Typoz
Member
People do indeed respect the moderation. Then they quit the forum.most posters get this and act accordingly... i.e. they accept an imperfect moderation system and show respect for the people doing the work.
People do indeed respect the moderation. Then they quit the forum.most posters get this and act accordingly... i.e. they accept an imperfect moderation system and show respect for the people doing the work.
it's been my experience that people who talk about quitting the forum rarely do... but hey, maybe you'll prove me wrong.People do indeed respect the moderation. Then they quit the forum.
So why not PM me?So far I have simply 'liked' posts to voice my opinion, but I really think I'm on the verge of doing something that would be dumb but at the same time deeply satisfying, for a short while! :)
So why not PM me?
For starters, even if you agreed with Max, the way he was expressing his opinions was incredibly immature and childish. His temporary banning was entirely justified.
To discuss your grievances - but please try to be specific!To do what David? Ask you to ban me? :)
To discuss your grievances - but please try to be specific!
I wish this nonsense would die down and we could return to contemplating more interesting matters
OK - I will respond to you by PM about your #72.I don't have specific grievances, but the question arose about your ability as a moderator and I thought it better that I give my opinion outright which I did here on July 12th in the 'Are we slipping into too many political discussions?' thread, started by you. Post #72. As you started the thread, I assumed that you had seen it.
Chuck's ban I sort of understand, sort of don't, and Malf's ban was completely unwarranted.I agree with this. What about Chuck and Malf?
Alex, that wasn't the central point of my post, but if I have to answer your question: the moderation actions taken almost always appear to me to be unnecessary and heavy-handed. Examples: needlessly deleting threads; closing threads because the discussion gets "heated" on a specific topic (while also bringing up the topic himself in later threads); banning a new member because he's debating NDEs from a religious viewpoint instead of (supposedly, very arguably) "according to the evidence", even though said poster was polite and not belligerent (and even if the discussion was in the Skeptic vs. Proponent sub-forum); nagging posters with trivial commands to use the post-quoting function when they write. Etc.what specific issues have you had with the moderation?
it should have been. moderation is a difficult task. when you have a specific complaint about a real problem with the moderation you can contact me.Alex, that wasn't the central point of my post
which ones? the only one I can think of had to do with "intergenerational sex"... what are you referring to?Examples: needlessly deleting threads;
provide examplesclosing threads because the discussion gets "heated" on a specific topic (while also bringing up the topic himself in later threads);
ok, he can come back... in fact, anyone can come back (that's always been the policy)... they just have to agree to be moderated. and if he's asked to tone down the bible-thumping a bit we need to see some action along those lines. we've all been down the road with Christian fanatics... it's tiresome.banning a new member because he's debating NDEs from a religious viewpoint instead of (supposedly, very arguably) "according to the evidence", even though said poster was polite and not belligerent (and even if the discussion was in the Skeptic vs. Proponent sub-forum);
WTF Ian! this is a complaint you need to voice here! pls take a look at yr role in fueling this nonsense!nagging posters with trivial commands to use the post-quoting function when they write. Etc.
sounds like a lot of spin in order to defend yr position. I don't see any evidence of this.I have problems with the specific intention stated about "choosing people like dinner party guests". That seems to be the opposite of the open and welcoming orientation of Skeptiko - it's exclusive and elitist. And I can't see how that isn't completely opposite to a podcast that is in the end about spirituality.
Also, I find it sadly ironic that both Tim and Max B are no longer here in reaction to D.'s moderation, after D. unnecessarily stepped in the first place to address a heated debate between them.
you've just described a very good moderator :)I don't know like the direction things have taken the last few weeks, but honestly I'm having trouble understanding the uproar. Do I think David is a great moderator? No. Do I think he sucks? Not really.
I think this may be confusing to some since you've replied to a private message thru a public forum. why did you do that?Alex, I'll be brief because I've got to get to work. Reading these replies I was starting to mentally prepare a reply of my own for later posting tonight, but with your posts here and the PM's from David and you I'm getting, I see there's no point. It's a catch-22: I'm off base to begin with by daring to criticize the moderation, apparently, so it's pointless to further buttressing my argument. (And I think you have a false impression of the moderation because you don't spend significant time on the forum outside the Skeptiko show threads, or this thread that you've set up.) I was also responding to your question, by the way.
Ian is not a volunteer, he's a poster.
That's right, Alex. I'm just a (lowly?) poster, like many others here (who supposedly form a community?). No, I don't think it gives me any privileges. Yes, I do feel, after having spent many years (5) investing my time here, like many other forum members, that I'm allowed to care about seeing something that, in my very subjective view (but apparently I'm not alone), is hurting the forum, even though I recognize I don't make any decisions.
(On "not being a volunteer", I'll just say that I have helped you a few times putting shows together, and also putting 60+ hours in helping you start writing your book. I don't think that gives me any privileges, but I just thought I'd put out there re: "not being a volunteer".) Over and out for me on any of this.
the moderation actions taken almost always appear to me to be unnecessary and heavy-handed. Examples: needlessly deleting threads; closing threads because the discussion gets "heated" on a specific topic (while also bringing up the topic himself in later threads); banning a new member because he's debating NDEs from a religious viewpoint instead of (supposedly, very arguably) "according to the evidence", even though said poster was polite and not belligerent (and even if the discussion was in the Skeptic vs. Proponent sub-forum); nagging posters with trivial commands to use the post-quoting function when they write. Etc.
More than anything, revealing and disturbing comments about wanting the forum to go in certain direction, rather than letting people be and allowing the forum to naturally go where it will go and just addressing truly obnoxious behavior. Like Chuck and others here, I have problems with the specific intention stated about "choosing people like dinner party guests". That seems to be the opposite of the open and welcoming orientation of Skeptiko - it's exclusive and elitist. And I can't see how that isn't completely opposite to a podcast that is in the end about spirituality.