language to keep post-hoc reinterpretation to a minimum. The question should mean to you what it means to you. Nothing more, nothing less. I even granted the complainers both sweet-spots on the polls on purpose. You had all the advantages.

I'm sorry you don't like the results as they stand, but there it is.

JohnD
2010-Feb-22, 10:41 AM
My apologies Moose.
Don't know why I thought it was Dr.Rocket's work. It's yours.
And my comments stand, as they were wholly impersonal.
"Not enough complaining" is perfectly valid! A passive, accepting, compliant group may not complain enough.
And simple questions are just as open to intepretation - see the variants above.

Your other poll http://www.bautforum.com/forum-introductions-feedback/101079-straw-poll-moderation.html includes all three Goldilocks options, but again, that's not MY question. I feel that some moderators are overzealous in enforcing the Rules. So overall moderating may be satisfactory, the zealots being diluted by the more liberal mods, but still the zealots give offence.
Again, poll questions aren't easy, simple can be as confusing as elaborate, and "Yes/No" is old hat. Many polls offer the graduated answer, "Agree strongly/Agree mildly/No opinion/disagree mildly/disagree strongly" because that gives a more useful result. You notice I'm not about to start my own poll?

Lets discuss it. Should moderators, individually, have to show that they have the confidence of the people, by seeking approval and confirmation in their post from time to time?

John

Moose
2010-Feb-22, 10:49 AM
Do you think that's a reasonable stance, given that you're contributing to neither the bandwidth nor server costs?

slang
2010-Feb-22, 11:00 AM
Should moderators, individually, have to show that they have the confidence of the people, by seeking approval and confirmation in their post from time to time?

No.

Should posters, individually, have to show that they have a full understanding and knowledge of the board rules, by being tested on that from time to time?

Strange
2010-Feb-22, 11:03 AM
But there are two populations of members, one, the mods, marked by exclusive powers while the rest are restive about the application of those powers.

You are suggesting that everyone other than the moderators is unhappy with the way things work here? I don't think so.

01101001
2010-Feb-22, 02:03 PM
Should moderators, individually, have to show that they have the confidence of the people, by seeking approval and confirmation in their post from time to time?

Absolutely not. That is a matter between the owners and their agents. The owners should choose the agents they wish and shouldn't be hamstrung by popularity votes by their guests.

The feedback system is already in place. Appeal moderator screwups (first to other mods and then) to the owners. The owners can apply the corrections they feel are necessary for the proper operation of their property.

===

Do you ask shop owners to put their clerks up to shopper confidence votes, and be beholden to release the clerks that aren't re-elected?

Strange
2010-Feb-22, 02:09 PM
Should moderators, individually, have to show that they have the confidence of the people, by seeking approval and confirmation in their post from time to time?

No. Absolutely not. Why should they? It's got nothing to do with "the people". It's not a democracy or a co-operative.

Swift
2010-Feb-22, 02:20 PM
Lets discuss it. Should moderators, individually, have to show that they have the confidence of the people, by seeking approval and confirmation in their post from time to time?

As has been pointed out numerous times, this is not a democracy. I serve solely to the pleasure of the owners of this board and their agents, our two administrators. We are open to the suggestions of the membership, and even use some of those suggestions, but it is not governed by popular demand.

If you would like to try to convince the owners that elected moderators are the way to go, have at it, let me know how that works out.

I have volunteered in organizations where I served as an officer elected by the membership (Sierra Club being one of the more notable examples). At such time as an elected moderator system is put in place, I will resign as a moderator and will not seek election. I have better ways to spend my life.

If you are worried about moderators being appointed for life... well, I can only speak for this one, but I don't think that's a worry; I'm not sure how much longer I can stomach the grief now. :neutral:

Daffy
2010-Feb-22, 02:51 PM
Lets discuss it. Should moderators, individually, have to show that they have the confidence of the people, by seeking approval and confirmation in their post from time to time?

John

No. It would lead to complete chaos and would ruin what makes this board a pleasure to read. Not to mention making an already thankless task even more burdensome.

As I've said before, look what happened to the JREF a few years ago.

ToSeek
2010-Feb-22, 03:46 PM
No.

Should posters, individually, have to show that they have a full understanding and knowledge of the board rules, by being tested on that from time to time?

I kind of like that idea - make everyone pass a quiz before they can post, and then every couple of years thereafter. :)

Jim
2010-Feb-22, 03:58 PM
...
b) "Not enough" complaining doesn't make sense as an answer and would not serve to balance the poll. ...

It would make sense to those who are unhappy with the moderation... maybe modified (or a 4th option), "Not enough, but what's the use."

Moose
2010-Feb-22, 04:00 PM
If you are worried about moderators being appointed for life... well, I can only speak for this one, but I don't think that's a worry; I'm not sure how much longer I can stomach the grief now. :neutral:

Pretty much. For me it's not so much the complaining in general that's so frustrating (although that's a big part of it), it's the persistence of folks who use the reporting system to act out their little grudges and/or who can't seem to let go of a mild rebuke even after several years. _I'm_ the guy with OCD. Let it go already. It's just a message board. You're bigger than that.

And folks, believe me when I say that we notice when people misuse the reports procedure. It comes through loud and clear.

Jim
2010-Feb-22, 04:06 PM
Do you ask shop owners to put their clerks up to shopper confidence votes, and be beholden to release the clerks that aren't re-elected?

I find comparing moderators to shop clerks an insult to shop clerks everywhere.

I'd compare our position to a minor Presidential appointment that does not require Senate approval.

Moderators are selected by and serve at the pleasure of the Owners. That means we do the job the way they have defined it and to their satisfaction. If Fraser and/or Phil receive enough sound complaints about a Mod, they can choose to remove that Mod. Having the Members vote would lead to some Mods doing the job in a way to please the Members, not the Owners.

SolusLupus
2010-Feb-22, 05:54 PM
Pretty much. For me it's not so much the complaining in general that's so frustrating (although that's a big part of it), it's the persistence of folks who use the reporting system to act out their little grudges and/or who can't seem to let go of a mild rebuke even after several years. _I'm_ the guy with OCD. Let it go already. It's just a message board. You're bigger than that.

And folks, believe me when I say that we notice when people misuse the reports procedure. It comes through loud and clear.

I still remember being accused of a "vendetta" when my complaints were perfectly legitimate.

Also, something to do with calling Lovecraft a racist (old story) got a certain mod really upset, and he never told me why.

grant hutchison
2010-Feb-22, 06:44 PM
Also, something to do with calling Lovecraft a racist (old story) got a certain mod really upset, and he never told me why.Perhaps you need to cultivate the form of words used by (IIRC) Gore Vidal: "Of course I cannot say that he is a [pejorative noun]: I do not know the man. I merely remark that certain of his words and deeds are indistinguishable from those of a [pejorative noun]."

Grant Hutchison

ToSeek
2010-Feb-22, 06:56 PM
I find comparing moderators to shop clerks an insult to shop clerks everywhere.

I'd compare our position to a minor Presidential appointment that does not require Senate approval.

Does that mean we're czars? ;)

captain swoop
2010-Feb-22, 07:00 PM
I still remember being accused of a "vendetta" when my complaints were perfectly legitimate.

Also, something to do with calling Lovecraft a racist (old story) got a certain mod really upset, and he never told me why.

Erm...



and/or who can't seem to let go of a mild rebuke...

Also if you have complaints about specific Mod actions then you know this isn't the place for them.

tommac
2010-Feb-22, 07:47 PM
J'aime Ítre modťrť

NEOWatcher
2010-Feb-22, 07:55 PM
I'd compare our position to a minor Presidential appointment that does not require Senate approval.
I wouldn't even go that far. After all, we didn't elect Fraser or Phil for this board, did we?

antoniseb
2010-Feb-22, 08:05 PM
I wouldn't even go that far. After all, we didn't elect Fraser or Phil for this board, did we?

I agree. There doesn't have to be a commonly known perfect analogy. Most of the time analogies work for a narrow aspect. It's usually a mistake to try and extend the analogy beyond the intended scope.

pzkpfw
2010-Feb-22, 08:22 PM
I think we are ants, on an expanding balloon, and ... oh ... sorry, wrong thread.

Glom
2010-Feb-22, 08:26 PM
I kind of like that idea - make everyone pass a quiz before they can post, and then every couple of years thereafter. :)

A class rating?

NEOWatcher
2010-Feb-22, 08:59 PM
A class rating?
How about licenses, temporary permits, and handicap placards?


I think we are ants, on an expanding balloon, and ... oh ... sorry, wrong thread.
I almost coughed up my raisin bread.

Swift
2010-Feb-22, 10:24 PM
I find comparing moderators to shop clerks an insult to shop clerks everywhere.

I'd compare our position to a minor Presidential appointment that does not require Senate approval.

I find that analogy kind of terrifying. I now expect CNN or FoxNews or similar to dig up some dirt on me, about how I cheated on my 2nd grade spelling test or all my financial contributions to terrorist groups like The Nature Conservancy, and after a period of muckraking and public humiliation I'll have to resign in shame, so as not to bring down the Fraser/BA administration. :(

Tobin Dax
2010-Feb-22, 10:43 PM
If you are worried about moderators being appointed for life... well, I can only speak for this one, but I don't think that's a worry; I'm not sure how much longer I can stomach the grief now. :neutral:
If we lose mods (hypothetically, of course), I don't expect anybody else to step up to the plate considering all of this nonsense that's been going on lately.

Jim
2010-Feb-22, 10:46 PM
Does that mean we're czars? ;)

I was thinking more "minor functionaries with fancy titles."

PetersCreek
2010-Feb-22, 11:08 PM
I was thinking more "minor functionaries with fancy titles."
Aw, crud. I'm already one of those in real life.

Gillianren
2010-Feb-23, 01:34 AM
I feel that some moderators are overzealous in enforcing the Rules. So overall moderating may be satisfactory, the zealots being diluted by the more liberal mods, but still the zealots give offence.

Unless there are mods who aren't doing enough, zealots always sway things their way. Besides, my understanding is that many, if not most, mod decisions are part of a behind-the-scenes mod discussion. Certainly if there is conflict between "zealots" and "liberal mods," the admins would step in and balance the board the way they wanted it to go.

Tensor
2010-Feb-23, 02:00 AM
I think we are ants, on an expanding balloon, and ... oh ... sorry, wrong thread.


What's it expanding into?

SolusLupus
2010-Feb-23, 02:03 AM
Erm...

Also if you have complaints about specific Mod actions then you know this isn't the place for them.

I tried to settle the matter privately, but everyone ignored me.

Either way, a point was brought up, and I responded. I don't care about the rest.

EDIT: And a certain someone trying to shut me up by PM didn't work out. Well, it made it so that I threw him on my ignore list, anyways.

JohnD
2010-Feb-23, 12:53 PM
Ahem!

Certain amount of thread drift, AND politics,but if you are all enjoying the conversation, why stop it?

I do take Swift's point, (some way above) "this is not a democracy. I serve solely to the pleasure of the owners of this board and their agents, our two administrators." Which, rather than the informed facilitator armed with special powers that is my image of a moderator, makes you a sort of club bouncer!

John

PS "Club bouncer" US usage? AKA Doorman, enforcer?

Kaptain K
2010-Feb-23, 01:08 PM
What's it expanding into?

Existance. :)

ToSeek
2010-Feb-23, 03:54 PM
PS "Club bouncer" US usage? AKA Doorman, enforcer?

Something like that:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bouncer_%28doorman%29

SolusLupus
2010-Feb-23, 04:00 PM
Nah, ToSeek. You'd be a high tech bouncer.

http://www.coolest-gadgets.com/wp-content/uploads/usb-bouncer.jpg

dgavin
2010-Feb-23, 08:36 PM
I think i'll have to chime in with my support of the moderators again, especially as some of them seem to becomign fed up with the topic here.

So to be relitivly blunt...

1. It is not a free speach forums, its a science and to lesser degree and education forum.
2. It has Rules, and it is modereated.
3. Failure to follow the rules can result an anything from posts being edited, split into new threads, deleted, or to displinary actions such as account bannings.

What I see happing in this thread is some few people that have been moderated in the past seem to be pitching a fit, because they want an un-modereated forum.

My suggestion is this. When here then behave, if you don't want to behave then feel free to go out an make your own science forum that lacks moderation.

So give this topic a rest already and stop pitching fits because some moderator caught you doing something you shouldn't have, which you should have known better then to have done likely.

I'v been moderated myself, and deserved it both times. So take yer medicine like the rest of us have, and well....you get the point I think.

SolusLupus
2010-Feb-23, 08:40 PM
What I see happing in this thread is some few people that have been moderated in the past seem to be pitching a fit, because they want an un-modereated forum.

That is certainly not true in my case. Please refrain from deciding what I think for me.



I'v been moderated myself, and deserved it both times. So take yer medicine like the rest of us have

I've been moderated multiple times. Most of the time I do "take my medicine" (nice phrasing there. :rolleyes:), but in one particular time I feel that the warning was unwarranted, and it was made worse by the fact that no matter how many times I PMed the mod involved, he never explained his claim or why he deleted a post of mine.

Tobin Dax
2010-Feb-23, 10:20 PM
What I see happing in this thread is some few people that have been moderated in the past seem to be pitching a fit, because they want an un-modereated forum.
I don't think that it's because they want an un-moderated forum. It seems more like they don't like "being moderated" for what they perceive as a minor thing not worthy of punishment, whether or not it breaks the rules. There are also some people who just seem to be looking for a fight, as the saying goes. (I am not referring to anybody in particular in that sentence.)

Jeff Root
2010-Feb-24, 01:23 AM
I also was suspended for three days for my comments in the
thread which prompted this one.

http://www.bautforum.com/space-astronomy-questions-answers/100551-moon-artificial-celestial.html

What did the moderator statements and actions there accomplish that
was constructive or helpful?

They agitated me and other people unnecessarily;

They lowered my generally high estimation of the moderators'
intelligence and judgement;

And they further lowered my estimation of the value of rules.

The summaries and analyses of what happened by JohnD (post #40) (http://www.bautforum.com/1683818-post40.html) and
Centaur (post #72) (http://www.bautforum.com/1684574-post72.html) are both excellent. I will add my own:

A new poster asked exactly the kind of question that Bad Astronomy
was set up to address: Did movements of the Moon several thousand
years ago, as a gigantic spacecraft, cause "the Great Flood"? The
question was addressed in various ways by several people. Some
wrote about the origins of the Moon; some wrote about the origins
of the flood stories; some wrote about the idea of the Moon being
artificial; some wrote about the Moon's motions and gravitational
effects on Earth's waters. My contribution was to point out that
great floods occur almost everywhere, repeatedly, and can appear
to flood the entire world.

Sticks gave this moderator notice in post #7:


Also please take time to read through the rules as your original
post touched on a number of areas such as no religion, conspiracy
theories and Against the Mainstream postings
The shortcoming of that notice is that the original poster would
not necessarily make a connection between his question and religion,
conspiracy theories, or anything "against the mainstream". He was
just asking if what he had read was true or not. Even now, it is
not apparent to me that there was any element of religion in it.
There was a reference to a "Great Flood". Even if that was the
flood referred to in the Bible -- which was not stated by the OP --
it was a flood, not a religious belief. Are we not to discuss
events mentioned in texts which contain religious beliefs? Are we
not to analyze ideas in Q&A which might be construed as conspiracy
theories or as "against the mainstream"? Sticks' well-meaning
notice, while not harmful, was not helpful.

Swift, in post #19, quoted Sticks and added:


You have been warned once not to advocate Against the Mainstream
or religious ideas in this thread. The idea of "The Great Flood"
is such an idea. Your question about the moon has been answered.
If you need any further scientific clarification of that, than ask
those questions. Please take care in what you post here, or this
discussion will either be closed or moved to a different part of
the forum.
The OP read a book telling about how the Moon caused "the Great
Flood". A book generally carries more weight than the opinions of
a few random posters on an Internet discussion forum. The OP now
has conflicting information about what the facts are, and needs to
sort it out. There was and is no clear evidence that he intended
to advocate anything. The notion that the idea of "the Great Flood"
is either "against the mainstream" or religious is baseless. Many
great floods have occurred and many more will occur. Those floods
do not spring from religious texts and they are not attempts to
wash away mainstream ideas. Swift's well-meaning notice badly
mischaracterized the OP's apparent intent, and was not helpful.

In post #37, Sticks wrote:


I must put on my mod hat on, the discussion here is straying away
from the origin of the Moon which as Swift has said has been answered.
Discussion about flood myths could be seen as off topic. If anyone
wants to discuss flood myths from the angle of anthropology and
possible causes, then this will require another thread.
I suspect that Sticks forgot that the OP asked whether the Moon
caused the Great Flood.

Both Centaur and JohnD responded to Swift and Sticks by pointing
out what had already been said: That there are many "Great Floods".

Captain swoop replied to JohnD in post #41:


If you have a problem with a post or a Mod decision report it don't
comment in the thread.
Of course, the thread was exactly the appropriate place for John to
comment since that was where the discussion was, and the disagreement
was about the content of the thread, not about a moderator decision.
There was no good reason or any need to report it to the whole group
of moderators. So captain swoop was warning John against doing the
most reasonable thing. Very unhelpful.

I was tempted to respond, but decided not to since I would be
complaining about a moderator action in an inappropriate place, and
thinking about what I might say to captain swoop in a PM, decided I
was too angry at him, so let it go. I did not consider reporting his
post because whatever came of my report would almost certainly be
completely invisible to me: After reporting the post I would be out
of the loop and would have no further say, and might never learn
what the results were. Also, I didn't want to unfairly single out
captain swoop for criticism that he didn't deserve. I decided to
let it go, in the hope that the discussion would continue as it had
been despite the moderators' remarks.

However, JohnD replied to captain swoop, saying much the same as I
had wanted to say:


So discussion of thread moderation must occur off board, hidden and
out of the way of everyone else? Sorry, this is way off thread, but
conversations are like that, unless this is a debating society.
I saw that, and responded:


I was seriously thinking about doing the same thing John just did,
last night, but decided not to.
By "doing the same thing", I meant complaining in-thread about
complaints not being permitted in-thread, where they are pertinent
and will be seen by the people directly affected.

While I was writing that, Swift posted a reply to John:


Depending on the specifics, they are either private conversations, or
you might start a thread in Forum Introductions & Feedback. They never
are to happen in the topic tread, and you've been a member long enough
to know this.

Now, no more derailments.
If at any time either Swift, captain swoop, or Sticks had simply
not posted, there would have been no derailment. The only reason
the thread went awry was inappropriate warnings from moderators.

Then Brett posted another warning in the thread and separately sent
me a PM telling me I had been given an infraction. Since there was
no indication anywhere else that this action had been taken, I had
to do it. I did not yet know that this thread had been started,
so I posted in the thread where it was relevant:



You have received an infraction at Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum.
Thank you.

I'm sure Control will triumph over Kaos in the end.
But it rather looks like the moderators prefer chaos, as long as
they are the ones causing it.

I was shocked to see that Centaur was also suspended for three
days, apparently for his posts in the thread. It brought to mind
the witticism, "Beatings will continue until morale improves."


Representative Barbara Jordan gave an impassioned and moving speech
in the U.S. House Judiciary Committee hearings to decide whether to
impeach the U.S. President in 1974. In it, she repeated a familiar
aphorism which, I realized at that time, I could not agree with:
"We are a nation of laws, not of men." Any government of any kind,
including the governance of a discussion forum, depends on people's
ability to make decisions. With good decisionmaking, rules would
not be necessary. With bad decisionmaking, rules are not adequate.

The events here demonstrate that even the best people, attempting
to apply reasonable rules, will apply those rules badly and to their
own detriment when given the opportunity. In other words, power
corrupts. Even a very small amount of power.

I apologize for not speaking out immediately in the thread,
hesitating instead until after JohnD had posted first. That was
cowardly and selfish of me.

I further apologize for delaying in commenting in this thread.

The reason John, Curt, and I complained in the thread is that we
care as deeply for BAUT as the moderators do, and we want it to be
a good experience for everyone. Our reactions to moderator posts
should have been expected. They are the natural reactions that
I would expect, and hope for, from anyone who is willing to take
the time to try to help.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis
.

Jeff Root
2010-Feb-24, 01:26 AM
Why do I think I'm the only one here who looks at this like a
football game?
A football game is a poor analogy to a discussion. There are few
similarities and many large differences.

Football is a contest, which requires someone to lose. It isn't a
contest if everyone wins.

Football is a team activity, in which players are directed by coaches
toward specific goals that are visible to everyone.

Playing football requires no creative expression, just talent and
physical prowess: The ability to execute a practiced set of actions.
The players are not expressing their ideas or opinions. Football is
a better analogy to typing than to writing.

In football, people are apt to be seriously physically injured whether
everyone follows the rules or not, but especially if they do not.



You read the rules for posting here. You commit a foul and you get
flagged on it.
Football is defined by rules. A discussion has no such definition.

The rules of a discussion forum may be fairly compared to public laws
proscribing unwanted conduct, but not to the rules of a game.

However, the problem in the thread which prompted this thread was a
series of unnecessary calls by the referees, not anyone committing
a foul.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis
.

BigDon
2010-Feb-24, 03:25 AM
Jeff, you know I like you and wouldn't troll you.

If you're this unhappy here perhaps you *should* go find another internet abode. Were I to try to find another one like this place I'd do a google search on BertL and post where he posts. Safe enough bet there I'd think.

After Fishindex.com folded its show I was lost and aimless for months. Then I found here. I could ** and not have to answer fish related questions all day long.

Tensor
2010-Feb-24, 05:01 AM
The OP read a book telling about how the Moon caused "the Great Flood". A book generally carries more weight than the opinions of a few random posters on an Internet discussion forum.

Note my bold. Who decides? Swift decided that the answers here trumped a book.


The OP now has conflicting information about what the facts are, and needs to sort it out. There was and is no clear evidence that he intended
to advocate anything. The notion that the idea of "the Great Flood"
is either "against the mainstream" or religious is baseless. Many
great floods have occurred and many more will occur. Those floods
do not spring from religious texts and they are not attempts to
wash away mainstream ideas. Swift's well-meaning notice badly
mischaracterized the OP's apparent intent, and was not helpful.

Your view. Not mine. I happen to agree with Swift. His opinion was that the OPs question was answered. And my view, probably not yours, is that Sticks intended his post as a warning not to speculate on floods.


Of course, the thread was exactly the appropriate place for John to
comment since that was where the discussion was, and the disagreement
was about the content of the thread, not about a moderator decision.

Again, I don't agree that the thread was the appropriate place. But, it matters not what you or I think. Swift stated the question had been answered. Sticks pointed out the discussion was getting off topic. Then Captain Swoop pointed out :"If you have a problem with a post or a Mod decision report it don't comment in the thread." Swift's and Stick's posts were moderator decisions. Captain Swoop's post was a flat out warning. I would suggest you look at rules 16 and 17.


There was no good reason or any need to report it to the whole group
of moderators. So captain swoop was warning John against doing the
most reasonable thing. Very unhelpful.

I was tempted to respond, but decided not to since I would be
complaining about a moderator action in an inappropriate place, and

snip...

I decided to
let it go, in the hope that the discussion would continue as it had
been despite the moderators' remarks.

You should have stuck with your first thought and not worried about it.



If at any time either Swift, captain swoop, or Sticks had simply
not posted, there would have been no derailment. The only reason
the thread went awry was inappropriate warnings from moderators.

No, if any of the posters had not answered in the thread, the thread wouldn't have gone awry. Why is it so difficult for those who post, in thread, complaints about moderator actions, to simply start a thread in the feedback section with a link to the appropriate thread or post? You get your visibility, you have a link to the specific post or thread, and you aren't breaking the rules. What is so hard about that?


Then Brett posted another warning in the thread and separately sent
me a PM telling me I had been given an infraction. Since there was
no indication anywhere else that this action had been taken, I had
to do it. I did not yet know that this thread had been started,
so I posted in the thread where it was relevant:
You have received an infraction at Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum.
Thank you.
I'm sure Control will triumph over Kaos in the end.

So why didn't you start your own thread in the feedback forum, with a link? I'm quite sure your suspension was due to your putting your infraction in the thread in question. If you had started your own thread, with a link, your post would not have been against the rules and thus no reason for a suspension. But, posting in thread, after specifically being warned not to, what did you expect?


But it rather looks like the moderators prefer chaos, as long as
they are the ones causing it.

And you are entirely innocent, right? The fact that there were warnings in the thread and yet you still posted in that thread, after the warnings, have nothing at all to do with your suspension. Is that how you see it?



Representative Barbara Jordan gave an impassioned and moving speech
in the U.S. House Judiciary Committee hearings to decide whether to
impeach the U.S. President in 1974. In it, she repeated a familiar
aphorism which, I realized at that time, I could not agree with:
"We are a nation of laws, not of men." Any government of any kind,
including the governance of a discussion forum, depends on people's
ability to make decisions. With good decisionmaking, rules would
not be necessary. With bad decisionmaking, rules are not adequate.

The decision-making ability of the moderators has nothing to do with it. The problems usually occur with the inability of people to follow the rules.

SolusLupus
2010-Feb-24, 05:04 AM
Swift, in post #19, quoted Sticks and added:

The OP read a book telling about how the Moon caused "the Great
Flood". A book generally carries more weight than the opinions of
a few random posters on an Internet discussion forum. The OP now
has conflicting information about what the facts are, and needs to
sort it out. There was and is no clear evidence that he intended
to advocate anything. The notion that the idea of "the Great Flood"
is either "against the mainstream" or religious is baseless. Many
great floods have occurred and many more will occur. Those floods
do not spring from religious texts and they are not attempts to
wash away mainstream ideas. Swift's well-meaning notice badly
mischaracterized the OP's apparent intent, and was not helpful.

Uhm.

"The Great Flood" specifically deals with one kind of flood: Noah's Flood, from the Bible. If that wasn't meant, then someone's using wrong terminology. And yes, Noah's Flood is religious, and there's no evidence for a world-wide flood as seen in the Bible, so it is ATM.

TheHalcyonYear
2010-Feb-24, 06:48 AM
I have noticed that they don't moderate those who don't post on a thread. :)

Jeff Root
2010-Feb-24, 11:23 AM
Don,

I may be unhappy with some things, but I'm certainly not unhappy with
everything! I'll tell you what makes me feel good: Fixing things. I hate
maintenance but I love to fix things. As long as they stay fixed.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

JohnD
2010-Feb-24, 12:21 PM
All,

Now, here's me noting thread drift!
But several people above have argued about an un-moderated board.
Some of the posts have been in the form, "Behave, obey the rules, or go elsewhere."
That is NOT what I started this thread for, nor what I advocate.
And I don't think that anyone DID argue for no moderation.
Moderation is necessary, rules are necessary and I wouldn't be without either.

May I repeat my request, that moderators allow a thread conversations more range?
And ask that this conversation deals with that?

John

antoniseb
2010-Feb-24, 01:05 PM
... May I repeat my request, that moderators allow a thread conversations more range?
And ask that this conversation deals with that?.

This request is a bit vague (probably a good thing), but also perhaps too brief. What is possible, given the realities of the situation is for there to be some shift one way or the other in the judgment calls that the moderators make. Some forums will be kept pretty tight (ATM for example needs to stay pretty focused because of the time-limits), and other forums can be more wide-ranging (this one for example). In the end, however, most moderator action is triggered by a member pushing the alert button, and then the moderator ends up needing to look at enough context to judge what (if any) action needs to be taken. You can try to persuade the moderators to judge differently, but it would be at least as practical to get the alert-pressing members to judge differently.

Jeff Root
2010-Feb-24, 02:19 PM
The OP read a book telling about how the Moon caused "the Great Flood".
A book generally carries more weight than the opinions of a few random
posters on an Internet discussion forum.
Note my bold. Who decides?
The original poster, obviously.



Swift decided that the answers here trumped a book.
I doubt he did that, but if he did, it didn't have much to do with
whether the answers here actually "trumped" the book in some way.
I think that what Swift decided was what he said: That the question
had been answered. That doesn't mean the original poster had the
answer he needed. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't.




The OP now has conflicting information about what the facts are, and
needs to sort it out. There was and is no clear evidence that he intended
to advocate anything. The notion that the idea of "the Great Flood"
is either "against the mainstream" or religious is baseless. Many
great floods have occurred and many more will occur. Those floods
do not spring from religious texts and they are not attempts to
wash away mainstream ideas. Swift's well-meaning notice badly
mischaracterized the OP's apparent intent, and was not helpful.
Your view. Not mine. I happen to agree with Swift. His opinion was
that the OPs question was answered.
Yes, the original poster's question was answered, but he now has
conflicting information about what the facts are, and needs to sort
it out. Swift's opinion doesn't change that.



And my view, probably not yours, is that Sticks intended his post as a
warning not to speculate on floods.
I think Sticks said what he intended to say.




Of course, the thread was exactly the appropriate place for John to
comment since that was where the discussion was, and the disagreement
was about the content of the thread, not about a moderator decision.
Again, I don't agree that the thread was the appropriate place.
Considering how inoffensive John's post was:


A great flood is a feature of the myths and folk stories of many societies.
No doubt they are based on different deluges. To censure for mentioning
such a common theme is over cautious.
Let the guy speak! And help him with his English.
There was no obvious reason to think it could do any harm. Still isn't.
The discussion was taking place in the thread; Swift's comments to the
original poster about that discussion were in the thread; naturally John's
comments on those comments of Swift's would also be in the thread.



But, it matters not what you or I think.
Of course it matters! It matters what everyone thinks!



Swift stated the question had been answered.
True but not particularly meaningful.



Sticks pointed out the discussion was getting off topic.
The discussion was not getting significantly off topic. Discussion
of floods was fairly minimal and was directed toward answering the
original question.



Then Captain Swoop pointed out :"If you have a problem with a post
or a Mod decision report it don't comment in the thread."
At least it was exemplarily brief.




There was no good reason or any need to report it to the whole group
of moderators. So captain swoop was warning John against doing the
most reasonable thing. Very unhelpful.

I was tempted to respond, but decided not to since I would be
complaining about a moderator action in an inappropriate place, and

snip...

I decided to let it go, in the hope that the discussion would continue
as it had been despite the moderators' remarks.
You should have stuck with your first thought and not worried about it.
That would be unconscionable. (Meaning "not guided or restrained by
conscience; unscrupulous.")




If at any time either Swift, captain swoop, or Sticks had simply
not posted, there would have been no derailment. The only reason
the thread went awry was inappropriate warnings from moderators.
No, if any of the posters had not answered in the thread, the
thread wouldn't have gone awry.
What you say is correct, but what I said is also correct: The thread
went awry because of the warnings from the moderators, but it would
not have gone awry if the posters had not responded in the thread.



Why is it so difficult for those who post, in thread, complaints about
moderator actions, to simply start a thread in the feedback section
with a link to the appropriate thread or post? You get your visibility,
you have a link to the specific post or thread, and you aren't breaking
the rules. What is so hard about that?
I had no interest or desire to start a new thread on the subject.
I wanted my replies to be visible to those who were reading the
thread, but I didn't want them visible to casual visitors to BAUT,
which they would be if I started a new thread or even posted in an
existing thread (like this one, which I didn't know had been started)
in the Feedback section. The one time I did start a new thread in
this section, I gave it a somewhat cryptic name to try to disguise
that I was complaining about something on BAUT.



So why didn't you start your own thread in the feedback forum,
with a link? I'm quite sure your suspension was due to your putting
your infraction in the thread in question. If you had started your own
thread, with a link, your post would not have been against the rules
and thus no reason for a suspension. But, posting in thread, after
specifically being warned not to, what did you expect?
I expected to be suspended. At least, I did after I saw that Swift
had posted yet another moderator warning while I was composing
my post #44. My suspension isn't a concern. My concern is how
moderation affects other posters and the forum in general. I said
that I was shocked to learn that Centaur was also suspended.
I was merely disappointed to learn that I was suspended.



And you are entirely innocent, right? The fact that there were
warnings in the thread and yet you still posted in that thread,
after the warnings, have nothing at all to do with your suspension.
Is that how you see it?
Have you seen me complain about my suspension anywhere?



The decision-making ability of the moderators has nothing to do
with it. The problems usually occur with the inability of people to
follow the rules.
The problem in this specific instance was unnecessary moderation,
starting with warnings about religion or against the mainstream ideas,
and gradually escalating from there.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis
.

SolusLupus
2010-Feb-24, 02:28 PM
As I've already demonstrated, the idea started off as being religious/mainstream. Continuing to rail about it is futile because you're ignoring what's the obvious fact.

Jeff Root
2010-Feb-24, 02:35 PM
SolusLupus,

http://www.bautforum.com/1678836-post24.html

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis
.

SolusLupus
2010-Feb-24, 02:37 PM
Sigh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Flood

Does it say "just any flood"?

No.

"The Great Flood" has a very specific meaning. It does not, nor has it ever, just meant "a flood that's kinda big"; it's absolutely stunning to me that you somehow think this is so. It means a worldwide catastrophe as a direct result of divine retribution, almost always in specific reference to Noah's Flood. That is biblical. That is against the mainstream. That is not something that should be covered within this forum unless you take it to ATM and demonstrate evidence that there was a worldwide flood that wiped out a previous generation of people.

I've already stated this. You ignored it and just repeated your nonsensical assertion.

Jeff Root
2010-Feb-24, 02:45 PM
SolusLupus,

I know it is boring to re-read what you have already read twice before,
but please read my post one more time, and this time absorb what you
are reading. Your reply indicates that you didn't get what I said at all.

http://www.bautforum.com/1678836-post24.html

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis
.

SolusLupus
2010-Feb-24, 02:55 PM
SolusLupus,

I know it is boring to re-read what you have already read twice before,
but please read my post one more time, and this time absorb what you
are reading. Your reply indicates that you didn't get what I said at all.

http://www.bautforum.com/1678836-post24.html

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis
.

Fine, let's go into in detail!


Floods occur practically everywhere.

"The Great Flood" is not "floods that occur practically everywhere", so your statement here is already flawed.


Disasterous, unusually destructive
floods occur practically everywhere.

The Great Flood is a worldwide biblical flood. Your statement here is irrelevant, again.


From storms; melting snow and ice;
rivers dammed by debris or landslides; lakes breached by rising water
levels, landslides, earthquakes, or volcanoes; from tsunamis caused by
earthquakes, underwater landslides, volcanoes, or even large meteoroids
falling into an ocean. If you have ever seen a really big flood, you have
probably noted that it seems to go on forever. It looks as if the entire
world is flooded. In many places, such floods are not rare. They might
not happen for many years, even generations, but an area that can be
flooded will likey have been flooded many times before and will likely be
flooded many times again.

"Floods can be big and seem to go on for a while!"

Sorry, still not The Great Flood.

If we're going to delve into something that "may have caused The Great Flood", we should prove "The Great Flood" existed in the first place, shouldn't we? Obviously, if "The Great Flood" was just a normal everyday flood that seemed pretty nasty, then there's no need to talk about what could have caused it, because no such "Great Flood" ever happened... just people's flawed perceptions.

So either it's a biblical issue, or it's a non-issue.

There. Satisfied?

Swift
2010-Feb-24, 03:09 PM
This is not the place to debate the particulars of The Great Flood, or the linked to thread. As JohnD said, this thread is to debate the style and details of moderation. Linking to threads as examples is fine, but we are not going to rehash that topic. Jeff Root and SolusLupus, you've both said your pieces - now drop it.

Tensor
2010-Feb-24, 03:17 PM
What I find interesting is that, for basically the first half of your post. I have a differing view on all your comments. Which could be the reason we have rules, ya think?



What you say is correct, but what I said is also correct: The thread
went awry because of the warnings from the moderators, but it would
not have gone awry if the posters had not responded in the thread.

No, again, the moderators job is point out areas where they think, believe, know that there is a chance of or there is a problem occurring. I might agree with you if you said that they may have been a bit quick. But, once they made their posts, it was up to the rest of the posters to follow the rules, to keep the thread on track.



I had no interest or desire to start a new thread on the subject.
I wanted my replies to be visible to those who were reading the
thread, but I didn't want them visible to casual visitors to BAUT,

So basically, you flat don't want to follow the rules that are set up for this forum and that you agreed to when you registered to post on this forum.


which they would be if I started a new thread or even posted in an
existing thread (like this one, which I didn't know had been started)
in the Feedback section. The one time I did start a new thread in
this section, I gave it a somewhat cryptic name to try to disguise
that I was complaining about something on BAUT.

Why? If you're going to complain, why not just do it? From my experience, the mods and admins don't care, as long as it's done in the feedback section. And, with a link to the thread in question, you can point out exactly what you have a problem with.


My concern is how moderation affects other posters and the forum in general. I said that I was shocked to learn that Centaur was also suspended. I was merely disappointed to learn that I was suspended.

It's my concern also. But, I think we are approaching it from different directions. My concern is for those posters who are willing to follow the rules here. Who like this place because they don't have to fight through personal attacks, thread drift, woo, etc. Who want to make changes within the rules. There are things I don't like about the forum, but I wouldn't break the rules just to make a point, I would work within the rules, using PM and reports to try and change them. But, hey, that's just me.


The problem in this specific instance was unnecessary moderation,
starting with warnings about religion or against the mainstream ideas,
and gradually escalating from there.

And again, that's your view, not mine. I thought the warnings were perfectly justified. The fact that the the warnings were ignored, seemingly means nothing to you. I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this.

JohnD
2010-Feb-24, 06:30 PM
Thank you, Swift!
If I may say so, timely and appropriate moderation.
If anyone wants to decscribe me a turning worm, they may.

Antoniseb,
My last post (155) was brief and vague, indeed, because I thought I had sufficiently expressed my views on the need for more liberal moderating earlier. I didn't want to repeat myself.
Your words are balm to my soul. "What is possible, given the realities of the situation is for there to be some shift one way or the other in the judgment calls that the moderators make. Some forums will be kept pretty tight (ATM for example needs to stay pretty focused because of the time-limits), and other forums can be more wide-ranging (this one for example). " What more could I ask for?

Oh, Yes. Which would be the tightly controlled forums? ATM, and ..........?

John

cm10
2010-Feb-24, 06:54 PM
Wow this has turned into some discussion. It's a little disheartening to see some of the comments posted because clearly some people think they can do no wrong on this board and will argue their point till death.

There is an easy solution to end this childish stuff:

- Eliminate half of your moderators. I've never see a site with so many mods and it is causing the majority of problems because there is no consistency in enforcing the rules and some have their own personal vendettas against certain members. I know who they are. I'm certain you do as well. But if not just ask me.

- Give mods times when they are to patrol the boards and if they choose to be here outside of said time, then they are a regular poster like everyone else. This will hopefully add some consistency to the moderating process and the stop the closing and reopening of threads.

- Treat all members, regardless of post count, in the same manner. No special treatment to your favorites because it is evident in a lot of threads.

I think this is a great board and you have some great members here. But at the same time you have a few mods who are not nice people, and a few regular posters that act like mods and get away with it. It's time for this board to start moving forward instead of taking steps backwards.

PetersCreek
2010-Feb-24, 06:55 PM
ATM, CT, and Q&A are my top three.

captain swoop
2010-Feb-24, 07:28 PM
some have their own personal vendettas against certain members. I know who they are. I'm certain you do as well. But if not just ask me.

This is a serious accusation and I would expect you to be able to back it up.

If you think that a Mod is treating a board member unfairly or has a 'vendetta' I would expect you to use the reporting triangle and bring it to the attention of the whole team or get in touch with one of the two Board Administrators.

Mods usualy don't take action without discussion with the rest of the team. Sometimes a thread might be closed or someone suspended by a single Mod if there are no others on the board at the time. This is discussed later when other Mods are on and if required a thread is reopened or a suspension lifted.

We have the number of Mods that we do because of the ammount of traffic on the board. It is always 'posting time' somewhere in the world and we need to ensure that at least one Mod is on at any time if possible.
We rely to a large extent on members reporting any posts they think are a problem, we can't monitor every thread in every Forum.

We do keep a closer watch on ATM, CT and Q&A, these are the threee forums that generate most of the work. Q&A needs to be watched closely as it is for only posting questions and answers on the Mainstream. We don't allow very little thread drift and absolutely no ATM claims or advocacy in that Forum.

NEOWatcher
2010-Feb-24, 07:31 PM
Sometimes a thread might be closed or someone suspended by a single Mod if there are no others on the board at the time. This is discussed later when other Mods are on and if required a thread is reopened or a suspension lifted.
I have seen this, and the simple fact that I rarely see a mod post stating "after discussion with the other mods..." tells me that they are generally on track.

captain swoop
2010-Feb-24, 07:40 PM
What regular board members don't see are the hidden Moderator Forums. When you report a post it creates a new thread in one of the Forums, we can then read the report and comment on it, we also have a forum where we discuss possible actions.
Another Forum keeps track of Infractions. When points are awarded it creates a thread.

Gillianren
2010-Feb-24, 07:46 PM
- Eliminate half of your moderators. I've never see a site with so many mods and it is causing the majority of problems because there is no consistency in enforcing the rules and some have their own personal vendettas against certain members. I know who they are. I'm certain you do as well. But if not just ask me.

This is a horrible idea. The reason we have so many mods is that this board is huge, and there is a lot of work involved. If the number of mods were decreased, the quality of the board would decrease as well. There are mods whom I have believed to let their opinion of a poster get in the way of a fair decision, but in the end, the decision which had to be made was. (Interestingly, I thought it came from the other direction--I think certain posters have gotten more leeway than they deserved.) When I was on the BABB and it was much smaller, Phil was the only voice of authority, and it was far too much work. I was once on a board with one mod who was spread over quite a lot of smallish boards, and it was a zoo. Fewer mods would not solve the problems some people see.


- Give mods times when they are to patrol the boards and if they choose to be here outside of said time, then they are a regular poster like everyone else. This will hopefully add some consistency to the moderating process and the stop the closing and reopening of threads.

This is also not a good idea--it would, if I'm reading your idea correctly, only standardize the moderating process during any one time. If Peters Creek has one moderating style and Captain Swoop another, the moderating would be different at the different times they were online. Besides, if an emergency came up--say Tinaa's kid, Gods forbid, broke an arm, that would change her moderating abilities. If no one were able, per your rule, to take her time, that would leave an unmoderated gap.


- Treat all members, regardless of post count, in the same manner. No special treatment to your favorites because it is evident in a lot of threads.

I received an infraction point the other day. I know, based on PM conversation, that the mod who sent it to me does actually like me, but he sent it anyway. I haven't ever gotten one before--well, that system is new. But I think I have one friendly warning from years ago. Shouldn't that past behaviour be taken into account?


I think this is a great board and you have some great members here. But at the same time you have a few mods who are not nice people, and a few regular posters that act like mods and get away with it. It's time for this board to start moving forward instead of taking steps backwards.

If by "act like mods," you mean "give warnings," that's being warned about. If by "act like mods," you mean "report posts," that's what the mods want. As for there being mods who are "not nice people," I do not agree. I have my differences with some of them, but I think they are all nice people doing a very difficult job.

Fazor
2010-Feb-24, 07:52 PM
I received an infraction point the other day. I know, based on PM conversation, that the mod who sent it to me does actually like me, but he sent it anyway. I haven't ever gotten one before--well, that system is new. But I think I have one friendly warning from years ago. Shouldn't that past behaviour be taken into account?

I'd like to also just point out again that a lot of these types of moderation actions go on behind the scenes. It may seem like someone "got away with something" because the mods "like them", but who knows what went on via PMs and infractions, other than those directly involved?

hhEb09'1
2010-Feb-24, 07:53 PM
I have noticed that they don't moderate those who don't post on a thread. :)We're working on that. We have some people in Philadelphia helping us.


May I repeat my request, that moderators allow a thread conversations more range?
And ask that this conversation deals with that?
The range will probably not include religion, politics, or certain branches of mathematics.

Tensor
2010-Feb-24, 08:51 PM
We're working on that. We have some people in Philadelphia helping us.
The range will probably not include religion, politics, or certain branches of mathematics.

Set theory or Lie Algebra? I don't care about politics or certain branches of mathematics.

geonuc
2010-Feb-24, 10:13 PM
This is a horrible idea. ...
I endorse the whole of Gillianren's post.

Jeff Root
2010-Feb-24, 11:20 PM
I, personally, do not dislike ANY of the moderators and have absolutely no
reason to ask any of them to step down. I also do not see any advantage
to reducing the number of moderators in general. I also have no particular
disagreement with any of the rules. I just see a tendency to excess in
applying some of those rules. An excess which causes at least as much
trouble as it is intended to avert.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

01101001
2010-Feb-25, 01:33 AM
This is not the place to debate the particulars of The Great Flood, or the linked to thread. [...] Jeff Root and SolusLupus, you've both said your pieces - now drop it.

Excessive moderation strikes again!

No. Wait. I'm wrong. It's the opposite of excessive. It's... moderate. Moderate moderation strikes again!

Woe. Oh, when will the ever-so-slight carnage cease?

slang
2010-Feb-25, 01:55 AM
Woe. Oh, when will the ever-so-slight carnage cease?

I'm now visualizing Pratchettesque plant vs nutrients carnage.

Jim
2010-Feb-25, 03:07 AM
I, personally, do not dislike ANY of the moderators and have absolutely no reason to ask any of them to step down. ...

Apple-polishing duly noted.

BigDon
2010-Feb-25, 04:26 AM
Better polished than thrown.

SolusLupus
2010-Feb-25, 05:21 AM
It's easy to deal with a complaint. It's harder to deal with flattery.

BigDon
2010-Feb-25, 06:30 AM
Well said! :clap:

Jeff Root
2010-Feb-25, 05:30 PM
That's why I'm generous with complaints but stingy with compliments.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis
.

tdvance
2010-Feb-25, 09:50 PM
Better polished than thrown.

There's a reason when my community band gives concerts, in some cases we bring food for the guests to "sweeten" the deal, but we never bring tomatoes.....

SolusLupus
2010-Feb-25, 09:51 PM
That's why I'm generous with complaints but stingy with compliments.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis
.

Not all compliments are flattery.

TheHalcyonYear
2010-Feb-28, 01:03 AM
That's why I'm generous with complaints but stingy with compliments.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis
.
This is a good point.

I do so love the moderators here!! I wish I could take them all out to dinner and give them all great big hugs afterward. I wish they would all let us know their names on facebook so I could friend them all!!! :)

Gillianren
2010-Feb-28, 05:24 AM
I prefer to compliment more than complain. It's better at building personal relationships and gives your complaints more weight when you make them.

LookingSkyward
2010-Feb-28, 06:47 AM
oncur with Gillian, completely.

mugaliens
2010-Feb-28, 07:51 AM
It's easy to deal with a complaint. It's harder to deal with flattery.

Agreed. Flattery's great for the ego, but it's neither constructive nor helpful with much in the real world. Worded right, complaints can be very constructive, but only if the recipient's are receptive, a characteristic inversely proportional to that flattery and its resulting ego.

Throughout my time in the service, the best, most effective commanders were usually both the most humble and the most receptive, yet still knew when to step forward with a good decision once enough facts were present, or as necessary given the situation. The others, those with the egos, often made good decisions, as well, but their bad decision rate was markedly higher, just as unit morale was markedly lower.

mugaliens
2010-Mar-04, 10:39 AM
Now I'm getting infractions for defending the quality of our better newspapers. Someone took it as a "complaint."

Sheesh... Excessive moderation indeed!

01101001
2010-Mar-04, 01:48 PM
Now I'm getting infractions for defending the quality of our better newspapers. Someone took it as a "complaint."

"Where"?

Was the moderation excessive? Or deserved?

mugaliens
2010-Mar-04, 09:27 PM
Was the moderation excessive? Or deserved?

If I felt it were deserved, I would not be complaining about it here, in accordance with Antoniseb's remark, here (http://www.bautforum.com/forum-introductions-feedback/100838-excessive-moderation.html#post1681999).

It's under review at this time, so I'll leave it at that.

01101001
2010-Mar-04, 09:54 PM
OK. If you don't want us to look at it fine. I'll assume it was fair and just until you report the appeal process findings. I don't intend to review your recent contributions looking for your brush with the law.

But, why use a public forum? Perhaps Antoniseb can clarify the meaning of the cited passage. Is this topic a repository for undocumented complaints? Are they of any interest to general members?

Waiting with breath unabated...

R.A.F.
2010-Mar-05, 03:03 PM
If I felt it were deserved, I would be complaining about it here...

You ARE complaining about it here.

What is so hard about following a rule which states that disagreements with moderator actions should not be discussed on the open board??

Sheesh....

R.A.F.
2010-Mar-05, 03:40 PM
Throughout my time in the service...

Your experiences in the military are irrelevant as you, yourself posted ("we are not in the military") in the "locked threads" thread. (halfway down 3rd page.) I'd link to it, but I'm lazy this morning.

mugaliens
2010-Mar-08, 08:22 AM
Your experiences in the military are irrelevant as you, yourself posted ("we are not in the military") in the "locked threads" thread. (halfway down 3rd page.) I'd link to it, but I'm lazy this morning.

RAF, this isn't difficult to follow: I'm not currently in the military as I retired from the military last Spring.

Swift
2010-Mar-08, 02:11 PM
mugaliens and R.A.F.,

There isn't any specific rule violation, but I think it would be better if you two stop bumping heads. If mugs wants to complain about moderation, well this is the thread for it. The mods here can handle it. This is not the place to snip at each other.

Chill guys.

jlhredshift
2010-Mar-08, 02:25 PM
mugaliens and R.A.F.,

There isn't any specific rule violation, but I think it would be better if you two stop bumping heads. If mugs wants to complain about moderation, well this is the thread for it. The mods here can handle it. This is not the place to snip at each other.

Chill guys.

Does anyone else see the irony.... or is it just me?

Swift
2010-Mar-08, 02:32 PM
Does anyone else see the irony.... or is it just me?
I certainly did and almost joked about it. And if that bit of moderation is considered excessive.... wait till I start infracting people. I suspect we'll be charged with crimes against humanity.

Jim
2010-Mar-08, 04:17 PM
I'm gonna tell a joke, which is actually very germaine to the thread topic.

A peacher was starting his sermon, about sins, of course. "I don't want you good folks to be like those sinners that gamble away their savings, for that is the Devil's path," he said.

A little old lady in the front row called out, "Amen, brother. Amen!"

Encuraged, the preacher continued. "And don't be like those sinners that drink whiskey and beer and wine and other strong drink, for they are the Devil's own brew!"

Called out the little old lady, "Amen brother! Amen!!"

Fired up, the preacher shouted, "And don't be smokin' that tabacca and dippin' that snuf, for they are the Devil's weed!!"

Said the little old lady, "What a minute, brother. Now ya gone ta meddlin'!"

JohnD
2010-Mar-08, 08:06 PM
Well now, Jim.
That is somehat pertinent.

For while the preacher's Life Manual has nothing to say about it, yet he took it upon himself to ban gambling. That Manual has no consistent message about drinking either, yet he condemned alcohol. Smoking was unknown when the Manual was written so I have no idea where the Good (well, not at all good) Pastor got his guidance from, except that he was undoubtedly correct!
In other words he was moderating excessively!

John

Provence
2010-Mar-08, 11:03 PM
There should be an "Inadequate Moderation" thread. Just to even things out.

01101001
2010-Mar-09, 12:10 AM
There should be an "Inadequate Moderation" thread. Just to even things out.

This is it. Just twist and fold.

I'm sick and tired of being sick and tired of this excessively underdone moderation.

Moderately underdone would be fine, but these latest actions just go beyond the pale. Harrumph.

Hornblower
2010-Mar-09, 12:11 AM
There should be an "Inadequate Moderation" thread. Just to even things out.

I'll second that!

Seriously, I think the moderation is very reasonable.

Gillianren
2010-Mar-09, 12:44 AM
The problem with an "Inadequate Moderation" thread is the intense temptation to name names.

clint
2010-Mar-10, 10:55 PM
I'm sick and tired of being sick and tired...

Isn't that a song by Anastacia? :whistle:

cm10
2010-Mar-10, 11:26 PM
The problem with an "Inadequate Moderation" thread is the intense temptation to name names.

Sounds good to me. Everyone from posters to mods should be held accountable right?

captain swoop
2010-Mar-10, 11:39 PM
Isn't that a song by Anastacia? :whistle:

Lilli Von Shtupp

Gillianren
2010-Mar-11, 01:07 AM
Sounds good to me. Everyone from posters to mods should be held accountable right?

So if I said, "I think cm10 gets too easy a ride and should be banned," that would be okay with you?

SolusLupus
2010-Mar-11, 04:51 AM
I can name all sorts of names. I'm sure people will name me as well.

It won't go over well, and it certainly won't help the board in any manner.

The Backroad Astronomer
2010-Mar-11, 05:05 AM
I can name all sorts of names. I'm sure people will name me as well.

It won't go over well, and it certainly won't help the board in any manner.
You're no 5 on my list.:)

SolusLupus
2010-Mar-11, 05:06 AM
You're no 5 on my list.:)

Only no 5? I'm not working hard enough.

TheHalcyonYear
2010-Mar-11, 05:21 AM
It seems to me that most of the difficulties concerning moderation in the forums here comes from discussions and topics that are far from the field of Astronomy. While it's clear that there are some serious heavyweights posting here on astronomy and related fields, it becomes equally clear that on other topics many posters on both sides of an issue can do little more than quote from one paper or another.

I find it interesting that there appears to be a new "no blog" rule concerning the issue of global warming. Would this rule be extended to astronomy and thus making anything posted on the BA's blog, or the blogs of other astronomers, out of bounds? I can't really answer that reasonably, but I do think that the moderators and administrators here would feel much more comfortable identifying astronomy blogs that don't pass muster than identifying questionable blogs from other fields.

From what I have seen, these forums were originally designed provide a gathering point for the discussion and dissemination of first-rate astronomical information as well as for serious discussions of astronomical theory. It seems to me that where things get tangled here is when the the discussion strays too far afield. This is not a criticism by any means. I am a member of several online forums in the geosciences and I would not expect them to excel, in either presenting or moderating, discussions concerning the Big Bang theory or what The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation levels can tell us about the nature of the universe and its history.

So, I hope the BAUT moderators and administrators will consider the nature and mission of the forums here since that is a crucial issue when attempting to fairly and realistically moderate scientific and technical discussions.

cm10
2010-Mar-11, 05:57 AM
So if I said, "I think cm10 gets too easy a ride and should be banned," that would be okay with you?

Sure, why not? Look, if I was being a jerk and breaking rules and no one was reprimanding me for it, then by all means, call me out. We're not children after all.

Gillianren
2010-Mar-11, 05:59 AM
I find it interesting that there appears to be a new "no blog" rule concerning the issue of global warming. Would this rule be extended to astronomy and thus making anything posted on the BA's blog, or the blogs of other astronomers, out of bounds? I can't really answer that reasonably, but I do think that the moderators and administrators here would feel much more comfortable identifying astronomy blogs that don't pass muster than identifying questionable blogs from other fields.

Exactly right. And that's why blogs about global warming aren't allowed anymore; none of the mods or admins feel comfortable vetting them, because they themselves don't have the kind of knowledge required. Astronomy? We have experts in the field. No one on the entire board, so far as I know, is really qualified in climatology.

Gillianren
2010-Mar-11, 05:59 AM
Sure, why not? Look, if I was being a jerk and breaking rules and no one was reprimanding me for it, then by all means, call me out. We're not children after all.

That's what the "report" button is for.

TheHalcyonYear
2010-Mar-11, 07:40 AM
Exactly right. And that's why blogs about global warming aren't allowed anymore; none of the mods or admins feel comfortable vetting them, because they themselves don't have the kind of knowledge required. Astronomy? We have experts in the field. No one on the entire board, so far as I know, is really qualified in climatology.
Which is why I suggest in my previous post that the moderators and administrators here consider carefully the nature and mission of the forums here. It would be difficult indeed for any set of online forums to present and moderate any discussion simply because it is technical and/or scientific in nature. Perhaps concentration on the area in which BAUT excels would be beneficial. Perhaps there are other forums that might be better prepared for for discussions in biochemistry or organic chemistry, geoscience or climatology. Perhaps the best course of action would be to politely direct such discussions to more appropriate forums.

It is no disgrace to limit discussion to certain areas and excel in those areas. It is, at best, very difficult to attempt to be all things to all who would post. Perhaps better to be the best in a certain area and let other forums provide gathering points for the areas in which they excel.

It's just a thought.

Glom
2010-Mar-11, 08:03 AM
I'd personally like to see a move to less moderation. Fast breeders are the way forward.

sauron
2010-Mar-11, 01:44 PM
One of my concerns regarding moderation is the skewness of it. Which makes it look even more excessive to some. Over the past week I've been reading all sorts of posts that indicate this in one way or the other. Mainly in the lax application of forum rules to high post members. I can certainly vouch for that as my posts have been treated that way many times.

Many surely regard me as a troll. But that is, shall we say, orthogonal to the matter at hand. I have also read over the last week a great series of comments regarding the drop in posts and lack of interest and gist in the forums. It is my belief that the moderation policies and practices are affecting the forum's image in a negative way for the newcomers, junior members, and "lightweight" physics and astronomy members. Baut looks to be on the good path to becoming an ivory tower.

captain swoop
2010-Mar-11, 02:24 PM
It still seems to be the ATM and Conspiracy proponents who have the most problems with Moderation.
If they took more time and care with their posts and actualy answered questions and supported their ideas as requested they would accumulate far fewer Mod actions.

antoniseb
2010-Mar-11, 02:31 PM
... I can certainly vouch for that as my posts have been treated that way many times.

Many surely regard me as a troll. But that is, shall we say, orthogonal to the matter at hand. ...

In your early posts, you tended to express yourself in some unfriendly ways. We try to encourage new members to correct that ASAP.

Members with many posts have learned how to go up to our boundaries without crossing them. This can look like differential enforcement to newer members.

sauron
2010-Mar-11, 02:40 PM
It still seems to be the ATM and Conspiracy proponents who have the most problems with Moderation.
If they took more time and care with their posts and actualy answered questions and supported their ideas as requested they would accumulate far fewer Mod actions.

It so happens that a thread was closed due to the relevance of a certain member's presence and for no other apparent reason related to the thread. I'll also add that my comments and notifications regarding my arguments being countered by attacks on my person rather than my arguments are still unanswered.

I hope you take this as constructive criticism and not as trolling. As I believe that such moderation "strategies" diminish newbie or infrequent visitor interest. The fact that the forum rules permit anti ATM and conspiracy members can come up with any idea without a burden of some basic proof/support adds no value to visitors.

Take a moment to think how many visitors who are curious and not trolls come for every ATM/conspiracy supporter that does open a thread. It seems the rules permit throwing garbage on top of garbage. I believe that long established members should a) should show more respect for new members b) show better arguments than off the air ideas. In such a way that a visitor comes out with the feeling of having learned something rather than just having watched a soap opera.

If you want BAUT to become a place for heavyweight members to discuss elevated topics far out of reach of mere mortals. It sure looks to be on the right path. If you want BAUT to be a place to show astronomy and physics in all levels, from the highest to the general knowledge. I'm afraid it's falling off the mark.

sauron
2010-Mar-11, 02:46 PM
In your early posts, you tended to express yourself in some unfriendly ways. We try to encourage new members to correct that ASAP.

Members with many posts have learned how to go up to our boundaries without crossing them. This can look like differential enforcement to newer members.

I don't recall ever using any bad language nor attacking anyone on a personal way. I made a few statements on rather evident measurement inconsistencies and some very basic aspects of the event taking place. To indicate that the solution was way simpler than what it was being elevated to. After two posts my position was mischaracterized and I was labeled as a hoax supporter when I all did was layout a few facts about the images and ask what was going on there.

Daffy
2010-Mar-11, 03:05 PM
It is my belief that the moderation policies and practices are affecting the forum's image in a negative way for the newcomers, junior members, and "lightweight" physics and astronomy members. Baut looks to be on the good path to becoming an ivory tower.

For my own experience, I have to disagree. I don't post here a lot, but it has nothing to do with moderation; it has to do with the fact that there are posters here who are actual experts in science and physics in particular. I can usually learn more by reading than by spouting off my own wildly unqualified opinions.

When I feel I have something pertinent to contribute, I do so. And I feel perfectly welcome to do so. But Some people's opinions about scientific matters are more valuable than others; that's just how it is. Now, if a thread is opened about Fender guitars, I'll jump right in...

sauron
2010-Mar-11, 03:12 PM
But Some people's opinions about scientific matters are more valuable than others;

There's no question about that. An expert's opinion carries more weight than someone else. I'm not questioning that. I'm raising a point about how some are moderated differently than others and how that is affecting the general image of the forum.

Jeff Root
2010-Mar-11, 03:43 PM
It so happens that a thread was closed due to the relevance of a
certain member's presence and for no other apparent reason related
to the thread.
I think I must be the "certain member". Are you eventually going to
address me directly? I've been just a little bit paranoid about the
moderators thinking that you are a sock puppet I created :-).
And I've been anxiously awaiting both your return and some action
by the moderators of whether my presence in the thread is wanted
or not. It certainly was more disruptive than I could have imagined.
I thought pretty much everything I said was self-evident. But it got
an awful lot of disagreement. I have three posts waiting to add to
that thread in reply to comments from the last people to post in it.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

antoniseb
2010-Mar-11, 03:57 PM
... my position was mischaracterized and I was labeled as a hoax supporter when I all did was layout a few facts about the images and ask what was going on there.

Not to apologize for people, but the folks here are only human. You started off closely matching a communication pattern often seen by an unpleasant variety of HBs... and your screen-name also matched the theme. They misjudged you, and things were testy at first. Thankfully you've shown the character to mostly forgive them.

sauron
2010-Mar-11, 04:03 PM
I think I must be the "certain member". Are you eventually going to
address me directly? I've been just a little bit paranoid about the
moderators thinking that you are a sock puppet I created :-).
And I've been anxiously awaiting both your return and some action
by the moderators of whether my presence in the thread is wanted
or not. It certainly was more disruptive than I could have imagined.
I thought pretty much everything I said was self-evident. But it got
an awful lot of disagreement. I have three posts waiting to add to
that thread in reply to comments from the last people to post in it.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Yes on all accounts. You pretty much synthesized my argument perfectly. I was suspended for a week so I couldn't post in reply. Now it seems the thread is closed until they decide about the relevance of your presence there. Which they haven't yet. It's my opinion that the more the thread sinks away the more your arguments and points gain weight. Contrary to my perceived intent of the moderators.

I don't want to bring that discussion here, thus I will not touch your comments here. I hope the moderators reopen it soon.

cm10
2010-Mar-11, 05:12 PM
That's what the "report" button is for.

Lol. How do we know if all things that are reported are actually investigated though? There is no level of transparency there, but a system like that can probably work with the right people involved doing a consistent job.

So here's a thought. Why not use the "report" button exclusively? And by that I mean stop having mods patrolling in and out of threads When someone is offended by something they can report it and a mod with no axe to grind can investigate. Otherwise let the board run itself. Things will not turn chaotic. Threads will flow properly. They won't grind to a screeching halt when someone who doesn't agree with the topic tries to derail it.

NEOWatcher
2010-Mar-11, 05:49 PM
So here's a thought. Why not use the "report" button exclusively? And by that I mean stop having mods patrolling in and out of threads When someone is offended by something they can report it and a mod with no axe to grind can investigate. Otherwise let the board run itself. Things will not turn chaotic. Threads will flow properly. They won't grind to a screeching halt when someone who doesn't agree with the topic tries to derail it.
In my opinion, that would make the situation worse. It would start to turn into a popularity contest (or unpopularity contest if you prefer). Moderation would start to appear completely one sided in favor of the popular people.

Swift
2010-Mar-11, 05:59 PM
Lol. How do we know if all things that are reported are actually investigated though? There is no level of transparency there, but a system like that can probably work with the right people involved doing a consistent job.
There is some level of transparency, it is just not 100%. For example, we are completely transparent about members who are suspended or banned - there is an entire thread devoted to reporting this. A lot of our moderation is done publically. But, there are also things best done in private.


So here's a thought. Why not use the "report" button exclusively? And by that I mean stop having mods patrolling in and out of threads When someone is offended by something they can report it and a mod with no axe to grind can investigate. Otherwise let the board run itself. Things will not turn chaotic. Threads will flow properly. They won't grind to a screeching halt when someone who doesn't agree with the topic tries to derail it.
It is a thought. You are free to suggest it to the owners of this board, Fraser and the Bad Astronomer. I personally don't like the idea and would probably not be a moderator under such a system.

Gillianren
2010-Mar-11, 06:21 PM
It is my belief that the moderation policies and practices are affecting the forum's image in a negative way for the newcomers, junior members, and "lightweight" physics and astronomy members.

I am one of the "lightweight" physics and astronomy members. I also have one of the highest post-counts on the board. This despite the funny story I have from high school about why I don't really know physics. Part of the issue is that I know when to be quiet and learn. Part of the issue is that there are other sections of the board in which I participate frequently. I have found that those willing to show respect are likely to fit in around here quite well. And showing respect tends to engender being shown respect, here or anywhere.


Lol. How do we know if all things that are reported are actually investigated though? There is no level of transparency there, but a system like that can probably work with the right people involved doing a consistent job.

It has been pointed out that it's realistically impossible to do a consistent job at moderation, all things considered, and I think that's true. I think the goal is to try to hold everyone to the same standards at all times, but I think, given human nature, there will be failings there. However, communicating with mods and admins by PM when I have had problems gets an explanation, if not necessarily the response I want.


So here's a thought. Why not use the "report" button exclusively? And by that I mean stop having mods patrolling in and out of threads When someone is offended by something they can report it and a mod with no axe to grind can investigate. Otherwise let the board run itself. Things will not turn chaotic. Threads will flow properly. They won't grind to a screeching halt when someone who doesn't agree with the topic tries to derail it.

"Things will not turn chaotic"? Nonsense! The reason we have as much moderation as we do is that things work better at this level. Besides, which mods, exactly, have no axes to grind? Does that mean they're not allowed to participate as members anymore? If so, where's the fun in their being here for them? And if it isn't fun, why participate at all?

antoniseb
2010-Mar-11, 06:22 PM
... How do we know if all things that are reported are actually investigated though? There is no level of transparency there, but a system like that can probably work with the right people involved doing a consistent job. ...

We already have people who use the report button to against people who "push their buttons". If we made the alerted posts section public, I suspect that it would decrease the usefulness of the tool, and increase its viability as a social tool for personal issues.

Do you know of a well-run forum where all moderator discussions are publicly visible?

cm10
2010-Mar-12, 05:01 PM
To Swift, Gillian, Antoniseb:

Look guys we can argue our points till the end of time, but lets face facts, we're certainly not going to agree on anything regarding this board and quite frankly I'm getting bored with this. You guys take care. I'm going back to reading.

Argos
2010-Mar-12, 05:29 PM
I find it interesting that there appears to be a new "no blog" rule concerning the issue of global warming. Would this rule be extended to astronomy and thus making anything posted on the BA's blog, or the blogs of other astronomers, out of bounds? I can't really answer that reasonably, but I do think that the moderators and administrators here would feel much more comfortable identifying astronomy blogs that don't pass muster than identifying questionable blogs from other fields.

There are dreadful scientific magazines out there. I know a few blogs that are more knowledgeable, richer and deeper than a number of sci mags.

SolusLupus
2010-Mar-12, 05:31 PM
To Swift, Gillian, Antoniseb:

Look guys we can argue our points till the end of time, but lets face facts, we're certainly not going to agree on anything regarding this board and quite frankly I'm getting bored with this. You guys take care. I'm going back to reading.

Good egress.

Argos
2010-Mar-12, 05:38 PM
One of my concerns regarding moderation is the skewness of it.

I know a member of this board who posts ATM with extraordinary claims [after you decipher his writing], does not answer direct questions about the claims, gets away with that and is practically worshiped. But we seem destined to live with that, and thatīs the human nature. Equality is just an ideal. It does not exist in real life.

Gillianren
2010-Mar-12, 06:01 PM
To Swift, Gillian, Antoniseb:

Look guys we can argue our points till the end of time, but lets face facts, we're certainly not going to agree on anything regarding this board and quite frankly I'm getting bored with this. You guys take care. I'm going back to reading.

Disagreeing with me holds no consequences. You'd be well advised to listen to what a moderator and an administrator are saying, would be my advice.

antoniseb
2010-Mar-12, 06:41 PM
... quite frankly I'm getting bored with this. You guys take care. I'm going back to reading Disagreeing with me holds no consequences. You'd be well advised to listen to what a moderator and an administrator are saying, would be my advice.
I'd read him as agreeing with me. I participate in this thread from obligation, and wanting to make sure people see a relatively honest view of how things run here, but generally, I, like cm10, would rather read astronomy stuff. I find the meta-discussions are not my muses of fire that ascend the brightest heavens of invention.

Swift
2010-Mar-12, 07:25 PM
...my muses of fire that ascend the brightest heavens of invention.
Wow, you sure dun tawk purdy.

SolusLupus
2010-Mar-12, 11:34 PM
I find the meta-discussions are not my muses of fire that ascend the brightest heavens of invention.

I find the meta-discussions are my muses of the earth, keeping me from floating away and forgetting all that exists down here in the dirt and the muck in which we are forced by nature to live.

mugaliens
2010-Mar-29, 08:52 AM
Disagreeing with me holds no consequences. You'd be well advised to listen to what a moderator and an administrator are saying, would be my advice.

And if they're ill-advised, inexperienced, biased, or just plain wrong?

Sorry, G, but I'll not throw my 25 years of experience out the window, even if the whole kit and kaboodle of 'em say one thing. I've three kits and two kaboodles which say otherwise. :)

Daffy
2010-Mar-29, 07:22 PM
And if they're ill-advised, inexperienced, biased, or just plain wrong?

Sorry, G, but I'll not throw my 25 years of experience out the window, even if the whole kit and kaboodle of 'em say one thing. I've three kits and two kaboodles which say otherwise. :)

Well, when it's the other kid's bat, ball, and backyard, you play by his rules. Just the way it is.

Sticks
2010-Mar-30, 10:57 AM
And if they're ill-advised, inexperienced, biased, or just plain wrong?

As a reminder to everyone in this thread, there are established procedures within the forum rules if you feel a particular moderation is incorrect.

JohnD
2010-Apr-05, 10:50 AM
Here's another example:
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/102722-Asteroid-Impacts-and-Earths-Rotation?p=1711929#post1711929
A moderator jumps in and indcts an established poster for thread diversion, when their answer was entirely appropriate. IMHO.

I HAVE followed established procedure and reported this, asking for it to be circulated to the college of moderators for, ahem, moderation.
I regret that I have also posted my support for the 'offender', else they will feel isolated.

John

slang
2010-Apr-05, 10:57 AM
I regret that I have also posted my support for the 'offender', else they will feel isolated.

So send "offender" a PM.. no need to add to the off-topic discussion in that thread.

grant hutchison
2010-Apr-05, 11:35 AM
I'm not sure of the relevance of "established poster". Speaking as an established poster who quite easily wanders off topic, I expect to have that pointed out by a moderator to exactly the same extent as applies to a new member. No less, no more.
A glance at the thread suggests that there was a topic in the OP which could quite easily be discussed in mainstream scientific terms. Astromark's comment about its possible origin, leading to a suggestion that it wasn't worth replying to, certainly seems to fall into the category "nothing to add".

Grant Hutchison

grant hutchison
2010-Apr-05, 12:44 PM
On reflection, I seem to have an opinion on this one. :lol:
In my experience, it's an occasional occurrence for a discussion on some topic to be well underway, with interested participation by several parties, only to have an established poster interject an opinion of the form "this is nonsense, it's not worth talking about".
If the poster feels it's not worth talking about, (s)he should simply avoid the thread. If the poster feels the discussion breaks some BAUT rule, (s)he should report it. I can't at present think of circumstances under which such an interjection is anything other than non-contributory and off-topic, and therefore worthy of a little mild moderator attention.

Grant Hutchison

tusenfem
2010-Apr-05, 12:53 PM
Here's another example:
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/102722-Asteroid-Impacts-and-Earths-Rotation?p=1711929#post1711929
A moderator jumps in and indcts an established poster for thread diversion, when their answer was entirely appropriate. IMHO.


The first comment by pzkpfw was related to post #7 by astromark in which the latter wrote:



Having done a little research into this I have found the core issue here. A half baked idea not based on any real astronomy at all. The 2012 thing and Nebaru.. Its not worth responding to.


Which was totally off topic, even though the OP had mentioned 2012 and Nibiru, but it was a real science question about a calculation. Now actually Jeff Root started to fully discuss Nancy Lieder and stuff and already startet to go off topic, and should have been mentioned.

Then astromark, instead of reporting it, decided to complain about it in thread, which he clearly knows is not done.



I HAVE followed established procedure and reported this, asking for it to be circulated to the college of moderators for, ahem, moderation.
I regret that I have also posted my support for the 'offender', else they will feel isolated.


Strangely enough you "regret posting support."

grapes
2010-Apr-05, 01:01 PM
Here's another example:
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/102722-Asteroid-Impacts-and-Earths-Rotation?p=1711929#post1711929
A moderator jumps in and indcts an established poster for thread diversion, when their answer was entirely appropriate. IMHO.

I HAVE followed established procedure and reported this, asking for it to be circulated to the college of moderators for, ahem, moderation.
I regret that I have also posted my support for the 'offender', else they will feel isolated.
Do you agree with the 'offender' (one of my favorite posters btw) that (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/102722-Asteroid-Impacts-and-Earths-Rotation?p=1711912#post1711912)" Its not worth responding to."?