Restrictive Moderation and Politics: The Overbearing Forum Experience

[Hurkyl]

not only mods but any HINT of heat
by any poster
looks to draw an all toooo quick lock
all too often
on other forums I use, locks are rare.
here they are tooo common

If the people on other forums jumped off of a cliff, would you complain that we didn't?

and I repeat ALL CENSORSHIP IS WRONG
even if with good intent it is still WRONG

It's ironic that you're exhibiting one of the very behaviors we want to discourage: someone repeatedly asserting their opinion without support, and without acknowledging what others have said.

 

[ray b]

zapper that is really over the top

to question authority is not = to lie

science is the VERY PROCESS of asking WHY
it is NOT following RULES
but trying to figure out what and why the rules are
and then trying every possible and some impossible tests
to break down the rules

I find your post illogical

 

[Evo]

zapper that is really over the top

to question authority is not = to lie

science is the VERY PROCESS of asking WHY
it is NOT following RULES
but trying to figure out what and why the rules are
and then trying every possible and some impossible tests
to break down the rules

I find your post illogical

This is a private forum, we have rules, you follow the rules, you can stay, you don't follow the rules, you can't stay.

 

[ZapperZ]

zapper that is really over the top

to question authority is not = to lie

science is the VERY PROCESS of asking WHY
it is NOT following RULES
but trying to figure out what and why the rules are
and then trying every possible and some impossible tests
to break down the rules

I find your post illogical

I notice you did not address my point, that YOU have agreed to a set of rules that you do not care to obey. What does that make you?

How PF is run has nothing to do with "science". Science, however, has a lot to do with integrity of those who practice it, something you do not have plenty of.

Whether the rules that PF has set is reasonable or not is irrelevant. NO ONE forced you to be here. The very fact that you agreed to it means that you've given your word. It is highly obvious to me that your word is utterly worthless.

If you don't like it, GO ELSEWHERE! It is obvious you hold those "other" forums in higher esteem than PF. I'm sure we will die a slow, painful death after you are gone.

Zz.

 

[ray b]

Hurkyl

I see the censorship opinion as a truisum

but I guess you donot
it certainly is not my original thought
google gives 1,520,000 hits to that statement
is that enuff citations for you?

and the cliff BS is totally unnecessary
are we debating or scolding

 

[ray b]

the tone is increasingly
WE SAY SO

AM I BREAKING RULES
or debating if the rules are good ones

 

[ZapperZ]

We are only adopting YOUR strategy. You keep saying "censorship is bad", without any "debating". That is the same as "we say so".

We simply are doing the same to you. You just don't recognize it.

And yes, We DO say so. It was stated very plainly in the Guidelines that you have explicitly agreed to.

Zz.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

the tone is increasingly
WE SAY SO

Think of it this way: First and foremost, PF strives to serve as an educational [and professional's] web site. Students don't determine what is taught in class, the professionals do; or in the case of many of our quality members and staff, the Ph.D's do - the experts. And let their be no doubt, there have been many heated debates in the mentor's private forum about how best to achieve our goal of providing the best information available on a wide range of subjects. What you see now at PF is the result of years of work donated by many, many professionals in the sciences, mathematics, and the engineering disciplines, who are dedicated to this goal.

 

[chroot]

I know this thread has already been locked (since it went around in circles for three pages). I also know it's not really fair of me to post after the lock, when no one can respond to me. However, a few things do need to be said:

We have tried almost every moderation strategy known to man at one time or another. We used to freely allow crackpots, religious zealots, and others to post anything they want here. We gradually realized, over a period of years, that these strategies were not successful. Why were they not successful?

Well, if every debate here were carried out with the sensibility and civility of a panel on NPR, we'd have absolutely no reason to moderate anything at all. Indeed, I really do wish eveyone on the planet were capable of having a rational debate about charged topics without descending to personal attacks, deliberately misinforming others, or spamming. I would like nothing more than for PF to be a sort of utopian speakeasy where intelligent folks can talk about anything on their mind without any moderation, but that utopia cannot exist. The majority of people who wish to participate in debates on charged topics just don't know how to keep their arguments impartial and inoffensive. Their posts end up offending other people, and we lose valuable membership, or at least have to do a lot of very tiring clean-up work.

I've seen a number of mentors say in this thread that our goal is to host the greatest discussion of science on the web. If you think in a deeper, more utilitarian fashion, our goal is to satisfy as many people as possible by giving them a forum they wish to participate in. We don't intend to be a private site, so we have to keep our discussions palatable to a large part of the general population. We also have many school-aged children and primary school educators, who really don't want religious propaganda mixed in with their homework problesm.

Finally, it has to be noted that our policies appear to be working very well. PF grows daily, and continually exceeds its previous records of posting and membership activity. We continue to attract school-age children and highly-visible professors alike. We certainly cannot make everyone happy, but we're doing a pretty good job of making most members happy -- and we're proud of that.

- Warren