Moderation queries.

[G-Unit]

Someone has to try to prevent this Forum from turning into a cess pit, and John can't do it all by himself.  You have two Supporter Mods, two Sceptic Mods and one Middle of the Road.  And most of you don't want to do it.

Well good for you, tp take on such a thankless task. It seems to me that not only are moderators sometimes overruled from above, they also don't appear to support each other.

[barrier]

I think you have pretty well described the purpose of Moderation on this Forum.  Off Topic is not enforced to any great extent, and John deals with most of that as sometimes there are some comments worth saving for some other Thread, but only John can move stuff around.

As for Warnings, some members do push their luck to see how far they can go.  The worst being repeatedly reposting Deleted Posts.

In the end it is all a matter of opinion, unless it is outright Libel or downright lies.

How can you repeatedly repost a deleted post?

Hard to judge downright libel unless one is a qualified lawyer I'd venture,offer an opinion of such more like.

[G-Unit]

In my opinion things have certainly improved on the moderation front since a certain mod decided to take a more backseat role and didn’t deliberately go out of their way to wind me up with warnings for sarcasm and being argumentative, that was IMO an example of a mod using their authority in a provocative way.

The problem with sarcasm and argumentativeness is that it can be seen as abusiveness, which isn't allowed. Perhaps those whose style is to be sarcastic and argumentative need to be aware that they nay be seen as havong crossed that line sometimes.

[barrier]

Someone has to try to prevent this Forum from turning into a cess pit, and John can't do it all by himself.  You have two Supporter Mods, two Sceptic Mods and one Middle of the Road.  And most of you don't want to do it.

5 mods,nearly one each.

[Venturi Swirl]

The problem with sarcasm and argumentativeness is that it can be seen as abusiveness, which isn't allowed. Perhaps those whose style is to be sarcastic and argumentative need to be aware that they nay be seen as havong crossed that line sometimes.

Which is all very well except when the mod in question only punishes one side of the argument (remember it takes two to argue) and then likes sarky posts by the person with whom you are debating and also makes sarky comments themselves. 

[carlymichelle]

i have to admit i dont   post  here as much because even a joking post  can be  deleted   i think some  take   this  forum too seriously       i dont  think a post  should be  deleted because of a diffrent opinion  either

[Eleanor]

Well good for you, tp take on such a thankless task. It seems to me that not only are moderators sometimes overruled from above, they also don't appear to support each other.

Nor should they.

[Eleanor]

How can you repeatedly repost a deleted post?

Hard to judge downright libel unless one is a qualified lawyer I'd venture,offer an opinion of such more like.

It is quite simple.  A comment is Deleted and then the Member posts it again, and again.

Downright Libel and Lies are easy to spot.  It's the innuendo that sometimes causes difficulties.  But then you know that.

[Eleanor]

i have to admit i dont   post  here as much because even a joking post  can be  deleted   i think some  take   this  forum too seriously       i dont  think a post  should be  deleted because of a diffrent opinion  either

This subject is not a joke.  Good on ya for mostly staying out of it.

[Eleanor]

I have tried to explain how Moderation on this Forum works.  I am a little surprised by the fact that some members see fit to twist what I have said.

Why do I do it?  I honestly believed that I could help to keep a good Forum on track.  I had seen Sherlock as a Moderator bullied off this Forum, and my reaction to that was You and Whose Army.  However, the amount of vitriol levelled at me nearly defeated even me.  But I am made of stern stuff, and no way was I going to be driven out just because I believe in the Rule of Law.  In fact it made me more determined.

As G-Unit rightly pointed out, this is not a Democracy.  I operate under these conditions.  John always has the last word and I don't have a problem with that.  If I did then I would have left.

New people come and go, perhaps because they can't cope with The Rules.  But you are never going to get anything better.

Some of you might actually make good Moderators if you were able to separate yourselves.  I have spotted a couple in the Sceptic Team.  It is a life enhancing exercise, and one that I would not have wanted to miss.

[G-Unit]

Which is all very well except when the mod in question only punishes one side of the argument (remember it takes two to argue) and then likes sarky posts by the person with whom you are debating and also makes sarky comments themselves.

You are now just presenting your opinion of a specific incident which I don't remember. It's perfectly possible, however, for one person to be sarcastic and argumentative and another to respond in a different manner imo.

[G-Unit]

Nor should they.

Any organisation will have problems if it's 'management team' doesn't present a united front in my opinion. All moderators are there for is to ensure that members don't break the rules. If moderators can't agree what the rules actually are and whether they have been breached or not how can they fulfill their purpose?

Also, how can members avoid breaking the rules if even the moderators are unsure what that means? Members are occasionally asked to keep to the rules, but the rules seem to be a matter of opinion rather than fact.

[Venturi Swirl]

Any organisation will have problems if it's 'management team' doesn't present a united front in my opinion. All moderators are there for is to ensure that members don't break the rules. If moderators can't agree what the rules actually are and whether they have been breached or not how can they fulfill their purpose?

Also, how can members avoid breaking the rules if even the moderators are unsure what that means? Members are occasionally asked to keep to the rules, but the rules seem to be a matter of opinion rather than fact.

At the end of the day does it really matter?  If you don't like the way the forum operates there is no obligation for you to continue posting is there?  Perhaps a wholly sceptic forum moderated by sceptics would be better suited to your agenda? 

[Eleanor]

Any organisation will have problems if it's 'management team' doesn't present a united front in my opinion. All moderators are there for is to ensure that members don't break the rules. If moderators can't agree what the rules actually are and whether they have been breached or not how can they fulfill their purpose?

Also, how can members avoid breaking the rules if even the moderators are unsure what that means? Members are occasionally asked to keep to the rules, but the rules seem to be a matter of opinion rather than fact.

So you think that Supporter Mods should support each other even if they disagree?  We aren't all brain welded you know.

The Rules are laid down.  I suggest you read them.  But don't think I don't know when Members try to circumvent them.  Brietta's interpretation of that is her own affair.

And we all know what happens when two Moderators gang up together.

[barrier]

So you think that Supporter Mods should support each other even if they disagree?  We aren't all brain welded you know.

The Rules are laid down.  I suggest you read them.  But don't think I don't know when Members try to circumvent them.  Brietta's interpretation of that is her own affair.

And we all know what happens when two Moderators gang up together.

Glad you acknowledge it.