Suggestion Third Party Moderation for Objectivity in Discussions

[zoobyshoe]

This is a completely unrealistic and destructive suggestion for PF. If I thought for a second there was the slightest danger of this going any further, I would stand against it alongside the Mentors.

It's not unrealistic and destructive. It's working as we speak on another forum as old as PF. I personally doubt Greg would want to undertake such a major restructuring, but I mention it because it is the most clearly disinterested form of moderation I've encountered.

 

[NeoDevin]

mentors cannot issue infractions without it opening a new thread in the mentor's forum showing all details of the post, member, explanation for infraction, type of infraction, points etc...

Does this hold true for deleted posts too? Are other mentors able to see posts which have been deleted from threads? If a mentor has been involved in a heated discussion, and deletes/edits some posts and issues an infraction, is all of this visible to the rest of the mentors?

(I remember one instance, Evo, where you accidentally edited one of my posts into oblivion. You said that you couldn't recover it in that situation, and asked me to re-post it.)

 

[NeoDevin]

It's not unrealistic and destructive. It's working as we speak on another forum as old as PF. I personally doubt Greg would want to undertake such a major restructuring, but I mention it because it is the most clearly disinterested form of moderation I've encountered.

I think to expect the mentors to volunteer their time to moderate, without actively being a part of the community, is unreasonable. Why would they have any interest in moderating a forum that they're not an active part of?

If PF ever starts producing enough income for Greg that he can hire staff, then it might make sense.

 

[cristo]

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.

And so where do the moderators come from? That definitely wouldn't work here-- one of the qualities looked for when a member is asked to become a mentor is that they have been an active, contributing member who has shown to have knowledge in a certain area.

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

Because it could have been, say, a flat out insult (though I would still normally report it and get someone else to act). Anyway, my point is not to contradict others in this thread: if an infraction is issued, it opens a thread for discussion in the mentors forum. My point was that we don't know of any potential issues (i.e. before infractions/action taken), unless it is reported. This goes as with any thread flaring up between any two members.

Does this hold true for deleted posts too? Are other mentors able to see posts which have been deleted from threads? If a mentor has been involved in a heated discussion, and deletes/edits some posts and issues an infraction, is all of this visible to the rest of the mentors?

(I remember one instance, Evo, where you accidentally edited one of my posts into oblivion. You said that you couldn't recover it in that situation, and asked me to re-post it.)

Deleted posts are able to be seen by all mentors. Edits are different: there is no way to see the original post if it has been edited. Thus, if a mentor is editing a post's content, s/he will almost always report the post so that we have a copy in the mentors' forum.

 

[Integral]

At one time or another it happens to every mentor. You erroneously hit the edit button, instead of the quote. If the error is discovered only after cutting out huge chunks of text there is no going back.

Zooby, please recognize my earlier point, we are Mentors, not moderators. I have always felt that there is a very important distiction, Mentors guide while moderators watch. As Mentors it is our DUTY to interact. Without that interaction the forums would never have gotten off the ground.

 

[Borek]

At one time or another it happens to every mentor. You erroneously hit the edit button, instead of the quote.

At some point I was even banned because of a wrong button being hit

 

[zoobyshoe]

Zooby, please recognize my earlier point, we are Mentors, not moderators. I have always felt that there is a very important distiction, Mentors guide while moderators watch. As Mentors it is our DUTY to interact. Without that interaction the forums would never have gotten off the ground.

I understand that you are mentors. However you also perform the function of moderators. If I clash with you, not even in your capacity as a mentor, but just a member, over the issue of pot, or if I clash with ZapperZ over the pronunciation of Einstein's name, then later, if there is a moderation issue, how do I know you both can be completely objective? This would never be a possible issue if the moderators weren't also active members.

 

[zoobyshoe]

And so where do the moderators come from? That definitely wouldn't work here-- one of the qualities looked for when a member is asked to become a mentor is that they have been an active, contributing member who has shown to have knowledge in a certain area.

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.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I think to expect the mentors to volunteer their time to moderate, without actively being a part of the community, is unreasonable. Why would they have any interest in moderating a forum that they're not an active part of?

If PF ever starts producing enough income for Greg that he can hire staff, then it might make sense.

Indeed, there has to be some other incentive for them to do it.

 

[ZapperZ]

I understand that you are mentors. However you also perform the function of moderators. If I clash with you, not even in your capacity as a mentor, but just a member, over the issue of pot, or if I clash with ZapperZ over the pronunciation of Einstein's name, then later, if there is a moderation issue, how do I know you both can be completely objective? This would never be a possible issue if the moderators weren't also active members.

You don't! You just have to figure out for yourself if this forum is worth your time and are run with fairness most of the time. In other words, the free-market policy is at work here. You are more than welcome to go elsewhere if you feel that the way PF is run is unfair and autocratic. I know many crackpots view PF as the latter. However, and having been on many internet forums for so many years, I would challenge anyone to find another physics forum on the 'net that has so much valuable physics content and discussion, but yet, have so much concern over the members.

Zz.

 

[Evo]

Deleted posts are able to be seen by all mentors. Edits are different: there is no way to see the original post if it has been edited. Thus, if a mentor is editing a post's content, s/he will almost always report the post so that we have a copy in the mentors' forum.

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.

 

[George Jones]

(I remember one instance, Evo, where you accidentally edited one of my posts into oblivion. You said that you couldn't recover it in that situation, and asked me to re-post it.)

At one time or another it happens to every mentor. You erroneously hit the edit button, instead of the quote. If the error is discovered only after cutting out huge chunks of text there is no going back.

On every post, mentors see "EDIT" and "QUOTE" buttons side-by-side, and most mentors have, on occasion, inadvertently clicked on "EDIT" instead of quote "QUOTE".

In a mentors' forum, I once did this thinking that I was posting about my daughter, but the unintentional and unknown "EDIT" gave another mentor a kid that they didn't know that they had.

 

[Gokul43201]

When a 3rd party mentor agrees to give an infraction for another mentor, they just become a go between for the member and that mentor, since at that point infractions have already been approved.

I believe the point Dave is making, and one I agree with, requires that the third party Mentor not be merely a puppet that is administering the desired moderation on behalf of another Mentor, but an independent adjudicator who should not consult the involved Mentor in the decision-making. Else, the role of a third-party mod becomes one purely of appearances.

The exercise of having uninvolved mods make decisions becomes moot if the involved mod is the one steering this decision.

 

[Evo]

I believe the point Dave is making, and one I agree with, requires that the third party Mentor not be merely a puppet that is administering the desired moderation on behalf of another Mentor, but an independent adjudicator who should not consult the involved Mentor in the decision-making. Else, the role of a third-party mod becomes one purely of appearances.

The exercise of having uninvolved mods make decisions becomes moot if the involved mod is the one steering this decision.

Agreed, they would not be dictating the decision, the decision is agreed upon by a group of mentors, but if the member is disputing his discussions with a specific mentor, that mentor does need to respond. The member has a right to have his questions answered by that mentor. Mentors can make mistakes.

If it becomes a case of the member making accusations against the mentor, or if the member states that the mentor made an error, that mentor definitely needs to be able to respond.

 

[DaveC426913]

Agreed, they would not be dictating the decision, the decision is agreed upon by a group of mentors...

Perhaps I'm just dense because I'm just not getting it.

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?

This is the crux of the thread.

 

[Evo]

Perhaps I'm just dense because I'm just not getting it.

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?

This is the crux of the thread.

It would depend on the circumstance, we are trying to delay giving infractions until several mentors can chime in, if the mentor is also involved with disputing the member, but that's not always practical, and that is why there is an appeal process. I have seen mentors give an infraction and then report themselves and ask other mentors if they feel it was appropriate.

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".

 

[ZapperZ]

Perhaps I'm just dense because I'm just not getting it.

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?

This is the crux of the thread.

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? Or is this whole thread instead related to something specific that you have problems with?

I read this thread, and if I don't know any better, I would think that PF is utterly dysfunctional and completely lack of any sensible moderation. I hate to think that because you had issues with a particular moderator or a particular thread, that that somehow is ample ground for wholesale overhaul of the monitoring process in this forum. That isn't sensible either!

Zz.

 

[Count Iblis]

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.

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.

 

[cristo]

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.

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.

Er, no, we will not start airing dirty laundry here and delving into specific cases. The incidents you have been involved in have been reviewed by the mentors and by Greg several times.

 

[Count Iblis]

Er, no, we will not start airing dirty laundry here and delving into specific cases. The incidents you have been involved in have been reviewed by the mentors and by Greg several times.

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.

 

[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.