Change in Moderation?

Hi Moose,
Don't think it would work if regulation was at the level of the individual. It would only work with threads. To some degree this has been happening already. For example, Symansu posted his cut variation thread and re-hashed old arguments. Admin closed the thread immediately and put it in the Free for All. Similarly, if someone starts a thread that immediately degenerates it gets booted to Free for All. Or a legitimate thread that strays completely off topic. The new topic could be put in the Free for All and the original topic re-established anew. If an individual starts acting up in the non-Free for All, rather than suspending their posting privilege, they get a 24, 48, 72 etc. suspension from the forums except for the Free for All. I don't know if any of this is reasonable or even possible. I am just spouting out some ideas. I just think banning and global suspensions feeds into some peoples idea of a victory i.e. "they could not accept my brilliance and these biased people banned me."What I (and others) propose is to turn the Free for All into a place where misbehavior in the other forums leads to something akin to standing in a corner with a dunce cap on . Since it could happen to anyone on either side of the debate it would be a fair system and there would be a motivation to stay out of the Free for All and participate in the other forums since that would be where the really interesting discussions would reside.

I guess my vision of the "Unique Perspective" forum would be as a halfway house, between "Evolution" and "Free For All". "Unique Perspective" could be made open to all like "Free For All" is.Further comment certainly welcome.Moose/Adminnemooseus - Operating in non-admin/admin modeAdded by edit c. 11:55 pm, 3/24/03 - Oops, I just remembered that the "Free For All" isn't as free as it used to be.[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 03-24-2003]

Hi Adminnemooseus,Just read the last ten or so posts in Salty's thread. Please don't feel any pressure to "solve" the Salty issue just because I've been persuaded to step aside. I think other participants in that thread have made it clear that they'd really like to address the issues and difficulties he presents, both scientific and style-wise. In fact, call me bipolar for this 180, but maybe your original idea to "just let Salty be Salty" is best. It might even make sense to rein in the evolutionists behavior on the thread so that Salty has nothing to complain about - his posts kind of speak for themselves.I think what drove my prior behavior regarding PB and Salty was the belief that they could be rational, they just didn't want to be, but that a little pressure would fix this. This expectation runs in the face in past experience with others, however, and in retrospect it is easy to see that it wasn't very realistic. There are some "problem" posters who are amenable to persuasion, so one should always make the overture, but once rebuffed should be enough. The question then becomes, "After a moderator's request has been refused, what then?" Ultimately we'll develop better answers than suspension, but today maybe we can just let Salty's thread stay where it is and "let Salty be Salty."------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

I don't even believe that Peter Borger has anything worthy of being called a GUToB. And I don't think that he can contribute much st this point without an administrator keeping him on a tight rein.I do think that he should have been given the chance to present his views, but he's had that.I am happy to leave the decision of what to do with him now in the hands of the administrators - since it is they who will shoulder the burden.

I strongly suggest tht salty not be banned or suspended. His style is very irritating but that is a cross which many are prepared to bear. His intention appears to be to get banned and thereafter play the martyr or to incite personal attacks on himself so that he can proclaim that others cannot defeat his position so they attack him personally.I think that allowing him the opportunity to respond to criticism of his position is the most effective technique to demonstrate the paucity of his position.

I think a recent comment by salty at Terry's board is revealing:

quote:

---

predict they will ban me at evcforum. They don't handle criticism very well. I'll be darned if I will retire voluntarily. They will have to cut me off. What I can't understand is why they keep going after me. Why not just declare me daft and let it go at that, don't you know? They just can't refrain from getting personal, especially Scott. and some guy in Germany. salty

---

from here

Cool...I am "some guy in Germany" ...can I call that my SGiG #3 theory?I have to agree with wj completely regarding banning. Salty is trying desperately to get banned so that he can claim he is vindicated (and odd way of looking of things admittedly). He is not the only one who has used this tactic and I don't think that is the best way to go.

Hi Moose,
Had to chuckle when I read the half way house description...sort of like AA...hi, I am Mammuthus and I have not ranted at EvC in 4 posts..short applause Any way it turns out, I think that if the threads in the Evolution forums could be more tightly controlled for content, the Free for All an unmoderated mess, and Unique Perspective somewhere in the middle, banning could be completely avoided. But I still think it should have some sort of carrot and stick approach where there is a motivation for participating in the regular forums and being confined for 24 hours or longer to the Free for All is seen as a punishment. I think it would sort itself out naturally. Those wishing to really debate won't get into constant flame wars and will bring interesting debates to the table. Those who just want to pull a salty will never get out of the "bad student" corner of the Free for All and may frankly not want to which would also be ok..they would isolate themselves. Punishment for the rest of us would be to be stuck with them which in turn would keep us from overreacting in the regular forums...not that I ever do that

wj has commented elsewhere (http://EvC Forum: Well, I guess it just goes to show... -->EvC Forum: Well, I guess it just goes to show...), on my closing of the salty topic. I am not going to comment on it there.He is welcome to bring the question to this topic.But right now, it's 1:10am where I live, and I got to get to bed.Adminnemooseus

wj raises a good point, but independent of that, we need some objective criteria for closing threads.wj's suggestion was that thread closure be by consensus.Any other suggestions?------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

I saw a note in one of the threads that Salty was banned over at Terry's board, and so I went over there to take a look. Turns out he was banned for only a very short time, and this is described in the Who banned Salty?) thread. The thread is interesting reading, at least for me who rarely visits Terry's board, because it highlights that Terry faces many of the same issues we do here. Probably all board managers do.But the reason I'm posting this note is because of two other things I noticed while briefly looking about. First, Message 21 from Salty in the above thread ponders why we put up with Scott here. I wonder if someone who isn't already banned over there could post a clarifying note to the effect that we rarely do permanent bannings here (only 3 in 2-1/2 years), but we do have 24-hour suspension of posting privileges, and that Scott has received these three times. And perhaps, if you're courageous, you might suggest that bannings at Terry's board not be permanent.The second thing was the A new board thread, where Terry tries to gauge his member's desire for a Free For All style board. I'm glad to see that Terry now understands that Free For All is just one of the forums here. In his very short visit here he noticed some discussions going on in the Free For All forum and seemed to get the wrong idea about EvC Forum in general.------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator[This message has been edited by Percipient, 03-27-2003]

For God's sake, someone post at Terry's how I have been suspended 3 whole times.But I think this whole closing of threads at a moderater's whim seems counterproductive. The Caporale thread in the book nook for example. That was the only thread keeping that board alive. Closing a thread because a moderater doesn't think it is going in some certain direction seems awfully.... I don't know.

Sorry, Scott, you just happen to be our poster boy for balanced treatment here at EvC Forum. We couldn't have done it without ya! I agree in general, and my recent "How to Moderate" lessons would seem to support you, but Peter Borger still has me concerned because he stalemated multiple threads simultaneously with GUToB claims. Please feel free to resume the discussion in the Dr Page's best example of common descent explained from the GUToB thread. Would you like me to put a copy of the Caporale thread in the Free For All forum?------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

Ok, Borger and I violated most of the rules in the last posts in our arguments over non-random mutation, GUToB, etc. which admittedly got way overheated. Fine, I am not particularly thrilled with my parting shots at Peter either and would not recommend anybody use our debate as a template for interacting with someone of an opposite view point. My suspension and Peter's are not the issue that disturbs me here. It is a lack of consistency in applying moderation.I see most board participants get a warning that they are crossing the line prior to suspension (or in Borger's case, permanent suspension). We both got chucked out without any warning. Even the option to re-edit or delete completely the most egregious posts was removed this way. On top of that, I see that subsequently, salty has violated rules 1 throuh 3 in EVERY post since Peter and I were suspended without a warning..nothing. On the opposite side, other's have also been violating rule 3 (a common occurrence on both sides normally
At some level this is unavoidable and does not mean the entire thread will become a flame war...but most of us I would tink on either side of the various debates do not take to kindly to being called an idiot because of their viewpoint. So not every post will be cool and detached.I sympathize with Admin that a change is desired as the rampant closing of threads, the increased suspensions, and bannings is hardly optimal. At present the changes to the forum remain undecided. I also don't get any sense of a timeframe for a change. But in the interim, I don't see a reason to continue posting. I plan on suspending my participation indefinitely. If a standard set of moderating guidelines are developed or a new concept in running the forums emerges from this suggestion thread that seems to work well, I'll re-evaluate. I really have enjoyed it here immensely and there are some really sharp people posting solid science and philosophy of science. But if we can't say what we think, or some of us can and other's cannot, or worse, some of the time we can say anything and then suddenly it is restricted, then the advantage of a free and open debate is lost.So I won't post, I will lurk and see for a while and if something changes for the better I will participate again. If not,so be it. In either case, I wish everyone on the EvC boards the best.Cheers,
Mammuthus

There is a bit of ongoing e-mail discussion, between the various admins, concerning the problems of moderation. What I will say here are my opinions, which may or may not be in line with Admins (Percys).

quote:

---

It is a lack of consistency in applying moderation.

---

and

quote:

---

I see most board participants get a warning that they are crossing the line prior to suspension

---

A problem is, is that the various admins could be plastering warnings all over the place, which gets very messy in itself. I think Admin (Percy) chose to issue a suspension to you as to be a warning to all. In other words, you were being made an example of. There were probably other highly respected evolution side participants that could equally as well been used as the "whipping boy".

quote:

---

On top of that, I see that subsequently, salty has violated rules 1 through 3 in EVERY post since Peter and I were suspended

---

Salty, SLPx, and others are the more grievous offenders. They are currently on the razors edge of being given long term suspensions, or being restricted to certain forums (in a possible system yet to be set up).

quote:

---

If a standard set of moderating guidelines are developed or a new concept in running the forums emerges from this suggestion thread that seems to work well, I'll re-evaluate

---

Admin (Percy) is trying to come up with "new and improved" guidelines.I personally don't really focus in on the official guidelines. My attitude is that the participants need to try to 1) Stay somewhere in the vicinity of the topic, 2) Bring something of substance into the discussion, and 3) Be nice to each other. I think my moderating efforts have largely focused in on #1.Adminnemooseus------------------
{mnmoose@lakenet.com}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 04-05-2003]