Jump to content
Dissily Mordentroge

Moderation: split from men vs woman

Recommended Posts

On 1/23/2020 at 4:47 AM, swansont said:

(emphasis added)

There are a number of claims here that you have not shown are true, and basing a discussion on false premises leads to a flawed conclusion.

Even though I agree with your analysis of the previous post I’m astonished at your approach to moderation. At times it feels as if one is sitting in on a tutorial where participants are constantly slapped on the wrist for errors in logic &/or unjustified claims. Such an regime of detailed criticism may be justified, however, I find the tone of many critical remarks so coldly judgmental as to discourage participation.  I’m in no position to be diagnosing anything like aspergers syndrome however so depart leaving you to your ‘objective’ moderation. 

Edited by Dissily Mordentroge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
!

Moderator Note

Moved to amore appropriate forum. 

 
18 minutes ago, Dissily Mordentroge said:

Even though I agree with your analysis of the previous post I’m astonished at your approach to moderation.

I would point out that swansont was just posting as a member, not as a moderator. 

But maybe your comment is still valid more generally?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dissily Mordentroge said:

Even though I agree with your analysis of the previous post I’m astonished at your approach to moderation. At times it feels as if one is sitting in on a tutorial where participants are constantly slapped on the wrist for errors in logic &/or unjustified claims. Such an regime of detailed criticism may be justified, however, I find the tone of many critical remarks so coldly judgmental as to discourage participation.  I’m in no position to be diagnosing anything like aspergers syndrome however so depart leaving you to your ‘objective’ moderation. 

When you see a moderator comment not in a red or green box, they are in 'member-mode' and are participating. When they do this, they relinquish their moderation duties in that thread, which will be handled by one of the others. Sometimes they may have to break that convention if they feel the immediate situation warrants it but it doesn't happen often. When they are in discourse you can sock it to them, within the rules, as any other member.

Edited by StringJunky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If someone makes an argument based on the moon being made of cheese, I think people should call out the flawed premise rather than waste effort on the rest of the argument.

YMMV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I agree wholeheartedly with the tenor of swansonts quote shown in the (now) OP, I have a slightly different criticism of it.

Working from false premises doesn’t necessarily mean the conclusion is wrong by default. What it does mean, however, is that the conclusion can only be correct by accident and that the premises didn’t play any role in arriving upon it.

The flawed premises essentially become mere decorations on the post. They are not foundational to its conclusion (and generally not related to it), but I also trust that swansont agrees with this overly pedantic clarification even though it wasn’t readily apparent in that one short quickly submitted reply above. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

doesn’t that mean the premise is only semantically flawed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. If the premise is that the moon is made of cheese and that’s why it affects the tides, the flaw here is about more than mere semantics. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

for instance, 'power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely' when they mean 'power attracts the corruptible'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those are not mutually exclusive in the way you seem to be suggesting. We’re also only pushing farther away from the actual thread topic by pursuing it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought he was implying that Mods are corrupted by their power...

:lol: :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Dissily Mordentroge said:

Even though I agree with your analysis of the previous post I’m astonished at your approach to moderation. At times it feels as if one is sitting in on a tutorial where participants are constantly slapped on the wrist for errors in logic &/or unjustified claims. Such an regime of detailed criticism may be justified, however, I find the tone of many critical remarks so coldly judgmental as to discourage participation.  I’m in no position to be diagnosing anything like aspergers syndrome however so depart leaving you to your ‘objective’ moderation. 

Accurate, trustworthy, objective information is often clouded by emotional responses and criticisms to it, and we now have the www to help amplify that effect exponentially. It's imperative that science maintain the standards of its methodology, and on a forum that discusses the subject it's too easy for unreasoned arguments to take over the conversations. Many think we're far too forgiving lately.

No matter what obstacles to learning a member may have when they post here, it does them no good to fill the gaps in their knowledge with unsupported popular misconceptions. You obviously were mistaken in thinking swansont was moderating in your example, but even if the quote had been in green or red, his statement reflects the way the site administrators have arranged the moderation. If you make a claim, you have to support that claim if you want to keep talking about it assertively. We have far too many examples IRL of seemingly intelligent people being bulldozed over by unsubstantiated claims that are screamed loud enough and long enough to make them seem real. Do we want to allow that here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.