Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consecution
Michael
Member (Idle past 4637 days)
Posts: 199
From: USA
Joined: 05-14-2005


Message 91 of 300 (240524)
09-05-2005 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by wj
09-05-2005 7:07 AM


Re: Omnivorous ban
Adminben's indefinite suspension of Omnivorous is excessive.
Sarcasm, right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by wj, posted 09-05-2005 7:07 AM wj has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by wj, posted 09-08-2005 1:47 AM Michael has not replied

AdminBen
Inactive Member


Message 92 of 300 (240529)
09-05-2005 9:04 AM


Let's not go there
Hey all,
This thread is not a peanut gallery where we opine about moderator action. It's a place to lodge constructive criticism and concern about admin action.
If anybody has legitimate constructive criticism to post here about any admin action, please do so. Please try to legitimatize criticism by explaining WHY the moderator action was wrong, how you'd like it to be different, and WHY this difference is better.
To the rest of y'all hoodlums... please get off my thread.
Smiling but serious. Anybody not lodging a complaint at this point, get off this thread.

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Michael, posted 09-05-2005 12:33 PM AdminBen has replied
 Message 96 by wj, posted 09-08-2005 1:56 AM AdminBen has replied

Michael
Member (Idle past 4637 days)
Posts: 199
From: USA
Joined: 05-14-2005


Message 93 of 300 (240569)
09-05-2005 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by AdminBen
09-05-2005 9:04 AM


Re: Let's not go there
Okay Ben, I have a complaint.
Your post is inconsistent with both the topic name "General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consecution," and the opening post:
AdminJar writes:
This is the place to bring discussion of moderation procedure.
Admins, update your signatures to point here.
Nothing there to indicate that praise for the administrators is not appropriate.
Cheers Ben.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by AdminBen, posted 09-05-2005 9:04 AM AdminBen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by AdminBen, posted 09-05-2005 1:21 PM Michael has not replied

AdminBen
Inactive Member


Message 94 of 300 (240592)
09-05-2005 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Michael
09-05-2005 12:33 PM


Re: Let's not go there
Michael,
Fair enough complaint.
I do appreciate your support and the other comments. From my experience, however, these "discussions" always seem to take a turn away from discussion of moderation procedures, and into interpretation of the events, at exactly the point where posters stop trying to give their thoughts to the admins, and start responding to each other.
Michael writes:
Adminben's indefinite suspension of Omnivorous is excessive.
Sarcasm, right?
I was trying to avoid going down that path. To do that, I jumped the gun and went a bit far.
But the real crux of the problem is that they use up valuable posts with each reply. Which means, each time I get 1/300th of the way closer to having to change my sig again. That's always a real pisser.
Anyway. I appreciate your follow-up. You are right, I went beyond the bounds of the thread. I'll be conscious of that in the future.
Thanks.

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Michael, posted 09-05-2005 12:33 PM Michael has not replied

wj
Inactive Member


Message 95 of 300 (241211)
09-08-2005 1:47 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Michael
09-05-2005 8:36 AM


Re: Omnivorous ban
No, Michael, not sarcasm. Faith gets the privelige of making offensive and immoral assetions and someone loses his cool. The letter deserrves indefinite banning whilst the former is given lenient forgiveness each time she degenerates into similar but unprovoked behaviour. The double standard from Adminben is getting tiresome. The net result will be frustration for those who normally abide by the rules when they see double standard is shortsighted and ethically indefensible.
Note that this is written after Omnivorous has been restored.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Michael, posted 09-05-2005 8:36 AM Michael has not replied

wj
Inactive Member


Message 96 of 300 (241213)
09-08-2005 1:56 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by AdminBen
09-05-2005 9:04 AM


Re: Let's not go there
AdminBen writes:
This thread is not a peanut gallery where we opine about moderator action.
Have you lost the plot? Dissuading feedback from members like this will lead to moderators becoming insular and isolated from the views of other members - not a healty thing, unless the owner of the boards wants to indulge himself in that way but it could get rather lonely.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by AdminBen, posted 09-05-2005 9:04 AM AdminBen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by AdminBen, posted 09-08-2005 8:13 AM wj has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 97 of 300 (241246)
09-08-2005 8:08 AM


Crashfrog's recent suspension
Crashfrog was recently suspended for the exchange that can be read here
A brief summary (not always direct quotes, see link for actual quotes):
Crash: FEMA says: "First responders urged not to respond".
Jar: Where do they say that?
Crash: ...misunderstood the article. Here is the link they referred to...
AdminJar: Your link doesn't support your assertion...this is quote mining. I think you should edit your original post.
Crash: 'I don't appreciate you adopting admin mode in a discussion you've participated in'
Now - on a personal side of things I actually think that crashfrog's subsequent suspension was sharp and a little premature. Unlike the quote miners that we revile, crashfrog realized that the quote was a little off, and not only that, but posted a link to the full article from whence the quote came. In short, crashfrog was guilty of sloppy research and accepting at face value the media rather than the source, possibly a suspendable in the science forum, but in the coffee house?
The practical side comes from crashfrog himself:
I don't appreciate you adopting admin mode in a discussion you've participated in
Having moderated before, and having been active in other debate forums, this can be a legitimate problem, and if it isn't an actual problem it is certainly perceived as one...which is a problem in and of itself. The extreme of this problem can be experienced by anyone who vists evolutionfairytale.com - where the three main creationist posters are a moderator, an Admin and the site owner.
I know when I posted there, that I always felt like I was walking on eggshells, having to add a million disclaimers to everything I said because if I slipped up or was too conclusive in my victory, I'd get banned. In the end, I slipped up and got suspended (for my subtle evil idea of finding common ground between e's and c's). After that I was even more paranoid when debating the mods and admins that I would suddenly find myself without interesting opponents. Eventually, after humiliating an admin for pointing out a rather basic error, I was banned.
This has given me some perspective on how it might feel to the Creationists and IDers who visit this site with its bias towards the evolution side of things.
I've simply seen too many moderators get involved in a debate and then suspend their opponent for not answering questions in an anticipated manner or some such. From the suspendees point of view they may well have addressed the points but the suspender is goal post moving and, to prevent a valid rebuttal, suspends the suspendee.
It is my most humble opinion that it might be an idea to have one or more mods/admins that are elected to moderate a given thread, elected at the start of any new thread. These admins are forbidden from being involved in the actual debate, so they can at stay as unbiased humans with opinions can be. Or perhaps, something less formal - anyone with admin privelages declares their intention to participate (I assume simply by participating), and is thus prevented from moderating in that same thread. This also might help give focus to the admins.
I hope my rather straightforward suggestion, presented with more words than it probably merits, is seen as something worthy of serious consideration.

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Adminnemooseus, posted 09-08-2005 9:32 AM Modulous has replied
 Message 101 by nwr, posted 09-08-2005 9:58 AM Modulous has replied

AdminBen
Inactive Member


Message 98 of 300 (241248)
09-08-2005 8:13 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by wj
09-08-2005 1:56 AM


Re: Let's not go there
Yes, I agree. Please see post 94.
Thanks.
This message has been edited by AdminBen, Thursday, 2005/09/08 05:13 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by wj, posted 09-08-2005 1:56 AM wj has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 99 of 300 (241261)
09-08-2005 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by Modulous
09-08-2005 8:08 AM


Re: Crashfrog's recent suspension
A few quick comments:
There has been considerable discussion in the "Private Administration Forum", over both the Omnivorous and Crashfrog suspensions (1 topic each). In both cases, it was a difficult call, but sometimes the situations call for a "do something even if it proves out to be wrong". My impression (IMO) both suspension were justified, but again, they were difficult calls.
Per the Jar/AdminJar participation - At least some of the Jar input was intended to be from AdminJar, but inadvertently got posted under the wrong ID. As things happened, Jar decided that it would be improper/too late to go back and change the ID to the admin mode.
It also should be stressed that in that particular topic, Jar and Crashfrog were/are NOT on opposing sides of the debate.
Per the standards of the "Coffee House" - I think the standards for serious topics there, should be as high as for the science forums.
Per the Omnivorous situation - His/her response was extreme, to an extreme statement from Faith. I think the bottom line is, that Faith is a representative of the Christian far right, and as such, extreme statements are to be expected from her. The various admins think that permitting "extreme fundy" perspectives are needed at . But we still don't want the "more rational" turning into the "unrational".
Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Modulous, posted 09-08-2005 8:08 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by CK, posted 09-08-2005 9:48 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied
 Message 102 by Modulous, posted 09-08-2005 10:32 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied
 Message 104 by Nuggin, posted 09-08-2005 11:03 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 100 of 300 (241270)
09-08-2005 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by Adminnemooseus
09-08-2005 9:32 AM


Re: Crashfrog's recent suspension
I struggle with this - from the practical level of running a forum (and I mod a couple myself), I can see why some of our more extreme posters get more slack but it also concerns me for a number of reasons.
I got attacked for saying this previously but that seems to amount to "those posters are not capableof meeting the minimum standards that we expect from others and therefore we cannot expect it."
That seems to be a pretty damning statement to make about people and the end result surely is that it's a waste of time them being here as they are therefore incapable of actually interacting in any meaningful fashion? Those people are here to make up numbers not because they are expected to contribute anything of value?
Isn't that just a little insulting?
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 08-Sep-2005 09:49 AM
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 08-Sep-2005 09:49 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Adminnemooseus, posted 09-08-2005 9:32 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 101 of 300 (241272)
09-08-2005 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by Modulous
09-08-2005 8:08 AM


Re: Crashfrog's recent suspension
I thought there was over-reaction on both sides.
The moderation of this site is, of course, biased. It has to be. It is biased against the evolutionists. The moderators give a lot of latitude to creationists, but far less to evolutionists.
Nevertheless creationists are often being suspended, while suspensions for evolutionists are rare. This is because evolutionists are mainly giving evidence-based posts, while creationists mostly are not.
Because of this difference in suspension rates, there is an unavoidable appearance of bias against creationists. It is to counter this appearance that the moderators must be quick to react when they see a problem in posts by those on the evolutionist side.
On the issue of moderator participation in a thread, I don't agree with Modulous here. His proposed restriction is not practical. A moderator who is not participating in a thread is less likely to notice problems and thus will be a poorer moderator. You can see this on the faith-based side of the house, where the moderation is often poor. Threads wander badly off-topic, and moderators are slow to notice the problem -- presumably because the most active moderators are more interested in the science side.
Sure, moderating and participating in the same thread can cause problems. But, as we saw in the crashfrog case, these problem seem to be corrected. It appears that the moderators are watching each other and attempting to correct mistakes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Modulous, posted 09-08-2005 8:08 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Modulous, posted 09-08-2005 10:46 AM nwr has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 102 of 300 (241284)
09-08-2005 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by Adminnemooseus
09-08-2005 9:32 AM


Re: Crashfrog's recent suspension
I may have been misunderstood. I don't blame Mr.Moose, communication is a two party process. To aid it, let me clarify a few things:
  1. Omnivorous - I didn't actually mention Omnivorous' suspension. Now that it was brought up I'll say that I think that it is my opinion that it was treated far too leniently.
  2. Per the Jar/AdminJar participation - This isn't specifically about Jar and AdminJar, that case just highlighted a bigger issue. This is about X and AdminX. As I said, it might not be an actual problem, but I'm willing to bet it is a perceived problem, which is a problem itself.
  3. 'Do something even if it proves out to be wrong' - a fair enough policy, my objection to it was merely me voicing an opinion, and wasn't the basis of the proposed moderation procedure change...it was merely a recent example (poor as it might be) of a member feeling 'put out' when X raises a point, which is responded to and suddenly AdminX appears and soon afterwards hands out a suspension.
    quote:
    It also should be stressed that in that particular topic, Jar and Crashfrog were/are NOT on opposing sides of the debate.
    Indeed - but that this problem was highlighted even when an Admin and a member are on roughly the same side serves as an interesting thought as to what the perception is when the Admin and member are opposing one another. Personal experience tells me that it is not a positive thing to go through. One feels slightly cheated, and like somebody is using 'authority' to win by default or have the last word.
    This is something that creationists/IDers would likely feel when debating here at times. I personally think it might be a good idea to
    address this concern as best as possible. Hence my above suggestion.
  4. Coffee house, serious talks, standards high - I agree, but it should be a little more relaxed. After all, in this case, the perp conceded that the quote was erroneous, revealed where he got the erroneous source, and even linked to the original quote with full context. He was then suspended because he refused to go back and edit the original post. I really don't think that was entirely necessary.
Conclusion
OK, having a conclusion for a post like this is entirely pretentious I know, but the principle point of my original post was to discuss the X/AdminX issue within the context of interthread discussions. I didn't really intend discuss my opinion of the crash/jar scenario (though as I have demonstrated, I'll happily give my opinion when prompted - who here wouldn't
It is my opinion that Admins should either participate in a debate or moderate a debate, not both (though I see no reason why a moderator cannot do as all users do and warn regarding off topic, insulting behaviour etc).
I know you were just offering quick comments, and that your time is limited these days re: evc, so don't let me drag you into a time consuming discussion you don't really have the time for - your imput was appreciated, thank you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Adminnemooseus, posted 09-08-2005 9:32 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Omnivorous, posted 09-13-2005 5:05 PM Modulous has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 103 of 300 (241287)
09-08-2005 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by nwr
09-08-2005 9:58 AM


Re: Crashfrog's recent suspension
On the issue of moderator participation in a thread, I don't agree with Modulous here.
Wouldn't life be boring if we all agreed with me? One day you will see the light though
His proposed restriction is not practical. A moderator who is not participating in a thread is less likely to notice problems and thus will be a poorer moderator.
I would like to commend this criticism. It's a good and valid one and it centres around time and energy. My proposal included the possibility of declaring a moderator(s) who would keep an eye on the thread (not to the exclusion of other moderators) just to ensure that there are moderators looking into things. There aren't usually that many active posts around here, I'm sure each Admin could handle checking in on 3-5 specific posts per day (or per whatever time permits).
Also, assuming that is too radical, there is nothing to stop AdminX informing his Admin buddies of a moderation need in threadY.
Of course, my restriction was really only intended for non-obvious cases. You know, where people don't provide evidence repeatedly after being asked to. The perp in this case may feel they have responded correctly by explaining why evidence isn't needed or available, or where they did provide evidence. Some Admin debating our perp might not be able to see this objectively (or just as bad, they are not perceived as being able to see this objectively), so a non-participating mod should adjudicate.
When a case is clear (repeatedly spamming a thread with nonsense) or vitriolic attacks, then such restrictions are pointless and the appropriate suspension/ban should be enacted by whoever happens to see them first.
Incidentally, I would like to add that I believe our Admins do a great job, and in most cases I agree with their decisions - but I can understand the creationists point of view that it might seem that they are being modded to death (and being modded to death is a fate only my girlfriend looks forward to...ahem) by their opponents who pull rank on them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by nwr, posted 09-08-2005 9:58 AM nwr has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by CK, posted 09-08-2005 11:19 AM Modulous has replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 104 of 300 (241298)
09-08-2005 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by Adminnemooseus
09-08-2005 9:32 AM


Re: Crashfrog's recent suspension
Faith is a representative of the Christian far right, and as such, extreme statements are to be expected from her. The various admins think that permitting "extreme fundy" perspectives are needed at
Why permit extreme "fundy" perspectives and not the counterpoint?
I understand the idea behind fighting fire with water instead of more fire, but frankly, it's not working.
Faith has consistantly proven (and stated) that no matter what factual evidence is presented, it will not make a dent in her belief system. She then uses that possition to throw out childish and down right offensive statements like her comments about the victims of Katrina.
Yet, whenever people call her out, as I did a few weeks ago, it's suspensions all around.
If it's policy that she can say what she wants without reprecussions, is there some way to add that as a header on all her posts. Something like "Alert: This poster is not to be taken seriously"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Adminnemooseus, posted 09-08-2005 9:32 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 105 of 300 (241303)
09-08-2005 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by Modulous
09-08-2005 10:46 AM


Re: Crashfrog's recent suspension
And of course we have to remember our mods have
job,families, hobbies,horses and things to do!
So we all need to bear that in mind when we ask for changes/actions.
(Something I'm sure you are aware of Mod* if you are em..a Mod elsewhere)
* I think we should calling you "little mod" or "moddy".
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 08-Sep-2005 11:22 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Modulous, posted 09-08-2005 10:46 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Modulous, posted 09-08-2005 11:31 AM CK has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024