Feedback

[swansont]

Absolutely NOT, I rather enjoy his comments and often make comments on them. In fact, I have read most all of his threads, keeping track of what's important to the liberal mindset, of the day. I do the same on the 'Huffington Post' and 'Move On'. If it's the desire of this Forum and you to encourage such activity, that's perfectly fine with me. As for trolling, or the idea of making several post about the same subjects, with different angles, I've seen many banned here and elsewhere, IF the ideology is NOT consistent with that of the forums moderators. I would disagree with many of these bannings, several here specifically called trolling. I would never report (judge)a post, for any reason. On three or four forums, they ban maybe two or three posters per year, for other than spamming. Those that are ignored, generally won't return after the first or second attempt.

 

I don't care what you see elsewhere; what matters to this forum is what you see here. Name one user who was banned for their ideology being counter to the moderators' (as if that were possible). We keep a log of banned and suspended individuals (for reasons other than spam), and this is one reason why: for the transparency against this kind of accusation. Users are not banned because of their ideas, unless the specific expression is not permitted (e.g. libel, prejudice, ad hominem). They are banned because they break the rules.

 

Trolling is posting provocative material without the intent to engage in meaningful discourse. Those banned for trolling were given several chances to respond to questions (too many chances, according to some). Your "many banned here" is actually "zero."

Edited December 14, 2009 by swansont

[jackson33]

swansont; Since you have chose to slap my hand publicly (opposed to PM), I'll assume the permission to respond in kind. First and most important, you have become the forth moderator (this site) to simultaneously argue a point and use your moderating status to enforce your argument. I assume then, I'm personally being blamed for the loss in 'Negative Rep point', which was the original means. I'll accept this as punishment, but do think you all should consider moderating, where you are not part of the discussion.

 

"I don't care what you see elsewhere;"; Maybe you should care; People visit your forum, take time to read and in some cases a great deal of time to respond intellectually to their level. Additionally, members here go elsewhere, see different approaches to the same purpose and may become disenchanted. I would think the purpose should be encouragement of opposing viewpoints, which is the very reason, I read and respond to the very author of this thread, I'll add iNow, which I find very good adversary's to spend my time in discussion. Another plus here, is the ability to navigate which for unknown reasons is simple, compared to most all other public forums.

 

We keep a log of banned and suspended individuals (for reasons other than spam), and this is one reason why: for the transparency against this kind of accusation. Users are not banned because of their ideas, unless the specific expression is not permitted (e.g. libel, prejudice, ad hominem). [/Quote]

 

Yes, I know, in fact I check that list on every visit to see the latest poster banned and the 'MODERATOR' involved and why? Would you like my opinions on just who does most the banning and a direct link to the threads involved. I have a passion for discussing Science issues, primarily Astronomy, but because of you specifically, rarely have here in years.

 

They are banned because they break the rules. [/Quote]

 

I understand this and in fairness, I know you and the others volunteer you time for this purpose. The idea of using that power over posters, you may not like their opinions, sources or interpretations seem a little overboard, in many cases. I don't doubt your a physics expert, but your not going to always be reading questions/opinions from folks on your level....

Edited December 14, 2009 by swansont

[swansont]

Posts copied over from politics, since it's really not on topic in that thread

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

swansont; Since you have chose to slap my hand publicly (opposed to PM), I'll assume the permission to respond in kind. First and most important, you have become the forth moderator (this site) to simultaneously argue a point and use your moderating status to enforce your argument. I assume then, I'm personally being blamed for the loss in 'Negative Rep point', which was the original means. I'll accept this as punishment, but do think you all should consider moderating, where you are not part of the discussion.

 

You chose to question the integrity of the moderators publicly, and I have no problem defending my actions in a public setting. I don't see where I used my moderator status to enforce any argument, but I do see where I admonished the posters in the thread not to descend into "you're a troll" discussions, which is pretty much orthogonal to the discussion we were having. Moderators will try and let a non-participating moderator do this, but there are exchanges that have a history of spiraling out of control. I don't see "please use the report post function" as an abuse of power or an attempt to enforce/win an argument.

 

But when you attacked my integrity, and the integrity of my colleagues, I chose to respond. Something like that, IMO, cannot be left unchallenged.

 

As far as negative rep goes, I have no idea what you are talking about. I can't parse "I assume then, I'm personally being blamed for the loss in 'Negative Rep point', which was the original means." Negative reputation was disabled more than three weeks before the thread was started.

 

"I don't care what you see elsewhere;"; Maybe you should care; People visit your forum, take time to read and in some cases a great deal of time to respond intellectually to their level. Additionally, members here go elsewhere, see different approaches to the same purpose and may become disenchanted. I would think the purpose should be encouragement of opposing viewpoints, which is the very reason, I read and respond to the very author of this thread, I'll add iNow, which I find very good adversary's to spend my time in discussion. Another plus here, is the ability to navigate which for unknown reasons is simple, compared to most all other public forums.

 

 

You had said "I've seen many banned here and elsewhere, IF the ideology is NOT consistent with that of the forums moderators." How do a large number of bannings on another board reflect poorly on this one? I don't care how other boards conduct their business. I care how this board does.

 

Yes, I know, in fact I check that list on every visit to see the latest poster banned and the 'MODERATOR' involved and why? Would you like my opinions on just who does most the banning and a direct link to the threads involved. I have a passion for discussing Science issues, primarily Astronomy, but because of you specifically, rarely have here in years.

 

I would not be surprised if I have entered the majority, or at least a plurality, of the logged bans. We get a fair number of crackpot-trolls in the physics section, so I am often involved. Other than self-requests, though, nobody is banned as the result of a single moderator's decision. I will not discuss details beyond that.

 

And I'm sorry to learn that I am the reason you stay away from the science boards.

 

 

I understand this and in fairness, I know you and the others volunteer you time for this purpose. The idea of using that power over posters, you may not like their opinions, sources or interpretations seem a little overboard, in many cases. I don't doubt your a physics expert, but your not going to always be reading questions/opinions from folks on your level....

 

I still don't see how I have used my moderator power over anyone, other than to enforce the rules. I try and make it clear when I am speaking as a moderator — I put my moderator comments in blue. Other than that I'm a poster.

[Mr Skeptic]

jackson33, you do need to follow the rules. Failure to follow the rules matters a lot more than the content of your posts, as without those rules it would be impossible to hold many of the conversations, at least with certain people.

 

Integrity is a prerequisite to be a moderator here.

[Phi for All]

You won't find a more honest and hard working moderator anywhere than swansont. He was offered a moderator position for years before he finally accepted, and it was the best thing that has ever happened for SFN, imo.

 

His defense of scientific rigor and open, friendly, meaningful discussion is unparalleled. Moderators can't act alone when it comes to banning someone on merit, and swansont is not the kind of person to unfairly use his privileges to silence opposing views.

 

I just think you're way off base here, jackson33. The fact that you can question swansont's integrity and still be here is proof that this board operates more transparently than virtually any other forum on the web.

[DJBruce]

Personally I find the moderating of this board to be top rate, and probably the best of the few forums I frequent. They do an excellent job of keeping debates and discussions civil, logical, and reasonable while still maintaining their objectivity.

 

I would like to take time to thank Swansont, Mooey, Sissyphus, and all the other moderators for their hard and excellent work on this forum. Thank you guys.

[toastywombel]

What rule did jackson33 break? I am not questioning your judgement swansont I am just curious.

[iNow]

TW - I think perhaps you may have misunderstood the context of the thread. In the thread from which this one was split, Jackson called Bascule a troll for having opened many posts in the politics section. Swansont addressed this silliness head on, and Jackson chose to continue his claims about Bascule, and then chose to extend his views and criticisms toward the actions of the staff here at SFN... doing little more than asserting things with zero detail and zero evidence. His claims were without merit and noted as such in a calm and professional response from swansont, who was the direct target of many of Jackson's accusations.

 

Swansont then split those posts to this new thread to ensure the original thread would not drift further off-topic into this strange bizzaro world in which Jackson exists.

 

Nobody has claimed Jackson broke any rules, just that he has made vacuous assertions, hollow accusations, and some very strange claims.

[swansont]

There's also the issue raised about the fact that I made a moderator comment in the thread, while simultaneously participating. This is something moderators don't generally do, one reason being the very thing jackson33 has mentioned — the problem of people thinking they can't respond to a moderator because s/he will unleash their awesome powers in order to win an argument. While I think that this is not a scenario that is very likely to actually occur, it's the perception that matters. Which is why most of the moderators have picked up the habit of putting "official" posts in distinguishable text (colored and sometimes also bolded). Most of the time we're just discussing things, like any other poster. You shouldn't treat us better/differently just because we have blue names. Or, really, you shouldn't treat other posters differently because they don't.

 

The exchange in question, though, was tangential to the rest of the thread. It threatened to derail the conversation, and since it was actually off-topic, I made the moderator comment. What I did not do was split the posts off into a new thread, though I could have, and perhaps should have — it was a different topic — and then there would have been no issue at all. This is also a reason for splitting this post off. It's off-topic, and I want there to be no question of any moderator-speak affecting the other thread.

 

There is one other thing I should say

Since you have chose to slap my hand publicly (opposed to PM), I'll assume the permission to respond in kind.

This is generally not the case. One criticism we have discussed is that there had been a perception that transgressions weren't being addressed, because almost all moderation was taking place via PM. Someone would make a comment that's against the rules, and only the perpetrator would know that there had been action. While there are situations where that's appropriate, more moderation has been taking place with comments in the threads. We want to reduce/eliminate any notion that transgressors are "getting away" with anything.

 

No, that's not generally an invitation to plead your case in the thread.

[toastywombel]

TW - I think perhaps you may have misunderstood the context of the thread. In the thread from which this one was split, Jackson called Bascule a troll for having opened many posts in the politics section. Swansont addressed this silliness head on, and Jackson chose to continue his claims about Bascule, and then chose to extend his views and criticisms toward the actions of the staff here at SFN... doing little more than asserting things with zero detail and zero evidence. His claims were without merit and noted as such in a calm and professional response from swansont, who was the direct target of many of Jackson's accusations.

 

Swansont then split those posts to this new thread to ensure the original thread would not drift further off-topic into this strange bizzaro world in which Jackson exists.

 

Nobody has claimed Jackson broke any rules, just that he has made vacuous assertions, hollow accusations, and some very strange claims.

 

Well I think straying too far off topic is against one of the rules here at SFN. So technically jackson did break a rule. Also critisizing the moderators publicly is not a smart thing to do on any forum

[insane_alien]

Well I think straying too far off topic is against one of the rules here at SFN. So technically jackson did break a rule.

 

more of a guideline really. SFN is far more leniant of it than some other forums. it all comes down to moderator discretion on where to draw the line and they'll only really take notice if either they are involved or someone complains.

 

Also critisizing the moderators publicly is not a smart thing to do on any forum

 

if they can back up their case with evidence then its fine.

[Phi for All]

I would also like to say that I really appreciate jackson33's participation. The whole community is better for his point of view, his insights and his input. I'm sure he feels like he is a lone soldier in some of his battles, and that makes him a brave combatant in my opinion. It takes a lot of guts to defend your stance when it is often in the minority, and jackson33 brings a lot of legal acumen to the threads he chooses to post in.

 

His earlier accusations were perhaps born of frustration and I think he deserves a bit of consideration in this regard. I would hate it if we lost all dissenting opinion here. Compound mentality is stagnant and dangerous, and we all need to be challenged on our stances, if only to prove they aren't sacred.

[swansont]

I would also like to say that I really appreciate jackson33's participation. The whole community is better for his point of view, his insights and his input. I'm sure he feels like he is a lone soldier in some of his battles, and that makes him a brave combatant in my opinion. It takes a lot of guts to defend your stance when it is often in the minority, and jackson33 brings a lot of legal acumen to the threads he chooses to post in.

 

His earlier accusations were perhaps born of frustration and I think he deserves a bit of consideration in this regard. I would hate it if we lost all dissenting opinion here. Compound mentality is stagnant and dangerous, and we all need to be challenged on our stances, if only to prove they aren't sacred.

 

That's a very good point, and I agree. Dissenting viewpoints, if the exchange is civil, is a good thing. But viewpoints, whether concurring or dissenting, should not be welcomed at the expense of the rules.

[iNow]

One criticism we have discussed is that there had been a perception that transgressions weren't being addressed, because almost all moderation was taking place via PM. Someone would make a comment that's against the rules, and only the perpetrator would know that there had been action. While there are situations where that's appropriate, more moderation has been taking place with comments in the threads.

 

I can confirm that this has done a tremendous amount to reduce the frustration I've often felt in threads. The above described process has satisfied this goal beautifully IMO.

[jackson33]

swansont; I'm not sure what integrity means to you, or for that matter honesty, character or respect. In my little world these are earned qualities from one person to another, over time and has absolutely no connection to METHOD, which is/was my point. If anything I assume, far too often the person is honest, trustworthy and of good character when offering any post...

 

If I read another post correctly, you have said the FORUM has decided to publicly reprimand posters, opposed to PM...

 

One criticism we have discussed is that there had been a perception that transgressions weren't being addressed, because almost all moderation was taking place via PM. Someone would make a comment that's against the rules, and only the perpetrator would know that there had been action. While there are situations where that's appropriate, more moderation has been taking place with comments in the threads. [/Quote]

 

If this is the case, and it's now a forum policy, though validating my point that the method was seen on the increase, then I owe an apology, not only to you but the other three involved. If your following orders, then it's the forum itself, not you all. Keep in mind however, your telling your registered members, they will NOW be subject to public humiliation, regardless of comment and in the judgment of any particular moderator, at any given time and with in the discussion. Justifiable, has taken on new meaning.

 

 

For the record; The comments made to swan, starting this thread followed 'on topic' comments made to another thread, which had come about since my last post there. Since I had no idea, Forum Policy had changed, allowing only one way criticism, I had unknowingly broken a rule, I could never abide by.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Our policy used to be to issue infractions and send PMs to members who broke the rules in threads. This was not so successful; anyone else reading the thread could report posts breaking the rules, but they'd never see anything being done about it (since it was via PM) and so they'd assume that the staff doesn't care. This was not good.

 

So we switched to posting in-thread warnings. These are not "in the judgment of any particular moderator"; moderators are encouraged to report troublesome posts so other moderators can discuss a reasonable course of action. Only a minority of moderator actions are taken "alone", so to speak.

 

No in-thread comment is ever intended to "humiliate" a particular member. Our goal is to keep discussions on-topic, not to shame members into compliance. If you believe a moderator has stepped over the line and humiliated or attacked you, you should always report their post or send a PM to an administrator like myself. I can guarantee you that every reported post is checked by at least one moderator -- we have made changes to ensure that.

 

Also, to make this clear: moderators do not ever ban members on their own whim, or delete posts on their own whim. (Unless it is blatant "BUY VIAGRA" spam.) Bans of members only occur with the consensus of several moderators, and any post deletions are discussed by the staff.

 

We are not a bunch of angry people using our power to do whatever we want. If you believe an abuse has occurred, and you have been humiliated or attacked, report the post or contact an administrator. If you have any suggestions on how we could run SFN better, I'd be glad to hear them.

[swansont]

If this is the case, and it's now a forum policy, though validating my point that the method was seen on the increase, then I owe an apology, not only to you but the other three involved. If your following orders, then it's the forum itself, not you all. Keep in mind however, your telling your registered members, they will NOW be subject to public humiliation, regardless of comment and in the judgment of any particular moderator, at any given time and with in the discussion. Justifiable, has taken on new meaning.

 

As Cap'n Refsmmat has noted, the intent of moderator posts is not to humiliate. It's to ensure the thread runs better and there aren't bunch of people thinking "OMG, I can't believe s/he got away with saying that."

 

My personal perspective is this: if a moderator posts a note in a thread, it's in response to a transgression of the rules of some sort. I find it curious that the admonishment would be considered an embarrassment, rather than the transgression itself.

[CharonY]

Well, the ability to take in criticism is not wide-spread.

[swansont]

Well, the ability to take in criticism is not wide-spread.

 

Yes, and that leads to all sorts of troubles in discussions. And yet it's something we ask people to do, since criticism of an argument comprises a lot of material posted here.

[ajb]

Well, the ability to take in criticism is not wide-spread.

 

I would also like to add that any criticism should be constructive, on topic and not devolve into personal attacks or questioning one's credentials.

 

In a wider context, criticism of one's ideas is essential to progress and is part of the scientific process.

[StringJunky]

Well, the ability to take in criticism is not wide-spread.

 

Not even amongst professional scientists it seems. To quote from ajb and Klaynos in Baby Astronaut's thread about checking if something's been through peer review:

 

I don't think it is publicised who has reviewed papers. - Klaynos

 

Referees tend to be anonymous. I think this helps remove any possible hard feelings and resentment when rejecting papers.- AJB

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=46870

 

I was surprised to learn that the source of any scientific critique in the peer review process is anonymous.

 

If scientists can't take critical analysis on the chin from a transparent source, it's hardly surprising that laymen can't take it on these boards either!

[jackson33]

As Cap'n Refsmmat has noted, the intent of moderator posts is not to humiliate. It's to ensure the thread runs better and there aren't bunch of people thinking "OMG, I can't believe s/he got away with saying that."

 

swansont; Hand slapping/humiliation/embarrassment of a poster or moderator, IMO should not EVER happen in public. In understanding not every person registers with the intent to contribute, the mass majority DO. Just as you and the moderators, these posters are taking minutes to hours to properly form and summit a post, sometimes with an agenda, a question or a dreamed up idea that to them makes sense. In many cases, they will be new or inexperienced on the public stage coming off as stark raving idiots to the experienced.

 

In my case and many such cases, where we post on subjects that by nature, have no right or wrong, rather a viewpoint (opinion) on what they feel should be the solution. There is NO law, including murder, that is not challenged daily, no political opinion that is absolute to all, history issues can be fitted to any argument and so on.

 

CR noted the intent of the program, but knows he is standing on a weak stage. Just as sure as there are going to be some regular posters, the young and new ones, moderators are going to have bad days and say things, that should not be said. I'll personally stand up for any poster, I feel is being wronged, almost to a fault and would certainly expect moderators understanding the times involved, would stand up for the co-contributors, it's human nature.

 

My personal perspective is this: if a moderator posts a note in a thread, it's in response to a transgression of the rules of some sort. I find it curious that the admonishment would be considered an embarrassment, rather than the transgression itself.

 

No and sorry, but your forcing me to go personal. This scuffle started over bascule, whom I happen to like and have said so 100 times. However IMO, he has a serious problem with the Bush 43 Administration and members. I believe he would enjoy seeing Rumsfeld, Chaney, Gonzalez and others sent to jail. He is by no means the only person who feels this way in (not forum members), is a common theme on Left Wing Forums and no more or less aggressive than were those on Clinton during his 2 terms, which I also opposed. No doubt, I did a lousy job of placing the issue in an acceptable manner, but the issue was valid, from my perspective.

 

Yes, and that leads to all sorts of troubles in discussions. And yet it's something we ask people to do, since criticism of an argument comprises a lot of material posted here.

 

Since your now going to enforce the rules, publicly, I would suggest asking another moderator than the one in the discussion to do the 'warning'. I've been around long enough and should have realized the change, before yelling out. I did NOT and have apologized, most would just move on, which I don't feel is an objective. Keep in mind, criticism from a moderator is no less acceptable to the poster, than criticism from a poster is to the moderator.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

And we do not ever intend to humiliate or embarrass members in public. I do not see how posts requesting people stay on topic could be construed as humiliating or embarrassing.

 

Your point about moderators not in the discussion doing warnings is, in fact, part of our moderator policy. We think it is generally the best if the moderator deleting posts or telling people to stay on topic isn't the one involved in the argument; then it does not look like the moderator is trying to win an argument through abuse of power.

 

In this particular instance, however, swansont was responding to your criticism of our moderator staff rather than warning you to stay on topic. His response could just have well been made by a regular user who felt like coming to the defense of staff.

 

Again, if you ever feel a moderator has acted unfairly or has abused their power, bring it to our attention immediately. I want this forum to be as civil and pleasant as it can be.

[StringJunky]

Jackson33: I like the idea of this moderation being done 'in the open' since everybody should make themselves aware of the rules before they contribute.

 

There maybe circumstances where it is not appropriate to admonish a transgressor in front of everyone on the boards. Perhaps some visual device inserted at the appropriate point in the thread to indicate to everyone that the matter is 'pending moderation'..this would negate any accusation that a transgression has been ignored or missed by a Mod and at the same time avoid any unecessary public humiliation on the part of the transgressor.

[Phi for All]

It's not often possible for a Moderator to find another staff member who can be brought up to speed on a thread sufficiently quickly to address problems within a thread that has momentum. In cases like this, a Moderator has a couple of choices that don't involve splitting threads; they can close the thread temporarily or carefully assess whether their intervention will be seen as abuse of power.

 

If they close the thread, posters lose that momentum, and those who were able to afford the time to post right then feel stifled, and rightly so. If the Mod chooses to intervene as a Mod in a thread they are part of as a poster, they know their actions will be under the microscope by the membership and the staff even more than normal. I'm sure swansont didn't take this responsibility lightly, and I don't really see where his actions could be construed as abuse in any way.

 

This isn't a blanket defense of the staff. There have been transgressions in the past that I have pointed out where Moderators have either abused their authority or, through inaction, allowed infractions to go unpunished. In this particular instance, however, I simply don't agree with jackson33 that swansont was out of line in his actions.