Mods-Bad Eggs

"abuse"... doesnt that perty much leave the door open to moderate "bad-atitudes".???

Only to an extent...
...there is a general backlash from some in the community when such action is taken...

...you just cannot please everyone.

That is only too true...

Doesnt Sciforums need mods who can handle the "backlash" an do what is in the best interest of Sciforums.???
 
*shrugs* If that is what the community as a whole wants, then yes
 
Except that it isn't... we see a lot of dissent from that - we have had several members go so far as to say to "let the members sort it out themselves".
 
Technically, the administration/owners are... they laid the rules by which we follow. The problem is, as they are not here for the day-to-day, they do not always see the challenges that arise
 
Technically, the administration/owners are... they laid the rules by which we follow. The problem is, as they are not here for the day-to-day, they do not always see the challenges that arise

Administraton knows the type of prollems that arise... other than the rules laid down... what guidance has Adm. given to mods to handle the "bad-atitude posters".???
 
Administraton knows the type of prollems that arise... other than the rules laid down... what guidance has Adm. given to mods to handle the "bad-atitude posters".???

We have the rules that are in place and the authority to act beyond thrm when needed.
 
Technically, the administration/owners are... they laid the rules by which we follow. The problem is, as they are not here for the day-to-day, they do not always see the challenges that arise

No, the problem is you moderators don't follow the rules but expect everyone else to follow them.
 
If I were so inclined to insult you, I would do so regardless of the consequences. The fact tgat I have not is simply my choice in the matter; were I to do so I would accept the consequences with grace. Something you seem incapable of doing.
 
A few suggestions have been banded about. Ultimately, a stricter following of, and adherence to, the established rules would be required... the problem is that, as it stands, there is no easy way to start doing that without shell-shocking the community.
 
...a stricter following of, and adherence to, the established rules...

Ok... but how about actualy followin the rules insted of "jus bein stricter"/(only follerin the rules when the mood strikes)... an get rid of rules that wont be consistently enforced.!!!

...the problem is that, as it stands, there is no easy way to start doing that without shell-shocking the community.

Let it be known that the rules are gonna be enforced (no exceptions)... but have a grase period wit warnins... which let the person know what the moderation will be the nest time that rule is broken.!!!

As long as the moderation is consistant... an done wit-out even a hint of smart-azz remarks... it will work... ie... posters an Mods will have a beter experience at Sciforums.!!!
 
Last edited:
A few suggestions have been banded about. Ultimately, a stricter following of, and adherence to, the established rules would be required... the problem is that, as it stands, there is no easy way to start doing that without shell-shocking the community.

However, it is the only way the moderators can show the members here they are not hypocrites, they need to adhere to the rules themselves before they say anything to the members. If they started doing that, everything will be fine.

Why not make a decision in your private forum to do so, create a thread announcing to everyone that the abuse and insults from moderators will stop immediately, and that everyone, including the mods, will have consequences to their actions?

That alone will shell-shock the community.
 
...the abuse and insults from moderators will stop immediately, and that everyone, including the mods, will have consequences to their actions?

Wit the plan me an Kitt are workin on... surly that didnt need to be ponted out;;; i assumed it was a given :shrug:
 
While the mod's can try to work out problems and identify which moderators aren't up to scratch, they don't have the privileges to remove someone themselves. This requires waiting for someone further up the food chain to reappraise whatever the problem is and act on it accordingly. This can of course take time since the volunteer staff to my knowledge are suppose to make the forum robust enough to not require an administrator to have to pop on every couple of hours.

It should be very apparent by now which moderators need to go. The same names have been repeated by plenty of members for years now. Let's not feign ignorance on this, Stryder.

It can also be seen as akin to chopping off your own arm, yes there might be an infection and left untreated it could very well turn to Deadite control, however it's your arm and to be honest you're likely very attached to it.

So you don't want to hold moderators accountable because you're buddies with them? If that's the case, then you've forgotten what your purpose is.

Perhaps we should look at some Moderator related infraction system where if too many infractions are met, the moderators kicked off the moderation team and returned to normal member status. The problem with such a system however is "who" would get to apply the infractions. While it would be great to have everyone's feedback define who stays or goes, it should always go through someone higher up to have "power over veto" just in case the actual event itself is just a mob sanctioned attack. (While this might imply that someone is all powerful, the reality is that there always needs to be some method to do the checks and balances to apply fair arbitration.)

I'm all for moderator accountability. But the problem with this, as you say, goes deeper; James has rarely shown an interest in disciplining them, and I don't think Plazma is around enough to be of any help. So, again it comes to who holds the ability.

I say leave it to the membership. That, of course, creates its own problems, but I think they're less consequential than leaving it to admins (absentee) or the mods themselves (conflict of interest).

Again, though, all it would take is for you all to recognize that there are just one or two mods who need to go--who have needed to go for years--and pull the trigger on it. The forum would be immeasurably better for it.

Kittamaru said:
The thing is, that would be a violation of their right to free speech...so long as they don't cross the line into slander/libel, abuse/assault, or otherwise threatening behavior... and while I may not agree with what they are saying, I will defend their right to do so, as is my duty as an American Citizen.

He means make it against the rules of the forum. And, as you well know, your speech at Sciforums is not protected by the Constitution.

I mean, guys, can we all agree that there are one or two mods that everybody knows are troublemakers? Can we agree on that?
 
Technically speaking, if I'm not mistaken, since we are a US Hosted website, we do still fall under US guidelines... I could be wrong though.
 
Technically speaking, if I'm not mistaken, since we are a US Hosted website, we do still fall under US guidelines... I could be wrong though.


You must know that the First Amendment doesn't protect private groups from setting guidelines for behavior, speech, and expression. I say you must because you just banned Q for running off at the mouth.

C'mon, dude.
 
Back
Top