Removal of Tiassa as moderator

[DaveC426913]

We should probably take a look at those accusations.

Disrupting my access as a means of taking revenge is about as absurdly apropos of yourself as can be.

I've thought about this. About whether this action is predicated on a moderator disagreement or if that's even germane. I've concluded that it's not a critical factor. In other words, while it may have been a catalyst, it is not necessarily a participator in the outcome.

Tiassa's comportment as a moderator is, in itself, sufficient to warrant the action. (I'be seen moderators busted down for way way less odious behavior than seen here). The sentiments of Members who have responded so far seems to be trending that way as well.

So: even if we were to take the JamesR/Tiassa squabble off the table entirely, as if it simply never existed, I'd say the outcome is still best for everyone: members and moderators alike.

 

[billvon]

Disrupting my access as a means of taking revenge is about as absurdly apropos of yourself as can be.

Given that you are literally posting here, looks like you still have access. You just don't have moderator access, which is a position you seemed to not want to do anyway. This way you can still post your stuff, but others are no longer forced to read it. A good thing IMO.

 

[DaveC426913]

Given that you are literally posting here, looks like you still have access.

Just one more case where James R exhibits an oft-times excruciating degree of restraint before finally taking action.

 

[DaveC426913]

James R : what can we do to help until you find/promote a new moderator?

 

[Seattle]

James R : what can we do to help until you find/promote a new moderator?

Do you think there is a lack of moderation here? James, just said that Tiassa didn't do anything. Traffic is minimal here. Is being down a moderator the biggest problem to address here?

 

[DaveC426913]

Do you think there is a lack of moderation here?

I'm gonna defer to James on that:

What I would actually like is some help. We've been a little short on for moderators here for some time. On the other hand, my impression is that the number of members who regularly visit sciforums is on the decline, so the workload is less than it used to be and not unsustainable, for now. I would like to see this forum grow its membership. But that's a discussion that is being had in a different thread, and probably elsewhere too.

 

[Seattle]

Please shoot me if you ever see me write that statement.

 

[foghorn]

This could all end in a mass migration to Scivillage.

 

[Sarkus]

This could all end in a mass migration to Scivillage.

So, Tiassa supposedly doesn't do much as a moderator, most people want to ignore his posts, yet you think him being removed as a moderator could see this all end in a mass migration to another forum? Ah, such confusing times we live in.

Or is this just a sneaky way to promote that website??

 

[foghorn]

Tongue in cheek. The loss of Tiassa as mod, so beloved, will result in migration.
Whoever becomes a mod will still (as you noted) be under JR and so the site will continue to be modded in the same way as now.
No more no less.

 

[C C]

James R : what can we do to help until you find/promote a new moderator?

Needless to say: Continue to report spam, as I guess that's at least one Mod (deletion and blocking) task that doesn't diminish no matter how dead the forum becomes in terms of its actual function.
_

 

[Seattle]

Needless to say: Continue to report spam, as I guess that's at least one Mod (deletion and blocking) task that doesn't diminish no matter how dead the forum becomes in terms of its actual function.
_

I was on a forum once where they had a remove button that any member could use to temporarily remove the nightly spam. It went into a folder that the admin reviewed but it kept it off the public forum almost immediately. No one abused that button by removing member comments. It cut down on admin work as well.

Of course, on most forums I've been on, you don't even know who the admins are because they are there just to keep things running smoothly and not to insert themselves into the subject matter.

It turns out that if you don't label everyone a "white supremacist" there is a lot less drama. Go figure?

 

[wegs]

I’ve been on forums where there are moderator disagreements and a mod may step down or be removed by the admins, but it’s done behind closed doors. Virtually speaking. This level of public persecution of Tiassa seems over the top.

 

[Pinball1970]

I’ve been on forums where there are moderator disagreements and a mod may step down or be removed by the admins, but it’s done behind closed doors. Virtually speaking. This level of public persecution of Tiassa seems over the top.

Most of the chat is regarding how to go forward now.

 

[wegs]

Most of the chat is regarding how to go forward now.

Okay. I guess that’s good. I just don’t like to see members getting roasted like that.

That said, didn’t this site have different mods for different sections like ten years ago? I think we should go back to that because if someone isn’t able to mod because life gets in the way or whatever, there will be someone to handle the moderation duties.

Just my thoughts to it.

 

[DaveC426913]

This level of public persecution of Tiassa seems over the top.

Yes, from a moderation perspective, that's the kind of thing that would normally happen behind closed doors. But it's also the knd of thing that would happens amongst multiple mods who can come to a consensus. Here, James doesn't really have much of a venue to act as a sounding board - except the members publicly.

Okay. I guess that’s good. I just don’t like to see members getting roasted like that.

Well that's its own issue. Tiassa - the member - has historically made accusations of the worst, most hyperbolic kind, and made them very publicly.

James R can't simply give him infaction points to put him in time-out like he does with regular members. Especially since the ultimate consequences affect all of us.

I do think that Tiassa had an obligation to comport himself in a way that allowed the kerfuffle to remain behind closed doors. And I don't think he did. Some of that has to fall on him.

Imagine a child having a meltdown in the middle of the grocery store (maybe a passive-aggressive meltdown, such as lying down in middle of the aisle and refusing to move). The parent doesn't really have the option of enacting their parenting in the privacy of their home; some of that parenting will have to happen right there in the grocery store.

And - if the child absolutely refuses to capitulate - the scene won't be pretty. The parent will not come out looking good and will likely be judged by anyone who doesn't themselves have children of that age. Other onlookers know how difficult it can be to raise a child with developmental issues and will sympathize.


(It's not my intention to liken Tiassa to a child. It's just James R doesn't have the option to simply walk away from a subordinate who is sowing discord. Maybe I could have used an employee analogy instead.)

 

[wegs]

Yes, from a moderation perspective, that's the kind of thing that would normally happen behind closed doors. But it's also the knd of thing that would happens amongst multiple mods who can come to a consensus. Here, James doesn't really have much of a venue to act as a sounding board - except the members publicly.


Well that's its own issue. Tiassa - the member - has historically made accusations of the worst, most hyperbolic kind, and made them very publicly.

James R can't simply give him infaction points to put him in time-out like he does with regular members. Especially since the ultimate consequences affect all of us.

I do think that Tiassa had an obligation to comport himself in a way that allowed the kerfuffle to remain behind closed doors. And I don't think he did. Some of that has to fall on him.

Imagine a child having a meltdown in the middle of the grocery store (maybe a passive-agressive meltdown, such as lying down in middle of the aisle and refusing to move). The parent doesn't really have the option of enacting their parenting in the privacy of their home; some of that parenting will have to happen right there in the grocery store.

And - if the child absolutely refuses to capitulate - the scene won't be pretty. The parent will not come out looking good and will likely be judged by anyone who doesn't themselves have children of that age. Other onlookers know how difficult it can be to raise a child with developmental issues and will sympathize.


(It's not my intention to liken Tiassa to a child. It's just James R doesn't have the option to simply walk away from a subordinate who is sowing discord. Maybe I could have used an employee analogy instead.)

Fair enough. I think the historical squabbling should have been squelched long ago. It’s just not a good look for mods to be fighting in the open. It confuses the regular members because honestly, I have no idea what this ongoing feud was about. If you’re a mod, you shouldn’t get to blast people in the open, no matter how offensive the other member is, knowing also that if they retaliate in kind, they’re banned.

I’m stressing this because it’s something that should change going forward. If that forum “style” remains the same, there’s no point in electing a new mod or two, for new people won’t join and regulars will keep away.

Drama is one of those things that sucks you in at first but then can be quite draining if it goes on and on. Just my two jelly beans fwiw.

 

[DaveC426913]

Fair enough. I think the historical squabbling should have been squelched long ago. It’s just not a good look for mods to be fighting in the open.

The issue is, as James R has been saying, he does turn the other cheek and does ignore it as much as possible. And Tiassa keeps needling him. James R only has so many cheeks to turn before he has to take action.

Drama is one of those things that sucks you in at first but then can be quite draining if it goes on and on. Just my two jelly beans fwiw.

Yes. This is a very unsual situation. A Catch-22.

Any regular member behaving as Tiassa has would have been infracted and, if the behavior didn't abate, timed-out and eventually banned.
But Tiassa is no ordinary member, who can't simply be banned. So the disciplinary process is short-circuited.

This is why it is so important to vet someone before they become moderator. A moderator is definitely not supposed to lower themselves to anti-social trolling behavior. You can't have that kind of toxicity in a position of responsibility. That's death for a forum.

If Tiassa absoutely needs to put his personal ego and feelings before the needs of the site - then he can't fulfill the duties of a moderator.
So now he does not have to. He is free to sail with the winds of his personal views, unfettered by the chains of responsibility.

 

[Seattle]

I’ve been on forums where there are moderator disagreements and a mod may step down or be removed by the admins, but it’s done behind closed doors. Virtually speaking. This level of public persecution of Tiassa seems over the top.

I'm never for the "bully" but in this case the phrase "you reap what you sow" comes to mind. Tiassa has done this kind of thing to James for years.

I've called out James for his "hateful little man" comments, several times. That's not right either but it's hard to feel sorry for Tiassa, IMO. He has been abusing our eyeballs for years with his daily written word salad. It's just not right, IMO, to put such a person in a position of being a moderator. Of course we don't have to read his word salad blogs but that's not really the point.

I personally think we need moderators who are moderate in temperment. What we have, all too often, are those who are very rigid and judgemental.

For instance, I'll use my own case, I made some comment about those who talk about "going to they baby mama house". The response from all "moderators" here...I'm a white supremist and a racist.

There is no logical train of thought between those comments and "white supremist". I've never in my public or private life, uttered a word about the "white race" being superior.

Regarding the racist label. You could argue that someone calling my comments "racist" is racist in itself. It's implying that the "black race" is uneducated and lacking in culture and customs.

Skin color has nothing to do with "baby moma" and "going to they house". The subjects are an uneducated subset of our population. You can say that I was being intolerant, exhibiting poor humor, or you can think it was funny or you can just not like my choice of words. I don't really care. It's not racist and being a white supremacist just because any number of rigid moderators think and say otherwise.

It's also disingenuous to label everyone a troll, racist and/or a white supremacist just because you disagree with them. That's not "moderating". James does it, Tiassa does it and even Bell does it to a lesser degree. It's not right.

Tiassa is just getting back some of what he has been giving for a long time. That's usually what bullies aren't used to and don't deal with very well. He doesn't like it when James returns the favor. James doesn't like it when we point out his hypocrisy in labeling others but coming unglued when Tiassa does it to him.

 

[Pinball1970]

You can't have that kind of toxicity in a position of responsibility. That's death for a forum.

Why was he so keen to be re-instated as a mod? Is he absolutely aware that his comments without mod rights will be pounced on with infractions then a ban?
No, if he really is keen on science and positive interaction to keep the site healthy there is no need to be a mod.