Science: Explanation versus obfuscation

Maybe you're right. What do you have in mind?

Who's "he"?

Aw, shucks. Let's not forget your very valuable contributions, while we're all patting each other on the back, Seattle. Well done you!

 

Who's "we"?

Maybe traffic has gone down because many satisfied customers have gone away with a new appreciation for science, which they are able to use in their everyday lives.

There are lots of other reasons I can think of as to why traffic might have decreased, other than that sciforums has failed to achieve its goals.

What do you see as the goals of sciforums, anyway? It doesn't seem to me that you have a very clear idea - or maybe it's more than you have the wrong idea.

"Dominated" is an interesting word choice. Perhaps you'd like to expand on your thesis in Site Feedback; we could discuss this domination you speak of.

Quick, effective and appropriate moderator intervention could be a positive indicator of a well-oiled machine. You're assuming it is a negative. Why?

Despite this supposed domination by moderators that you mentioned, do you think it could be at all possible that the "purpose" of sciforums is whatever the active members of it decide it is?

What's your personal "purpose" in continuing to read and post here? I'm interested to know. In some way or other, clearly this forum's purpose - whatever it is - is attractive to you.

You are factually incorrect, which gets you off to a bad start on that particular line of argument.

You know, to me, this post of yours sounds a lot like a thinly-veiled sour-grapes swipe at a certain moderator. But it couldn't be that, could it? I'm sure your intentions are entirely honourable and I have made a terrible mistake. *takes tongue out of cheek*

That seems to be entirely a non sequitur. I don't know what to make of it.

It's the only conclusion you want to make. I'm not sure you've really thought this through.

 

Content is almost never deleted on sciforums - apart from first-post spam material. Most commonly when an official warning is issued, a warning note is attached to a relevant post and a moderator note is posted in the same thread; the offending posts are usually allowed to stand.

Content is sometimes moved to the cesspool, when it is particularly inane.

There are some rare exceptions to this. Content is sometimes edited to remove personal information that was posted without permission of its owner, for instance.

Moderators do not directly ban members, in the ordinary course of things on sciforums. Our warnings and bans policy is posted in the Site Feedback subforum for all to see. Members who receive enough warnings in any 6-month period accumulate sufficient active warning points to cross a threshold for temporary or permanent banning. Bans are impose automatically, based on accumulated warning points. The length of any ban is determined by a member's current active warning point total following the latest warning.

Warnings are issued for clear violations of our posting guidelines, which are also publically available in the Site Feedback subforum.

We have an Open Government forum in which any member may propose changes to our posting guidelines, the ban policy or anything else about how the forum is moderated. If you think a certain rule is bad, or needs revision, that forum is there for you to propose changes and discuss the matter with moderators and other members. In some instances, proposed rule changes can be put to a vote of the members. However, sciforums is not, at the end of the day, a democracy. It is a privately-owned forum, run largely by volunteers.

If a member here would prefer a forum in which all members are truly on an equal footing, there are a few forums on the internet that are structured that way. We encourage people to post here or elsewhere, according to their own inclinations and interests. Clearly, if the moderators here are not willing to implement a change you believe is vital to your continued membership of this forum, then you always have the option to stop participating here.

A strange thing about all this, from my point of view, is while a lot of members like to complain about moderation, few ever take the step of proposing specific changes in a formal way. There could be many explanations for such behaviour, of course.

 

You're saying you think Sarkus is "a bit slow"? I see.

 

Ah, a hypothetical "we". I see.

You're saying, then, that if you're one of 4 out of 6 people posting on sciforums, and 2 others of the 6 are moderators, you feel like the 2 moderators dominate you?

What do you mean by "dominate"?

Do you feel like you don't get to have your say? Do you feel your opinions are oppressed by the weight of numbers?

Do you think you would feel more comfortable if there were 100 regular posters and 2 moderators?

Are you sort of a shy, retiring flower who prefers not to be noticed by moderators, and who would therefore prefer to blend in more with the crowd?

Do you feel overwhelmed when a moderator replies to your post?

I'm glad you've brought this matter to my attention. I wasn't aware of how intimidating the moderators must seem to you, coming from where you're coming from.

I don't understand the bit about "closing in".

I'm almost sure I've seen you be critical towards people posting about UFOs. That was your own decision, wasn't it?

I think you might want to check your facts. I'd say we have more than a few active members here who have either never received a warning or else have received fewer warnings than you could count on the fingers of one hand.

I understand your point that it is rare for a member to be thankful for getting an official warning. It is rare for people, in general, to reflect honestly on their own behaviours and make changes in response. My own experience in moderating people here and elsewhere on forums is that people tend to believe they are in the right most or all of the time. Some even get angry that a moderator dared to issue them with a warning, because they believe that they always have valid justifications for breaking the rules or acting in a way that, in the usual run of things, would be considered inappropriate. More than a few go out of their way to try to shift attention and blame for their own poor behaviour onto other people, rather than taking responsibility for it. So, yes, I completely understand why an active member might rationalise to himself that it's the rules or the moderators that need changing, rather than his own behaviours.

We could all be wrong.

 

Seattle:

Not at all. Did you notice the question marks I used in my post? Those help to distinguish statements - including stated perceptions - from questions.

Have you ever been in a position of having to adjudicate or referee something? It sounds like maybe you haven't.

Interesting. I think not many members would share your preference for anonymous moderators.

I might be quite happy if the facility existed to post moderator notes anonymously under an official moderator banner. That facility does not exist in the software used by sciforums, as far as I'm aware.

Perhaps you should read my helpful post #75, just a few posts up from this one. I think you might be operating with a few misconceptions about sciforums and its moderators.

You should bring up this matter of "excessive moderation" and "dominant" moderators in the Site Feedback or Open Government subforums. Here, all of this is a bit of a tangent.

I'm intrigued to discover what you mean by excessive moderation and moderator dominance - neither of which you have elaborated on to any great degree so far.