Suggestion Third Party Moderation for Objectivity in Discussions

[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.