[alpha-rulez] Moderators are not being disciplined enough and are very naughty

Discussion in 'Site Feedback' started by spuriousmonkey, Jun 11, 2007.

  1. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    On a well structured, properly organised, ethically run forum one might expect that moderators would make a visible, continued, committed effort to engaging constructively with one of the forums major posters. Regardless of some degree of aberration in said posters most recent posts his prior commitment to the stated goals of the forum, the quality of his posts, his consistent scientific stance, his good humour, would surely merit a degree of respect and tolerance.
    This appears to be absent.
    Logically, this forces me to the unwelcome conclusion that this is not a well structured, properly organised, ethically run forum.
    Pity, really.
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Medicine*Woman Jesus: Mythstory--Not History! Valued Senior Member

    M*W: Since I have ranted a bit of late, I want to make this clear. I have not had a problem with any of the mods except Avatar. His behavior was unbecoming of a moderator in the Comparative Religion Forum, and I should have reported him, but I didn't.

    I have spoken up on behalf of my fellow members who did have a problem with the mods. I used the term "police state," because the moderation in general took what seemed like a sudden turn using fear tactics and threats against certain members. My own beef was at Avatar who controls the CR forum like the Gestapo."

    As far as getting infractions or getting banned, I try to keep my nose clean. The times I've been banned, I probably deserved it. Had you not wanted me to be a part of sciforums, and banned me early on for having a big mouth, I might not have had the opportunity to learn from the rest of you. For that, I am thankful to be able to continue to be a part of sciforums. Being allowed to continue on might have also awakened IAC in due time, and that was my complaint about his banning. I understand why he was banned... even I complained about him... but I regret that now. He certainly wasn't trying to teach us anything, so maybe we could have taught him something. He just wanted to belong like I think we all just want to belong.

    Thanks for listening to me. I recant my claim about sciforums in general being a "police state." I should have aimed that opinion specifically to the Comparative Religion forum.

    Now that we (members and mods) have thrashed all our problems and opinions out in the open, hopefully we can get back to the business of discussing science in a more mutually respectful manner.
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    The Devil Inside:

    What is your particular complaint regarding my supposed breach of the "alpha rules"? Please explain.


    Appearances can be deceiving.

    Here's how things went with spuriousmonkey:

    Dr Lou Natic was banned for repeated anti-semitism and racism, following previous warnings and temporary bans. spurious was clearly upset about that, though probably also had other issues, perhaps from his real life outside sciforums.

    spurious made several attacking posts on the moderation and administration of sciforums. I might have made one or two replies. Then, he decided to start a thread specifically to attack me personally.

    Instead of taking that bait, I sent him a conciliatory PM, asking for a sensible discussion of his concerns, for his suggestions for improvement, and so on. I suggested to him that open conflict on the forum would be non-constructive, and that it should be possible to deal with his concerns in a sensible and mature manner.

    He never responded to that message.

    Instead, he chose to continue his tirade and personal attacks, extending them to encompass the entire administration and moderation team. The reasons for that behaviour remain quite unclear. spuriousmonkey is usually level-headed and not illogical and vindictive.

    Anyway, he has now chosen to leave the forum for the time being. I hope he can sort out his issues off the forum. I hope he will return in time. But if not, it's entirely his choice. I will be sorry to lose a qualified biologist and scientist, and somebody who has been a valuable long-term contributor to sciforums. But there's nothing that can be done about that, directly. If he no longer wants to be here, he no longer wants to be here. Our only option is to respect that decision.
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. The Devil Inside Banned Banned

    1. post #36.

    2. saying that i only complain because of a friend (assuming my motivations without any base to stand on).

    3. your repeated efforts to focus the conversation on spuriousmonkey, when the thread is about moderators.

    understand now?
  8. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    That is a lie.
  9. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    1. How does post 36 breach the "alpha rules"? And how did spuriousmonkey's post that it was a response to not breach the alpha rules? For that matter, how do you judge your post #27?

    2. Ok. Let's assume you are not complaining on behalf of a friend, but you have substantive concerns of your own. Perhaps now would be a good time to elaborate on those.

    3. It is spuriousmonkey's thread, and his complaints. What else should I focus on?
  10. The Devil Inside Banned Banned

    1. we are judging your post as a person that is supposed to hold authority on this forum, and you keep dodging issues that are brought up, and when you respond, you dont use references.

    2. i have already voiced my concerns, but the problem stems from a rung above me...i dont expect them to be heard.

    3. spuriousmonkey has announced that he isnt posting here anymore, and yet you continue to deride him in his absence. this is actually very childish behavior. perhaps you should focus on the things being proposed in the realm of reform, as it is obvious that a very large number of posters are upset with the way things are being carried out around here.
  11. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    You recently told me to leave if I didn't like the way things were. Why wouldn't the same apply to you?
  12. The Devil Inside Banned Banned

    because, unlike you, im not content with the way things are. im willing to give someone the benefit of the doubt before i react. its called being reasonable. try it.

    are you suggesting that members should not have a voice in the shaping of this forum?

    if that is the case, ill be glad to go.
    if it isnt, just knock off the caustic B.S., nobody is interested.
  13. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    And of course, you wouldn't consider that perhaps you're part of the problem? Who said I was content? You said I should leave - make up your mind.
  14. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    I think ordinary members, such as The Devil Inside, are 'entitled' to be somewhat less consistent in their arguments, less rigorous in their attention to the rules, than moderators.

    Any moderator who fails to appreciate this distinction and indulges their personal likes and dislikes is behaving unethically, disruptively and cynically. (Though we might simply combine those aspects and say they are immature.)

    I am consistently amazed by what I am allowed to get away with and so have no problems whatsoever with how my posts have been moderated, at least for some considerable time. Equally I observe a low level of bitchiness on the part of certain mods, from time to time, that is simply out of place on any well regulated forum. Such behaviour does not appear to controlled or admonished. That is disturbing.
  15. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    i don't have that much of a problem i private messaged the moderaters of one of the sub forums because i found another members post to be disruptive and rqacist and one of them removed the posts so i have to say they are doing an ok job
  16. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    I do not believe anyone is claiming that all moderators do a poor job all of the time. Rather it is stated by some, suggested by others, and suspected by still more, that there is excessive bias and subjectivity in the actions of certain moderators at certain times. I imagine this rather bland statement would not be challenged by any moderator. It is the extent of this bias and subjectivity that appears to be in dispute.
  17. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    I say, that is a bit too much, I am trying my best, I'll have you know; its only low level because I'm a beginner:bugeye:
  18. Avatar smoking revolver Valued Senior Member

    Thanks for the compliment! There are very few off topic or religious posts there.
  19. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Sam, you are one of the moderators who ought to be a moderator, because you are always moderate.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    This is not true of all.
  20. Ripley Valued Senior Member

    Ah, you're not digging deep enough, Stryder. Newly-found doesn't necessarily imply acquisitions only, but can also include adjuncts or substitutes or amendments to already existing tenures—transforming them in effect as newly-found tenures. Cute, huh? Supplementary perks and dashing accessories. And this is all very fantastic only if one can sync up to it in due course—not make of it a degenerative travesty. So, to be more honest, my qualm is not with the means that has newly found power, but with the undue handling of a fabulous means once it's been found.

    I know you've been moderating Pseudo since last year but during that time the status of moderatorship, in my opinion, has shifted and gained several quirks that, in turn, have released a certain laissez-faire among our new crop of mods—like young starlets-cum-movie stars who've discovered their calling as cultural icons—the function is already entrusted to them but they'll mold it as they will.

    And although you in particular, and perhaps one or two others, may not share in this fancy, the entire bearing of being a mod now has been afflicted—there's more maneuverability and it all seems like such a big deal, a privilege, a sense of entitlement. Like, big shit. And being in proximity to Hollywood how can you not evade the irresistible bedazzle of its razzle-dazzle? Champagne with that cake, anyone? Therein schleps a newly-found degree of affected swagger, whether it be familiar, aloof, or formal—there's just this stifling air about it that follows most member-cum-moderators around.

    I'm rather flattered—I didn't think anyone cared so I went off on my own trip(s).
  21. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    could you please not use refrences to the nazis alot of people lost family and friends because of them and to compare trivial things to what the nazis did is very offensive and insensative to those who have lost because of them
  22. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    On the other hand, the mindset that allowed nazism to take root and flourish may well be found in simple and trivial expressions of righteousness and abuse of power such as are being discussed here.
    It may be that by challenging these mind sets here, when they are trivial, we can prevent a repeat of the tragedy of post-Weimar Germany.
    On the other hand I may be talking bollocks.
  23. The Devil Inside Banned Banned

    hows this:
    i have never seen a post of quality from you, yet you are a moderator. how is this, when i have witnessed you stalking at least 2 other members, trolling every post they make?

    you should leave. for the good of the forum. perhaps you should consider that you are part of the problem.

    ooh noooo...not (Q)!! he is untouchable!

Share This Page