General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consecution

Crashfrog was recently suspended for the exchange that can be read hereA 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: 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.

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.

ConclusionOK, 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.

Wouldn't life be boring if we all agreed with me? One day you will see the light though 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.

Agreed - if my suggestions would impractically alter things, then I'm happy to be told as much. My nickname originally came from the Domestos adverts of the early 90s that were faux-western with the singing over the top "Big Dom (repeats)...Big Bad Dom". A friend of mine was 6'4" (we were like 12 years old) and was dubbed 'Big Dom', I was a little runt (still am really) so was jokingly dubbed 'little mod'. The name has evolved several times, though most people still stick with 'Mod'; 'little mod' and 'moddy' are both accepted variations (though 'moddy' kind of reminds me of cutesy wutsey ickle girly wirlies...'moddy woddy'). I use Modulous on forums because it helps somewhat avoid the Mod/mod confusion.Well, that was a bit of a tangent.Where was that track...oh yeah. Admins and their time. Erm - agreed! My ideas are suggestions only, or perhaps avenues of exploration for the future - I hope the admins will appreciate that as much as I appreciate their tireless efforts (wait - is my nose getting brown up here...?)This message has been edited by Modulous, Thu, 08-September-2005 04:32 PM

That's fine. I wasn't proposing forum policy changes because of your interactions. I was mostly thinking of randman and my own experiences at creationist forums. The whole thing was inspired by those and crashfrog's recent suspension.Your suspension was never really the issue, and I didn't bring it up. I fear that my point might actually have been somewhat miscommunicated if two people have somehow thought I was talking about your suspension.I was talking about how intimidating it can be to debate an opponent that can decide you aren't debating in good faith and suspend/ban you...how that has caused issues with creationists here from time to time...and my suggestion on how it can be resolved.AbE: I hope the status of yours in NO has been resolved in a positive manner, I can understand how you were feeling, I was less than rationale for that week.This message has been edited by Modulous, Tue, 13-September-2005 10:29 PM