Who will moderate the Moderator

Discussion in 'SF Open Government' started by The God, Apr 19, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    The God.

    As far as I can tell I don't have an axe to grind, a dog in the fight, or any other colourful metaphor that would indicate a particular bias in this issue either way. So, you may find my observations about as objective as you will get. I'll let you decide.

    I have issues with some of the moderation on the forum. There is one moderator who, in my view, should not even be tolerated as an ordinary member and a couple more whose prejudices and biases should fully exclude them from the office. And there are at least two or three whose behaviour is exemplary.

    I mention this so that you are aware that I'm not somehow in the pocket of staff, or an unofficial spokesperson for them.

    You ask: "Q1. Is it proper on the part of the Moderator to give his response inside the OP itself ?"
    Absolutely yes. As a mod I have done this on at least three of the forums I have moderated and believe it was wholly appropriate in each case. It can offer several benefits, not all of them necessarily evident in each case:
    • It serves as a warning and clarification for all members of what is and is not acceptable.
    • It emphasises to the member receiving the moderation the seriousness of their 'offense'.
    • It enables "justice to be seen to be done".
    • It can clarify how subsequent posts in the thread should be read.
    Next you ask: "Q2. is there any rule for which a member can be awarded poins for reporting some other members post ?"
    I have no idea if there is a written rule, but I do not see how this would run counter to the principle and intent of moderation.

    Finally you ask: "Q3. Was the Moderator action Justified "
    I have not taken the time that would be required to properly assess this. It would require reading far beyond the subject thread. Perhaps it was; perhaps it wasn't. Based on the reaction on the thread so far the opinion appears to be that it was. If we polled the members who have not responded I suspect the majority view would be "I don't give a damn."

    My final two observations - you may not like the second one.

    1. You are clearly upset about what you see as an injustice. That's reasonable. We can all get upset.
    2. When I read the sub-text of your posts I see someone who is looking for a fight. Perhaps you do not intend that. If you do not then you will appreciate that you need - urgently - to adjust your posting style. On the other hand, if you are looking for a fight you should not be surprised when someone takes you up on it.
    exchemist likes this.
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. The God Valued Senior Member



    OP is self explanatory......
    Apart from nonsensical posts in response, my posts focus on two things...

    1. Somewhat critical on certain issues like BH, BB etc..
    2. Objection if the mainstream is incorrectly interpreted by so called supporters of mainstream.

    In couple of threads, one new poster Schneibster came and very aggressively pushed 3 points as taken up in the OP. When objected he did not budge, so I urged the Mods to intervene and clarify the position as what is mainstream...as the mainstream as available in the books and web is different than what was being pushed by this guy. Mods remained silent, so I was forced to create this thread..

    1. Once you choose to remain silent, then you loose the right to tell me that the same should have been taken in that thread.

    2. Modeator who has reddened this OP, does not give any citation, rather ignores the well established references of educational links...

    3. This moderator has the right to red mark or delete the objectionable non technical contents, I do not dispute that, but if he was responding and siding with one of the propositions, then he should have responded in a new posts.

    Moreover I reported to Post#2 here by Paddoboy, that is clear provocation and does not contribute anything to the discussion, this particular Moderator did not realise that and on top of that warned me for that. If had not reported, I would have exchanged few stupid words with Paddoboy, that would have created a scene.

    I feel this moderator has exceeded his brief, he has incorrectly taken side with Schneibster, probably because he was an invited member, and he is soft peddling Paddoboy. The cause of all the altercation on these two sub forums is Paddoboy's noisy posts, he should be asked to respond sensibly...his noise has become too much. How can you respond if Paddoboy clutter everythread with...you have an agenda, you are a religeous minded deity type person with agenda, your threads are moved to pseudoscince section, GR is well established, BB is near certainly, mainstream guys are working on coalfronts so they cannot ber wrong. any tom dick and harry will not rewrite the science....all bloody parrotized meaningless noise.

    Ask Mods to provide the Reporting/reported history...in all likelyhood Paddoboy will lead...and others are party due to his nonsense.
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    It's a moderator moderation.............(i think there's a song in there someplace)
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. sweetpea Valued Senior Member

    Infamy! Infamy! They've all got it in for me!
    exchemist and sculptor like this.
  8. BdS Registered Senior Member

    No, why would the moderator taint the original evidence. How do the readers know that the moderator didn't edit/sabotage the "perp's" {lol} original content?
    Now I can claim that someone "planted the contraband" and get away with anything, yay! If any of my future posts are in violation, there was a malicious hand involved. Just letting everyone know.

    I didn't even post this. Wasn't me!
  9. Bells Staff Member

    Mod Note

    It is not a common practice here, but it does have its uses. As it has on this occasion and I know you obviously disagree with that assessment and it has upset you, but in this instance, he did operate within the rules themselves. He made sure that his mod note response was well identified as not being your post by identifying that it was a Moderator response and by changing the colour of the text.

    Have you tried to PM him to ask him why he responded as he did, before you started this thread? I will get back to this point later on..

    Each reported posts does not exist in a vacuum. We will actually go to the thread and read it. And we are known to issue multiple infractions in those threads upon reviewing it, and yes, sometimes even the person who filed the report will receive an infraction.

    In your instance, I was aware of the report you filed. And I don't think that he acted improperly in issuing the infraction. There was nothing wrong with the post you reported. You have every appearance of reporting the person, because the post you reported did not break this site's rules.

    Secondly, the warning line at the top, appears for each post that has received an infraction. This is a software issue in that it appears automatically each time a post attracts a warning. And with said warning, you will have received a PM from the moderator, so he did PM you, but not as you desired or expected.

    A few points here..

    If you disagreed with Schneibster's points, why did you not address them in the thread where these points were first raised? This is a discussion forum and as such, his points could have (or should have) enticed you to disagree and raise your own points. I don't think rpenner was derelict in his duty as a moderator. People do have a right to disagree with others, including you.

    Secondly, the report function is not there to report posts or opinions that you (or anybody else) disagree(s) with. It is there solely to serve as a means for members to report posts that are against this site's rules.

    I cannot stress this point enough. Because a lot of the reports were receive from certain sub-forums, are from people who disagree with the opinions or arguments of other posters or worse, they report the person and not the post. By which I mean that some posters are using the report function to try to get back at posters for personal reasons and not because they have breached this site's rules.

    Thirdly, moderators are not in control or responsible for how people behave. The only person responsible for your behaviour is you. And the only person responsible for how I behave is me. What you should have done was to argue the points with Schneibster, instead of starting a new thread to disagree with his points or to voice your disagreement with his opinion and views. From my perspective, what you decided to do in starting a new thread would qualify as flaming and trolling. And yes, I would have issued you with an infraction. No one forced you to create the new thread. You chose to do it because you disagreed with another poster's views and instead of arguing those points with that poster, you decided to report them and when that went nowhere, you chose to start a new thread to flame them and the staff into responding. And the staff responded. Just not as you wanted them to.

    I am going to address a point I made earlier and this is important...

    If you disagree with a moderator's actions, the rules are quite clear on the matter.. First you should PM them and discuss the issue with them first. If that fails, you are to PM an Administrator or a Supermoderator (Tiassa) with your complaint. As per the rules:

    G. Feedback and Complaints
    1. Members are encouraged to post general feedback regarding sciforums in the Site Feedback subforum. Matters of general interest regarding site policies and moderation (but not about individual moderators) should be posted to the Open Government subforum.

    2. Specific complaints concerning the moderation of individual posts should in the first instance be directed by Personal Messaging to the moderator of the subforum in question. If that does not resolve the issue, send a personal message to a supermoderator or administrator.

    3. Complaints about individual moderators should be directed to the administrators by Personal Messaging.​

    This is a specific complaint about a moderator's actions. I would suggest you attempt to PM them first with your complaint about how he responded to your post, and if that fails, contact or PM an administrator or a supermoderator with your complaint.

    If you have a complaint about moderation, please direct them to the moderator in question via PM. If that fails, please PM an administrator. If you have a complaint about an individual moderator, please direct said complaint to an Administrator using the PM function. Starting a thread like this and the one you are complaining about, is not a good way to go about it.
  10. The God Valued Senior Member



    I am afraid you are off on few points...

    1. I got no PM for this infraction....some problem at SF end if it is automatic, or Mod did not follow the procedure.
    2. Your suggestion that I should have taken up this issue in the thread itself, suggests that you have not gone through the thread.

    I specifically objected to the same in the thread, Expletive Deleted also did this, DMOE also expressed, origin also took it up, but this poster while showing vacillation once (in response to ED) did not budge. Infact he put me on ignore. and mind you all the three points versions were absolutely opposite A , not A; B, not B; C, not C. So some authoritative intervention was required. I even gave references (at least 3), all ignored. In fact I urged Mods intervention also, as follows..

    This post also was not responded by Mod......then what do I do ? Since the points were critical I made a Black & White new thread, that was the only recourse left ? Thats why the question, this particluar Mod, by remaining silent on the above post, which tantamounts to dereliction of duty, lost the right to issue infraction for the new thread.

    Last edited: Apr 21, 2016
  11. The God Valued Senior Member

    The Post #2 of Paddoboy from http://www.sciforums.com/threads/what-is-mainstream-views-on.156052/....this post was reported by me.

    Its a bloody irrlevant flaming post. Does it answer the points raised by OP ? I was not speaking for myself, I was not raising any new theory ? i was just referring with citations that look this guy Schenibster is pushing something as mainstream, which is actually not mainstream. Instead of responding on that, this guy Paddoboy, posted nonsense.

    Tell me, how reporting this irrelavant post by Paddoboy, get me infraction ? This clearly shows that this particular Mod (Rpenner ?) has soft peddled Paddoboy.

    And one more thing.....

    Please note that Technical response must be there in new post only, even by Mod. All red color text by this Mod is technical vague counter (vague in a sense he was required to answer what is mainstream and what is not, but he started his lecture) which can only be there in separate post. he as a Mod has the right to cut / delete / strike any non technical (or absurdly incorrect technical statements)...but there is nothing personal or non technical in that thread. hence this act by him was beyond his brief or atleast unjustifiably harsh.
  12. Bells Staff Member

    Mod Note

    An infraction would have generated a PM. And I know an infraction was issued because I can view it. If the system did not generate a PM, then that is something the owners of this site will need to look into.

    Have you considered that the moderator may have perceived it as being something that did not require his moderation? Or that perhaps he was reviewing it in detail? Had you considered that he may have actioned the thread and is under no requirement or obligation to explain what had happened?

    Firstly, had you consulted the rules, you'd have seen that if you had a complaint to make, there are steps to take before launching into a 'let's make a new thread and flame someone' thread..

    Suffice to say, just because you disagreed with people, does not mean you need to start a new thread to bag them and to defend your position. A lot of the times, the reports we receive will be rejected because the contents of these reports can just be sorted out in the thread. And not everyone has to read or agree to what you say. He chose to ignore it. And by the looks of it, he might have you on ignore (this is addressed further down)..

    Secondly, making a new thread was not the only recourse you had left. The moderator(s) are not always obliged or obligated to respond and it hardly constitutes as a dereliction of duty if he did not respond, nor does it mean that he lost his right to issue an infraction for the new thread you chose to create instead of addressing those points in the original thread.

    Well firstly, I did not see anything in Paddoboy's post that would require his receiving an infraction.

    I saw plenty in your OP that would have resulted in an infraction. In other words, Paddoboy did not break the rules. You, on the other hand, did. You started a thread to have a go at someone because you disagreed with their opinion and you wanted the moderators to get involved. A moderator did get involved. I have to ask, would you have created this thread if the moderator in question had responded in the same way towards another poster you disagreed with? Considering the rude and obnoxious manner you worded your reports, I am going to guess that the answer to that is no. The thread you created that resulted in your receiving an infraction was a flame thread. Your further participation in the thread is just as problematic.

    From your more recent response in the thread in question, you seem to be of the view that moderators should be deleting or removing opinions or posts if they are "incorrect"?

    And finally, as moderators, we often suggest to members that they put others on ignore if those people truly bother them. In cases of harassment, we will intervene. But I have often advised members to put people they have issues with or who have issues with them, on ignore to reduce the flaming and trolling. Perhaps that is why Schneibster put you on ignore and did not bother responding to your posts...

    It would be a "dereliction of duty" if we had staff who willy nilly started deleting people's posts because they thought the post contained incorrect information.

    The point of a discussion forum is to discuss matters, even some things that are not palatable or even offensive. There are few things we silence here and I can assure you, being wrong in mathematics or physics do not qualify for deletion.

    And when someone is incorrect, you can use the power of your fingertips to keyboard and provide the correct information. If they choose to disagree with you, that is their prerogative. Rest assured that those reading whichever posts will make up their own minds. But also note that moderators are not obligated to referee arguments or to pick sides. That is not really our job here.

    You received an infraction because your thread and the OP were designed to flame members and staff alike because you felt you were being ignored or you weren't taken seriously.

    That is what it came down to. Remember, when we review reported posts, we read the thread, and you started a thread to attack another member and to air your grievances because you did not feel that you were being taken seriously enough. Paddoboy's posts addressed your 3 points correctly, in my opinion. Not everyone has to agree with you and people are certainly free to say what they disagree with and why. There was nothing in that post that warranted a warning. Your OP on the other hand, did.

    I disagree.

    Just be mindful of what you are reporting and why, not to mention the how..

    Now, perhaps you should abide by the rules and take your complaint about a moderator to the correct channels. Yes?
  13. rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    I waited an hour since The God's last post, but no PM yet.
    In context, which is not immediately clear when a quote is lifted from another thread, paddoboy's first two criticisms were about The God's inappropriate use of "proof" and "demand" which seem unnecessarily aggressive towards a poster who likely never read The God's thread because reportedly he put The God on ignore. paddoboy's third criticism was about the second paragraph lamenting that your posts have gone unanswered when paddoboy believes The God simply didn't like the answers. In context, there was nothing obviously wrong with paddoboy's reply to the OP. But the content of the report was objectionable, as was the OP, as was the OP of this thread for the reasons Bell's cites.

    Both of these are optional behaviors, while I think it defaults to no warning line, and a precomposed generic PM only for the generic warning categories. There are some strange behaviors of the tools since moderation tools receive less QA time than features available to all members. But the choice not to start a PM seems redundant in that the second paragraph clearly invited moderators to present their views. A red-pen markup would certainly make it clear if The God received a response.

    Nothing in that response prevents The God from asking questions of Moderation via PM as per the forum rules.

    Indeed, even if paddoboy's specific criticisms were not judged correct by every moderator who has yet commented on them in context, the general characteristics of The God's OP were objectionable enough to deeply weaken his philosophical posture as a principled lover of forum rules. (See doctrine of unclean hands.) Reporting paddoboy's post backfired for the same reason criticism of a physical theory on philosophical grounds fails: one needs to speak to one's audience to make a persuasive argument.

    As a general rule, moderators dislike wading into a flame war to try and figure out which exact positions have the most merit. It's usually at least as effective to shut the thread down and throw the book at anyone clueless enough to think the discussion isn't over. That's not pretty decision making, that's resource-constrained decision making — proper because it's better than inaction or more capricious action. Red-penning the OP, while less heavy-handed than closing the thread is more capricious than a simple reply post, but appears to be more effective at communicating a specific lack of tolerance. But as with your suggestion to follow the rules and start by PMing the sub-forum moderator, the suggestions for making a more persuasive case for The God's position by means of reasoned essay seems to have been ignored. Communication requires both parties to engage.
    I have bolded language where you state positive claims of fact of which I have no evidence. Such behavior on your part comes across as unreasonable particularly in light of Bells' recent post pointing out that you are not the boss of other people, only yourself.
    It is wiser to teach how to fish than to do all the work for free. How can I have the right to remove poor content from your post if not the right to add clearly delimited and identified commentary on why it is poor content? How would that system work?
    Names are pretty personal, and I count 4 names and a personal demand of a reply predicated on the absurdly incorrect technical assertion that you are the boss of this forum.
    Secondly, the objectionable report your made in that thread only seems motivated by your personal animus and outrage that another would criticize your post.
    So your claim to be a selfless provider of purely technical posts seems without merit. Not everyone is self-aware of their moods and feelings, but they influence how you think, how you read, how you react and some people are skilled at reading behaviors driven by moods as opposed to principled, reasoned argument based on well-supported claims of fact.
    "Hence" suggests the conclusion follows from the claims of fact and commonly accepted axioms. I don't think this is a good example of persuasive writing, because your claims of fact seem weak and your axioms seem uncommon and far too much is left to guesswork. But you have started on the path of writing an essay advocating why others should share your views.
    Last edited: Apr 21, 2016
  14. Bells Staff Member

    Mod Note

    Thread closed for review.

    The God, for now, I would advise you to use the correct and proper channels for your complaints.
    Last edited: Apr 21, 2016
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page