Suggestion Third party moderation

ZapperZ

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 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?

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

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, that actually is happening, 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.

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

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

Count Iblis

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

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

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

jostpuur

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.

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 cant 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, dont 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

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

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

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.

Evo

Members report mentors all of the time, and we do discuss it.

lisab

An excellent idea!

Based on the give-and-take in this thread, I think members and mentors don't always interpret interactions the same way. Maybe the best way to address this is for the committed members to be more active giving feedback, using the report key.