Suggestion Third Party Moderation for Objectivity in Discussions

[Count Iblis]

Note also this response by Ivan:

I would add that what you see may not be, and often is not representitive of what actually happens. While you may only see a strike in someone's name, the offending posts have probably been deleted. The staff can see them and review the actions taken, but you can't. By definition you would not normally see the posts that resulted in someone being banned, or infractions being issued. You really have no way to know what happened behind the scenes, so what you think you saw is almost certainly not the entire story.

I'm willing to call his bluf on this issue by making visible all my postings, all my PMs, everything.

 

[Gokul43201]

I know that it has been reviewed behind closed doors. All I'm saying is that I don't object to everything that I have done here to be made visible to everyone. As far I am concerned, there is no dirty laundry to hide.

And what if every member of this forum asks for the same to be done with them? Should the Mentors have to essentially make public thousands of reports, infractions and deleted posts (and then stand trial for every Tom, Dick & Harry's interpretation of events)? That's just flat out infeasible, and can't I imagine any Mentor/Admin feeling silly enough to humor this request (tempted though they might be).

 

[ZapperZ]

I.m.o., there clearly is a systemic problem at PF. To explain that would require me to go into detail about specific incidents I've been involved in, leading to this threat itself being subject to moderation.

Like I said, you're not the only one. We have had many crackpots who have made similar accusation towards PF that's even worse - all the way to us being responsible for preventing the progress in science!

And since we ARE talking about science, you will understand that I would consider your view as only ONE data point and doesn't not represent the majority and the common running of this forum. In fact, the fact that you came back from a ban is also highly unusual and not the common situation that most of the members on here have faced. So you will understand that your "data point" is quite skewed off the normal distribution. This, in no way, reflects a systemic problem. It reflects YOUR problem with the forum.

Besides, if you think that poorly of how this forum is run, I don't understand why you keep coming back.

Zz.

 

[apeiron]

Do you think this is a systemic problem in PF? .

My feeling is that the problem is not systematic in that most moderations are fair. But I have definitely experienced an occasion of outright unfairness and the system to fix that hasn't worked so far.

From a user perspective, the moderation is also not a transparent process. We are not privy to any background discussions. So it is very easy to percieve decisions as unfair, hasty or personal.

So it is a system that works for the most part, but may not own up to its occasional mistakes, and has a systemic transparency problem.

Doing as Dave suggests would ease the transparency issue and would also have prevented a situation where I was infracted 3 points by a moderator who admitted he was against "leftist ideologies" and misunderstood the case I was making.

 

[zoobyshoe]

You don't!

Honest answer, and one which I figured out and accepted long ago. Since Dave raised the subject of impartial moderation I thought I'd mention the best moderation system I've encountered.

Quite a few mentors have been here for years and it became clear to me years ago that, because they have also to moderate they suffer something like "battle fatigue": Integral once posted an explanation of reduced tolerance for crackpots because they constitute a "resource sink", meaning, simply, they wear the mentors out having to chase them around and correct them. Non-participating moderators would not be at risk of carrying that over into remarks as members.

 

[ZapperZ]

My feeling is that the problem is not systematic in that most moderations are fair. But I have definitely experienced an occasion of outright unfairness and the system to fix that hasn't worked so far.

From a user perspective, the moderation is also not a transparent process. We are not privy to any background discussions. So it is very easy to percieve decisions as unfair, hasty or personal.

So it is a system that works for the most part, but may not own up to its occasional mistakes, and has a systemic transparency problem.

This, I am not surprised. In fact, I would be VERY surprised if such a thing doesn't happen. It is why any infraction, etc. that are sent out are seen by all the Mentors. It means that on several occasions, such actions are debated, often quite spirited, on the fairness of such actions. However, we all have our lives to lead and in many cases, things things can slip through. Not only that, in many of these actions, especially when it originates out of the Philosophy/Politics forums where a lot of things borders on matters of opinion, the decision is not clear cut. You may think something isn't fair, but another member may think it is. So already there can easily be 2 different stories on the same thing.

Again, I'm not making the case for this being the PERFECT means of moderating. I'm saying that given what we have, and given how PF has evolved into what it is now, I don't this as being a systemic problem. Are they exceptions? Sure there is. There are "exceptions" to the members here too.

Doing as Dave suggests would ease the transparency issue and would also have prevented a situation where I was infracted 3 points by a moderator who admitted he was against "leftist ideologies" and misunderstood the case I was making.

Again, using a specific case as the "proof" doesn't quite makes sense to me. I'd rather that these cases be solved and handled on the individual basis. You have other mentors that you can contact, and you also have the Admins to bring your complaint further up. And I also presume that this again, as I said earlier, emanated out of the Politics/Philosophy forums, which also creates WAY too many problems that is disproportionate to its size and relevance to PF. Using what goes on there to reflect on the bigger part of this forum is not exactly a very accurate, nor "scientific" methodology.

Zz.

 

[Count Iblis]

And what if every member of this forum asks for the same to be done with them? Should the Mentors have to essentially make public thousands of reports, infractions and deleted posts (and then stand trial for every Tom, Dick & Harry's interpretation of events)? That's just flat out infeasible, and can't I imagine any Mentor/Admin feeling silly enough to humor this request.

I agree with you that this is not a basis for a new moderation system. All I want to do is act as a test subject. Not for the purpose of appealing any infractions I've got in the past, rather for others to see how the system really is working without the "you don't know what is going on behind the scenes" problem. If you study one case in all details then you can see far better what is going wrong and what is working well.

My opinion (but I think everyone should be able to judge for themselves based on all the facts) is that, particularly with involved moderators in a discussion, things can go wrong because we don't always automatically assume good faith. The problem is not due to "evil moderators" abusing their power.

What can happen in closed door discussions is that an initial judgement about the motives of a poster can stick and become more and more exaggerated. This is because the group will discuss based on previous cases when a similar perception of bad intentions may have occured. It is a bit like how Saddam's WMD threat became more and more urgent during discussions between Bush and Blair.

I think one can address this problem (assuming my judgement about this is correct), by having a better review system that includes the member defending him/herself before an infraction is issued and a review of all postings by a member.

 

[Gokul43201]

Since Dave raised the subject of impartial moderation I thought I'd mention the best moderation system I've encountered.

Is this other forum also an academic/education forum? Just curious.

What you mention (if applied to PF) would be the equivalent of running a school in which teachers were completely shielded from any disciplinary role. Can't say I'm aware of any place that such a system has been implemented.

 

[ZapperZ]

Honest answer, and one which I figured out and accepted long ago. Since Dave raised the subject of impartial moderation I thought I'd mention the best moderation system I've encountered.

Quite a few mentors have been here for years and it became clear to me years ago that, because they have also to moderate they suffer something like "battle fatigue": Integral once posted an explanation of reduced tolerance for crackpots because they constitute a "resource sink", meaning, simply, they wear the mentors out having to chase them around and correct them. Non-participating moderators would not be at risk of carrying that over into remarks as members.

I don't understand. Reduced tolerance for crackpots is "bad"?

Zz.

 

[DanP]

I think this forum is decently moderated. Yeah, I personally despise any form of moderation but sometimes evil is necessary. Besides, it;s just internet any no one should care too much even if not all moderation decision are perfect. It's the playgournd of it's owner and his moderation gang and as such, they can do anything they want.

It aint bad.

 

[russ_watters]

That's even better; the process is already in place. It should be a trivial matter to have one of those other staff take the action instead of the participating moderator.

The thread has moved fast so I'm not sure if this has been mentioned, but often times, moderators do request to have another staff member take the action to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest or just to make sure the user knows that other moderators are involved (ie, in the case of multiple infractions for a single person: sometimes we have multiple moderators issue the infractions).

The difficulty with this is that we do not have a full-time/round the clock moderation staff (though having moderators on several continents does help). So that can be impractical, particularly in the case of a fast-moving thread where immediate action may be required.

Either way, the fact that every moderation decision is automatically brought up for discussion via the opening of a thread (the board software does this) ensures that bias as the reason for moderation would be picked-up. And trust me on this: moderators are not shy about challenging the decisions of others if they think there is an issue. And typically, moderators are also cognizant of where an issue might exist and go further out of their way to request additional opinions on the actions.

How can there not be a conflict of interest if the infraction is a subjective one?

The idea that a Moderator is left to decide for himself if there's a conflict of interest is fundamentally flawed. It contradicts what has been claimed several times in this thread - that multiple people are involved in the decisions.

I'm really not sure how you're misunderstanding this, Dave. What people have said about the system has been an accurate description of what goes on. I don't think you're properly connecting the dots.

The logic of ethics dictates that a conflict of interest exists when someone moderates on a discussion they are participating in. A moderator may, on their own, choose to take some action to avoid the conflict of interest, but if they don't it doesn't make much of a difference because there are automatic controls in place to counteract the issue.

Remember: we also moderate/judge each other (and Greg and chroot, us). I'm sure every moderator has been accused of taking action based on vindictive bias. If the senior staff ever agreed that it was a significant problem, I'm sure action would be taken to remove that moderartor to avoid damaging the forum - and I don't think such action ever has been taken. So this isn't something that really requires a convoluted procedure to be in place, where (for example), the physics moderator is the engineering mentor and vice versa. That would be too cumbersome to be worthwhile - it would double the number of threads a mentor has to read in order to do their job!

 

[Count Iblis]

ZapperZ, my data point point is a vector in a high dimensional space, so it is misleading to compare that to a single data point. It contains many bites of information. All this can be disclosed, I don't object to that on any privacy grounds.

Also, about the issue of leaving PF, I have to say that I was about to leave PF after my last ban a few weeks ago. I actually wrote a posting here on feedback forum in which I told that I was leaving and explained what i.m.o. was going wrong. That posting was removed, presumably because it contained too many details. The next day I visited PF again just to see if something had been done regarding some specific criticisms. I saw nothing and I simply could not resist going back the Homework Help forums to fix the specific example of the problem myself.

So, this explains why I have not left PF. It is simply why I came here in the first place: This is a place where you can discuss physics and math. If you mostly care about that, you can swallow unfair infractions.

 

[russ_watters]

Members always have the opportunity to question an infraction. The guidelines state that the member should first contact the mentor that gave the warning if they feel that it wasn't warranted. If after speaking with the mentor they still wish to appeal, they may then contact another mentor, and if needed, Greg.

Also worth noting: if a user questions a moderator's decision via pm to that moderator, ethics requires that moderator to seek additional opinions, which typically includes copying the PM to the moderator's forum. So be polite when complaining about a moderator's decision! Flaming a moderator over an infraction doesn't gain a user much sympathy with the other moderators!

 

[russ_watters]

Being a moderator on that forum is not about being a member. The moderators are put in place there to provide disinterested moderation. They are dedicated moderators. No one who joins as a member is allowed, or asked, to be a moderator.

Whether or not that is true of other forums on the internet (I've never seen it be true in any forum I've ever been to), that just plain isn't the purpose of moderators in this forum.

There is one notable exception: Greg. His "disinterest" does give him a great trump-card and we appreciate it, but the other moderators are not intended to be "disinterested".

 

[Gokul43201]

I agree with you that this is not a basis for a new moderation system. All I want to do is act as a test subject. Not for the purpose of appealing any infractions I've got in the past, rather for others to see how the system really is working without the "you don't know what is going on behind the scenes" problem. If you study one case in all details then you can see far better what is going wrong and what is working well.

I disagree. Even if we accept the premise that making one exception to a "no public discussion of individual moderation acts policy" will not open the floodgates to every distressed soul demanding a public exhibition, I don't see this as helping. For one reason, because it's just one data point (even in some large-n-dimensional space) among thousands. What if going through this elaborate process convinces everyone that the moderation was just and carefully meted out? Should everyone then extrapolate that every single action by the Mentors is squeaky clean? Or should we then find another volunteer?

I can't speak for the staff, but this not something I want to see happen (and I don't think I've personally dealt with any moderation concerning you). And that's not to say that I think the system can not use improvement - I strongly believe it needs improvement.

 

[DanP]

Flaming a moderator over an infraction doesn't gain a user much sympathy with the other moderators!

Sure, but it's the most funny thing you can do. And certainly much more valuable then gathering sympathy.

 

[russ_watters]

To elaborate on this. It is a rule we follow that before we "intentionally" edit a post, we put a copy of the original post in the mentor's forum first. If a mentor were to try to edit a member's posts without first copying them, it would be easy to discover, the post(s) will show who edited it and the day and time.

For everyone's info, there are two types of deletions, "soft" and "hard". AFAIK, a "hard" deletion records the action -- but the post is gone forever. I used to be in the practice of "hard" deleting the 10x a day Nike Air and iPhone spam we got, plus the once a day 9/11, 2012, and "Die Athiests!" crackpot spam, but I was criticized for deleting one that others didn't agree was as off-the-wall as I thought it was. So now I "soft" delete everything I delete.

 

[Gokul43201]

You say there is more than one moderator involved in the adjudication process (say the Moderator involved in the thread itself is ModA and, when a dispute come ups, then ModB and modC get involved in the decision process about adjudicating it).

Why must modA be the one to take the punitive action on the member in the thread? Why is it not modB or modC, both of which know as much as modA, but neither of which are interested parties on the discussion under dispute?

There is one faulty assumption here: that modB and modC know as much as modA.

This is only theoretically possible (or perhaps feasible, give man-hour constraints) in relatively short threads. In a several page long thread, the mod that is the active participant in the thread is perhaps the only one that has a good idea of who started what minor bit of trouble where which say, blew up into a bigger conflagration owing to the unwelcome retorts of which others, and so on. Requiring two or more mods to be up to date on all troublesome threads, especially within the Lounge, is an unreasonable demand on Mentors' time. It is similarly, a terribly inefficient use of administrative power to wait for second and third opinions for obvious offenses (spam, outright crackpottery, blatantly clear violations of rules, minor things requiring only 0-point warnings, etc.).

The less demanding, but perhaps equally reasonable requirement that multiple (disinterested) mods get involved in the event of an appeal, has been found to be manageable and is, I believe, the SOP.

Nevertheless, as has been repeated here several times, participating Mentors do often request additional input from neutrals even before the infraction stage (and long before any possible appeal).

 

[russ_watters]

I don't understand. Reduced tolerance for crackpots is "bad"?

Zz.

I think zoob is suggesting that the reduced tolerance means that we don't always give people a fair chance. I'll freely acknowledge being a moderator who is quick to act against people I perceive to be crackpots. "Battle fatigue" is as good a description as any...

...but there is a flip-side that is a clear positive: having seen how crackpots present themselves and evolve, most moderators gain some skill in identifying crackpots before they "come out". It's practically a game in the moderator's forum sometimes, predicting when someone's going to take that final step over the edge. Anyway, the positive of that is clear: shutting down crackpots before they drag-down a conversation.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I think zoob is suggesting that the reduced tolerance means that we don't always give people a fair chance. I'll freely acknowledge being a moderator who is quick to act against people I perceive to be crackpots. "Battle fatigue" is as good a description as any...

Battle fatigue can be a big problem. As have we all, I have been critical of other moderators at times. I have also jumped to the wrong conclusion when judging a discussion. Sometimes we miss things. Sometimes we're tired. Sometimes we are stuggling with personal issues. There have been times that I have forced myself to stay offline because I knew I was in a very bad mood. But in the end, we are all trying to do what is best for the forum. One of the first things that new mentors have mentioned after their first few days, is that PF takes a lot more work than they ever knew. We have a lot of dedicated people who have donated countless hours to making PF the best that it can be. However, this comes with a personal price for everyone.

One big problem is that it takes far less time to post nonsense than it does to properly moderate the discussion. For example, someone could jump into a global warming discussion by blazing the page with links that can take many hours to sort through. Sometimes, the poster merely copied links from some GW [pro or con] site, so it took very little effort for the crackpot, but the moderator has a full time job ahead of them. It is a common technique used by crackpots that is intended to overwhelm the opposition with information. While the general membership can just give up and ignore the thread, the staff still has to deal with it.

...but there is a flip-side that is a clear positive: having seen how crackpots present themselves and evolve, most moderators gain some skill in identifying crackpots before they "come out". It's practically a game in the moderator's forum sometimes, predicting when someone's going to take that final step over the edge. Anyway, the positive of that is clear: shutting down crackpots before they drag-down a conversation.

So we learn to recognize posture. We know the symptoms of a problem member. We know the patterns. We know the techniques that crackpots use. We have learned to spot problem members long before they have violated any rule. As you said, we even joke sometimes about whether a new member is going to last a day, or a week. While we do make mistakes and misjudge members at time, I would also bet that our error rate is very, very low. The success of PF is testimony to this perception. PF has grown to be more than we even dared to hope, in the beginning.

I can say that my personal goal is to always to ensure that the most accurate information available is presented as clearly as possible; regardless of the conclusions or content. However, this doesn't always make members happy. If they have a strong bias wrt to a particular topic and they don't get their way, you can be sure that the first accusation against me, will be bias. That is the first excuse used to defend just about every crackpot argument, when moderated.

It is a thankless job peppered with hate mail, that we do for free.

Personally, I think this thread is much ado about nothing. We have checks and balances in place. We are always striving to make PF better than it is today. But it is not reasonable to start selecting moderators according to any potential bias. Unless we are talking about something one can read as a definitive statement in a textbook, every subject discussed here is open to bias on the part of every moderator. Part of our job is to recognize the difference between our personal bias, and the facts. This applies to all discussions. That's why we are very careful in selecting new staff members. The selection of new staff is based largely on their knowledge, performance, and objectivity. Nominees names may float for years before they are finally offered a mentorship.

 

[Redbelly98]

I have no idea where they come from. They are completely anonymous: moderator 1, moderator 2, moderator 3, moderator 4. That forum is an adjunct of a University. It's conceivable they are grad students or interns, but I don't really know.

It sounds like they are either paid, or perhaps assigned as part of TA duties, to be moderators. If so, then their incentive is a paycheck, or fulfilling requirements towards a graduate degree, or both.

At any rate, it is unreasonable to expect the same in a volunteer-run internet forum like this one.

 

[DaveC426913]

I have seen mentors give an infraction and then report themselves and ask other mentors if they feel it was appropriate.

There is no contention that moderators are, for the large part, conscientious. Does that make the problem raised just go away?

If it's just a zero point informational "warning", there is no need to ask for involvement by other mentors since it is not an infraction. It's basically just a "heads up".

Really.

I am talking with you, and I have a pair of scissors and you do not. And I find myself in an argument I don't like, so I poke you in the chest with the point of the scissors. When you cry foul, I say "Don't be ridiculous, it didn't even break the skin; it's just a heads up. And please, continue discussing as an equal."

Do you think this is a systemic problem in PF? In other words, is this a common occurrence and that it does require a major overhaul on the way we do business here?

Well, there seems to be a lot of support coming out of the woodwork here...

I said nothing about a "major overhaul"; that's disingenuous. The change is trivial. As pointed out, the process is already in place. All it needs to do is become standard procedure.

Again, I'm not making the case for this being the PERFECT means of moderating. I'm saying that given what we have, and given how PF has evolved into what it is now, I don't this as being a systemic problem.

We have checks and balances in place. We are always striving to make PF better than it is today.

Again, the fix I propose is trivial.

But I'm willing to make the following offer: All my postings, all my PMs, everything, including the ones that have been removed by the Mods are made visible to everyone. Also all the infractions, bans etc. I've received here are made public. Then everyone can decide for themselves if there really is a problem and if so what is the best way to fix it.

Alas, I am beginning to fear that, based on how this thread is going, like the Count here, I may simply become self-muzzling. If a Moderator is involved in a lively discussion with me, I may end up slipping on kid gloves.

 

[Evo]

I am talking with you, and I have a pair of scissors and you do not. And I find myself in an argument I don't like, so I poke you in the chest with the point of the scissors. When you cry foul, I say "Don't be ridiculous, it didn't even break the skin; it's just a heads up. And please, continue discussing as an equal."

You're comparing a potentially deadly threat to an informational message that carries no significance? I think you are way over-reacting and don't realize the difference between an infraction, which goes against you, and a message that does not. If you have an issue, follow the guidelines and we will be glad to answer you.

To address members in general that might have posted here about their situations, what a member may think about the infractions they received and the reality may be at odds. They can certainly contact the mentors if they aren't clear about their infractions.

 

[DaveC426913]

You're comparing a potentially deadly threat to an informational message that carries no significance?

That moderator's power is potentially deadly to my PF membership. That's the analogy.

Of course, he would never use that, just like I would never actually stab you.

Are you not seeing how a threat is a threat?

I think you are way over-reacting and don't realize the difference between an infraction, which goes against you, and a message that does not.

I think you are not considering the effect it has.

A slap is still a slap, whether or not you tell me it didn't actually leave a mark.

And again, if it were a dispassionate moderator, I could respond more dispassionately in turn. It would not feel so much like the guy I had been until just a moment ago having a conversation with.

 

[zoobyshoe]

It sounds like they are either paid, or perhaps assigned as part of TA duties, to be moderators. If so, then their incentive is a paycheck, or fulfilling requirements towards a graduate degree, or both.

At any rate, it is unreasonable to expect the same in a volunteer-run internet forum like this one.

No, I would'nt expect anyone to volunteer for it. It would be up to Greg to figure out the incentive offered. Which, as I said, I doubt he'd do. It would be a major paradigm shift.

 

[DaveC426913]

No, I would'nt expect anyone to volunteer for it. It would be up to Greg to figure out the incentive offered. Which, as I said, I doubt he'd do. It would be a major paradigm shift.

Right. So can we drop it? Or split it into a separate thread?

 

[zoobyshoe]

I don't understand. Reduced tolerance for crackpots is "bad"?

Not if you enjoy battle fatigue.

My point was that to the extent any mentor has to go through the whole hassle of moderating, they're not at liberty to relax and be a "mentor"; the tension and vigilance of moderating gets carried over into mentor's " mentor" and "member" type posts.

I think zoob is suggesting that the reduced tolerance means that we don't always give people a fair chance.

That's not exactly what I mean. I am leary of mentors, coming straight from the crackpot front, unwittingly taking an "enforcer" type attitude into their posts in threads. What is actually opinion, no better or worse than anyone else's may come out with the tone of being "moderation", i.e. the pronouncement of a moderator.

There is one notable exception: Greg. His "disinterest" does give him a great trump-card and we appreciate it, but the other moderators are not intended to be "disinterested".

"Disinterested" as I used it, means "unbiased". Enforcement of the guidelines, is, I am sure, intended to be "disinterested" as witnessed by all the attempts at checks and balances mentioned here. Non-participatory moderators would be the ideal.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Right. So can we drop it? Or split it into a separate thread?

I'll drop it now.

 

[russ_watters]

"Disinterested" as I used it, means "unbiased". Enforcement of the guidelines, is, I am sure, intended to be "disinterested" as witnessed by all the attempts at checks and balances mentioned here. Non-participatory moderators would be the ideal.

I assumed by "disinterested", you meant uninvolved in the discussion.

 

[Evo]

I assumed by "disinterested", you meant uninvolved in the discussion.

He does say

Non-participatory moderators would be the ideal.

I assume that is a small forum with no where near the volume of posts we get in so many subjects by anyone wandering in off the internet.

 

[Moonbear]

I haven't chimed in here yet, but as a former moderator, I want to comment on how the process worked while I was still moderator, and I expect it works now.

First, it's not reasonable for the mentor who is active in the thread to not moderate that thread. Mostly, this goes against the grain of the function of mentors here, which is partly to help stimulate and guide discussion in our own areas of expertise. Often a mentor gets actively involved in a discussion BECAUSE they see the red flags of someone's posts and step into try to guide discussion back on track, point out the flaws, etc., which basically gives a person a chance to either concede a misunderstanding or error, clarify their point, provide a reference to support their claim, etc., without any "disciplinary" action being needed.

On the other hand, there are a few areas of the forums where opinion is allowed within discussion, and then the mentor may be just responding as a person with an opinion and not in an official mentor capacity. In those cases, if we felt someone was getting out of control, rubbing us the wrong way, etc., we'd report the thread and ask for someone else to read it and see if we were overreacting in a heated debate or if the other person had indeed stepped over the line. The decision would go either way...often there was active debate in the mentor's forum defending the other member against the mentor.

If the mentors couldn't come to a decision, Greg was the final arbiter.

I will also concur with the above that often members don't see the full extent of the reasons for someone being banned or receiving an infraction, etc. The offending posts are quickly removed from view (but not gone...they can be reviewed by the other mentors). In addition, there were many cases where it was someone's reaction to a post being deleted and them being reminded of the forum rules that got them banned, not the original post itself. For example, if a mentor deleted a post and sent a warning explaining the rule violated and that person responded with a PM full of obscenities and tirades about first amendment rights and that they're going to say anything they want to say, when, where and how they want, rather than respectfully disputing it, that reaction can be the nail in their coffin. Even then, they usually just got a cool down temporary ban unless they returned and did the same thing again when the ban expired.

New mentors are usually amazed when they first view the mentor's forum and see how much really happens behind the scenes here. The moderation isn't as arbitrary as it might appear when you're only seeing the non-deleted posts.

 

[Moonbear]

My point was that to the extent any mentor has to go through the whole hassle of moderating, they're not at liberty to relax and be a "mentor"; the tension and vigilance of moderating gets carried over into mentor's " mentor" and "member" type posts.

Actually, the worst forum moderation I've ever seen was on a forum that had moderators who were just paid to be forum police and not actively engaged in discussions. Because they were not involved in the discussions, and not always fully knowledgeable on the topic being discussed, they tended to lock down threads and ban people for what seemed like even more arbitrary reasons than I've seen anywhere else. They wouldn't recognize that members were being playful or sarcastic with one another and hit up everyone in a thread with flaming infractions and lock the thread when everyone was just having a good time. They'd also merge together every topic that had a similar sounding title, even if the content of the thread was actually quite different, creating giant, nightmarish, disjointed threads that made no sense to read at all.

So, I think having actively involved mentors is a much better method of forum moderation.

 

[ZapperZ]

Well, there seems to be a lot of support coming out of the woodwork here...

Actually, I don't see it. I see particular issues surrounding discussion not related to the physics subforums, and I see only one "supporter" who would likely have issues with the physics subforums, but this supporter himself has a dubious record.

I define PF as being the physics, astro, math, engineering, and Other Sciences forums. These are what define PF and covers the majority of this forum. The others are not central to the identity of PF. What goes on in the Politics sub forum, for example, should not dictate the entire running of this forum.

So, do you see a systemic problem with the running of the physics subforums, for example? Were you ever given an infraction for disagreeing with a Mentor who happened to also participated in that thread? Were you then denied any recourse to challenge that action?

Zz.

 

[russ_watters]

Actually, I don't see it. I see particular issues surrounding discussion not related to the physics subforums, and I see only one "supporter" who would likely have issues with the physics subforums, but this supporter himself has a dubious record.

Nor do I. Much of the dissent comes from people who have run afoul of the system. It is unsurprising and not particularly illuminating that those who run afoul of the system are unhappy with the system. I suspect you'd find the same phenomena in a prison.

 

[DaveC426913]

Nor do I. Much of the dissent comes from people who have run afoul of the system. It is unsurprising and not particularly illuminating that those who run afoul of the system are unhappy with the system. I suspect you'd find the same phenomena in a prison.

Well, three members on page one of the thread.

Why do you group and then dismiss them as members that have gone afoul of the system? Do you not accept that they are part of the system as much as supporters?

Even dissenters of a government are still citizens. You can't dismiss them as unimportant constituents simply because they protest the government.

 

[ZapperZ]

Well, three members on page one of the thread.

Why do you group and then dismiss them as members that have gone afoul of the system? Do you not accept that they are part of the system as much as supporters?

Even dissenters of a government are still citizens. You can't dismiss them as unimportant constituents simply because they protest the government.

I don't dismiss them. However, they are not sufficient evidence of a systemic problem with the moderation system. That is what I am concerned with when I asked for such evidence. Problems with, say the S&D forum, is not a valid reflection on ALL of PF, especially when such a forum is a minuscule aspect of PF. You are using the blemishes on the end of a horse's tail to characterize the whole horse.

You still did not answer my question regarding the moderation on the majority of the major forums in PF.

Zz.

 

[DaveC426913]

I don't dismiss them. However, they are not sufficient evidence of a systemic problem with the moderation system. That is what I am concerned with when I asked for such evidence. Problems with, say the S&D forum, is not a valid reflection on ALL of PF, especially when such a forum is a minuscule aspect of PF. You are using the blemishes on the end of a horse's tail to characterize the whole horse.

I am not "characterizing" anything. My suggestion is sub-forum-independent.

It is simply a general observation that there is a small hole in the system that has the potential for abuse - in any sub-forum.

What are you saying? We don't make improvements unless they have global consequences?

You still did not answer my question regarding the moderation on the majority of the major forums in PF.

I have not given specific examples of where the problem has occurred. This is deliberate, because
1] The details of the actual incidents are not at-issue.
2] I am not the only one who has this concern. And I do not know (or care) where these other incidents have occurred.

So yes, to use your word, I guess I am saying it is systemic.

("Systemic" does not imply it happens frequently, or everywhere, right? Just that it is not limited to a specific area. Just making sure we're on the same wavelength).

 

[ZapperZ]

I am not "characterizing" anything. My suggestion is sub-forum-independent.

It is simply a general observation that there is a small hole in the system that has the potential for abuse - in any sub-forum.

What are you saying? We don't make improvements unless they have global consequences?

Actually, yes.

A specific incident doesn't always mean that there is a "hole" in the system. If something occurs infrequently, and occurs in an obscure part of the forum, then I don't see a need to revamp the whole system. That's like saying that just because some people in the National Science Foundation were caught surfing for porn on their work computers, that the whole America Competes Act that want to increase funding for the Sciences should be strike down. Oh wait, http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/05/the-republican-assault-on-scienc.html" , and it is as ridiculous!

What should have been done instead is to address THAT particular incident or problem that you had. We learn lessons from many different incidents on how to do things better, or what not to do, both on the mentors side and, hopefully, from the members side. This requires no revamping on how we do our moderation and monitoring of the forum.

I have not given specific examples of where the problem has occurred. This is deliberate, because
1] The details of the actual incidents are not at-issue.
2] I am not the only one who has this concern. And I do not know (or care) where these other incidents have occurred.

But you should! Where it occurs and by whom makes a lot of difference, because that completes the whole story. Partial data is bad data. We have seen pseudoscience tries to get away with arguing for legitimacy for something using partial data. As someone who is interested in science, I am surprised by your lack of quality control on what you use to back your claim.

Zz.

 

[Count Iblis]

Actually, not only is there a systemic issue with the physics subforums, but this is having some real impact on discussions. So, it is not just limited to hurting the feelings of someone when giving infractions.

Of course, I have to give evidence of my claim. I think it is best to do this in a new thread when I have more time later today.

 

[cristo]

Actually, not only is there a systemic issue with the physics subforums, but this is having some real impact on discussions. So, it is not just limited to hurting the feelings of someone when giving infractions.

Nonsense. As I said to your post before, your case has been discussed by everyone on the staff.

 

[Count Iblis]

Nonsense. As I said to your post before, your case has been discussed by everyone on the staff.

Such "discussions by everyone on the staff" are perhaps an important part of the problem, I can't be sure about that, though. Anyway, I'll explain my point in detail in another thread, otherwise Dave's more general point about third party moderation would get lost here.

 

[ZapperZ]

Actually, not only is there a systemic issue with the physics subforums, but this is having some real impact on discussions. So, it is not just limited to hurting the feelings of someone when giving infractions.

Of course, I have to give evidence of my claim. I think it is best to do this in a new thread when I have more time later today.

In your case, the problem is that we were TOO LENIENT in taking appropriate actions. To me, that was a systemic problem that I had to bring out with the rest of the Mentors.

Zz.

 

[Count Iblis]

In your case, the problem is that we were TOO LENIENT in taking appropriate actions. To me, that was a systemic problem that I had to bring out with the rest of the Mentors.

Zz.

Thanks, I'll take this new data point about Mentor discussions into account in the new thread.

 

[jostpuur]

You say there is more than one moderator involved in the adjudication process (say the Moderator involved in the thread itself is ModA and, when a dispute come ups, then ModB and modC get involved in the decision process about adjudicating it).

Why must modA be the one to take the punitive action on the member in the thread? Why is it not modB or modC, both of which know as much as modA, but neither of which are interested parties on the discussion under dispute?

If ModA makes a moderation decision partially for emotional reasons, there is a chance that ModB and ModC will think that "well that infraction wasn't really worth punishment, but the punishment isn't worth canceling either."

If ModB and ModC were given the responsibility to carry out the moderation decisions, they might be a chance that they disagree with ModA and say "mr A, that's not really a infraction yet".

Hence, if it is in moderators interest to use moderation power to enforce their own opinions, it will be beneficial to not require third party intervention.

Wasn't this question nearly rhetorical? I'm sure everybody here understands the real answer.

However, they are not sufficient evidence of a systemic problem with the moderation system.

When a person gets banned in politics, philosophy or in skepticism subforum, the person gets banned from math and physics subforums too. It makes no sense to ignore problems in some subforums on the basis that those problems are not present everywhere.

Btw, I guess there are no technical obstacles related to bans for specific subforums?

Not that that would be my business now... I'm not very active in politics, philosophy or in skepticism nowadays at least... but I guess it doesn't hurt if the possibility gets mentioned. Perhaps some guys get interested in the possibility later if they spend time on it.

 

[jostpuur]

Count Iblis, I recommend that you try to record yourself your experiences in the internet.

Some years ago I thought that I had met so dumb people on the internet, that I should start saving these discussions on my hard drive so that they would bring entertainment to me later on.

However, when I read these saved discussions years after they had been saved, and when I had almost already forgotten them, I noticed that a guy with a username "jostpuur" was writing pretty dumb comments. I then destroyed these recordings from my hard drive so that they would not further embarrass me due to some accidental leak.

You see, recording internet experiences is "win guaranteed"-stuff! If your opponents were dumb, the recordings will bring you entertainment later on. If instead you where the dumb one, then seeing the recordings later on will make you wiser! Either way, you will benefit!

 

[DanP]

I *really* don't understand why you guys bother with this.

If you value the place so much that you can't live without it, obey the rules, good or bad. Look, it's their board, akin to their house. When you visit you obey the rules of the home master.

If you don't care and you want to have fun on internet, make some friends, have a good laugh, do whatever you want, and screw infractions. You get banned, you move along. In either case, don't expect perfect moderation and perfectly unbiased moderators. Or that the quality of moderation be the same for all of them. Such things do not exist, humans are simply not capable of being unbiased.

Less complains and more fun.

 

[Borek]

Nor do I. Much of the dissent comes from people who have run afoul of the system. It is unsurprising and not particularly illuminating that those who run afoul of the system are unhappy with the system. I suspect you'd find the same phenomena in a prison.

Well, three members on page one of the thread.

I am sorry Dave, I am afraid I can't be counted like that.

I am not _unhappy_ with the system. I supported your idea as it looks good, but after learning that all infractions are listed as a forum posts in the inner-inner-circle, which makes the moderating process transparent to all Mentors, I think that's an alternate mechanism that serves similar purpose. It makes it difficult to abuse the power.

 

[NeoDevin]

When a person gets banned in politics, philosophy or in skepticism subforum, the person gets banned from math and physics subforums too. It makes no sense to ignore problems in some subforums on the basis that those problems are not present everywhere.

Btw, I guess there are no technical obstacles related to bans for specific subforums?

This might be something to consider. Since most of the problems originate in the PF Lounge, bans from particular subfora instead of global bans might solve some of the problem.

 

[Evo]

This might be something to consider. Since most of the problems originate in the PF Lounge, bans from particular subfora instead of global bans might solve some of the problem.

We very rarely have anyone banned solely for actions in the Lounge. And the ones that have been banned there rarely contribute to the science forums. No one has been permanently banned for getting out of line in the Lounge at all this year. People that have been banned were banned for infractions they received in multiple forums, were outright crackpots, spammers, or sockpuppets of banned members. See, it's that perception thing again. You see someone arguing, then you see a line through their name and the assumption is that's why they were banned. Some of those people have 3 or more pages of infractions from all over the forum before finally getting banned.

 

[rewebster]

I've seen a couple mentors abuse their 'power' more than once, and often its the same couple of mentors. Of course, some like 'power' more than others and they appear to step over the line of being 'mentor', to me, because they 'think' they're right; and, because they were given the power of a mentor, and they use it.

Most mentors, I believe, are here doing what they're doing and doing it almost always in a good way.

This forum isn't perfect.

I've seen other mentors defend other mentors, the way some members defend other members, and some members defend mentors---even when I don't see a clear logically reason.

It's too bad that the 'discussion' of the infraction (in the mentors' subforum) isn't open more to that member in some way, because it may often be avoided.

I think that some mentors need counseling more than some others. And, just because some people are called 'mentors' doesn't make their opinion correct, or that they are doing the right thing.

Do you think members report or have the idea that they can report mentors?

I'll tell you what, I'm going to do it if I see a problem with them from now on, even if I'm not involved with the discussion, and I think other members should too--that may make the other mentors more aware of problems.