Fussy moderation in 'Sustainability & Environmental issues'

Mahatma coat

really, You would make a comparison between Believing Creationisim and Questioning AGW

I've never really been sure whether you were a Troll or an Idiot

but if this is the sort of response one can expect when the Cmods get involved I cant really see the problem being resolved

Corsendonk

Chloe Pink wrote: »

That's good Corsendonk but unfortunately quite a number of posters and some mods feel there are/were issues with the forum and the moderating hence this lengthy thread.

I never realised someone could be patronising in a post until I read the above. Would a number of posters be chiefly you? Seening that you have roughly 18.5% of the replies out of the 41 people that contributed to this thread.

Insect Overlord

Corsendonk wrote: »

I never realised someone could be patronising in a post until I read the above. Would a number of posters be chiefly you? Seening that you have roughly 18.5% of the replies out of the 41 people that contributed to this thread.

Which is worse, that ^ or the fact that 40% of CP's entire post history is in this one thread?

Chloe Pink

Macha wrote: »

Hence it was revised. I don't see a great number of posters clamouring for it to be revised again.

Maybe that's because they have got fed up and can't be bothered to give anymore help and input.
I observe and report the lack of clarity in the charter and the CC mega thread OP and the contradiction between the two; if you choose to do nothing about this, so be it.

Macha wrote: »

Re: writing the forum charter, my response in post 372 is in relation to the decision off the back of this thread to have a megathread and keep discussion of ACC within that and keep the rest of the forum free from that particular debate.

Thank you for clarifying.

Macha wrote: »

I don't think we need to write in who is responsible for writing the charter - every other forum has survived without it thus far perfectly well and I'm sure SEI will as well.

I'm not sure that anyone has suggested such a move.

Chloe Pink

Scofflaw wrote: »

Dominated by, in fact, only a couple of posters, primarily yourself. And virtually every poster except yourself has the same basic problem - they want to be allowed to post well-worn arguments claiming climate change doesn't exist.

If you say so Scofflaw; in my view this makes the case for eliminating any confusion in the charter and CC mega thread OP even more relevant but eh that's only my view on the matter.

Macha

Chloe Pink wrote: »

Maybe that's because they have got fed up and can't be bothered to give anymore help and input.

Let's not get into such unhelpful hypothesizing.

Chloe Pink

Corsendonk wrote: »

I never realised someone could be patronising in a post until I read the above. Would a number of posters be chiefly you? Seening that you have roughly 18.5% of the replies out of the 41 people that contributed to this thread.

I was just recounting what had happened; if you look through this thread and the SEI forum, you'll find a number of posters apart from myself, and some moderators raising issue with forum and its moderation.
Why have I posted so much here, well perhaps it's because I care.
If boards.ie were a tiny organisation of little significance then I'd be less concerned but it isn't, it's massive and has/had a very good reputation.
Without going over all the details again, suffice to say I am appalled by what I have seen in the SEI forum and from some contributors to this thread.

Chloe Pink

Insect Overlord wrote: »

Which is worse, that ^ or the fact that 40% of CP's entire post history is in this one thread?

Please see post 398

Chloe Pink

Macha wrote: »

Let's not get into such unhelpful hypothesizing.

Any chance of a response to the matter raised, namely are you happy with the Forum Charter and the CC mega thread wording, are they clear enough and unambiguous enough in your view, if so, fine, you're hosting it.

Scofflaw

Chloe Pink wrote: »

I was just recounting what had happened; if you look through this thread and the SEI forum, you'll find a number of posters apart from myself, and some moderators raising issue with forum and its moderation.
Why have I posted so much here, well perhaps it's because I care.
If boards.ie were a tiny organisation of little significance then I'd be less concerned but it isn't, it's massive and has/had a very good reputation.
Without going over all the details again, suffice to say I am appalled by what I have seen in the SEI forum and from some contributors to this thread.

And without going through the whole argument again, the problem is that other people do not necessarily agree with you. I'm delighted you care so much about the reputation of boards.ie, but in general don't think you've offered much that would improve its reputation.

cordially,
Scofflaw

djpbarry

Chloe Pink wrote: »

Maybe that's because they have got fed up...

With what, I wonder....

Chloe Pink

Any more enlightened and constructive comments from djpbarry and scofflaw?

Insect Overlord

Chloe Pink wrote: »

Any more enlightened and constructive comments from djpbarry and scofflaw?

Here's an idea for you.

Sum up all of the points you want to make in one post. Use bullet points for clarity. Post them here and then go away and enjoy the evening for yourself. Give the mods 24-48 hours to discuss your ideas and come up with a way to take them on board. Then come back and get your enlightening, constructive replies.

Badgering the mods and Cmods for 400 posts over the last three weeks is getting you nowhere. I've been following this thread as neutrally as possible and I'm fed up of reading both sides! You may not get the outcome you're wishing for, but at least you'll know your best ideas have been listened to and considered.

djpbarry

Chloe Pink wrote: »

Any more enlightened and constructive comments from djpbarry and scofflaw?

You’re suggesting that we make the charter an exhaustive list of what does and does not go. Apart from the fact that this would be totally impractical, everyone else who has expressed a view on the charter felt precisely the opposite – that it was in fact too detailed, we (the mods) followed it almost to the letter and they were often put off posting as a result. Now, given that nobody other than you and easychair have objected to the revised charter format, I’m guessing everyone else is happy enough with it and so I’m not inclined to go tinkering with it again just yet.

However, if I have misinterpreted, I think it would be constructive for you to take Insect Overlord’s advice and come up with a coherent argument in a single (brief) post so we can better consider what it is you’re suggesting we do.

easychair

Scofflaw wrote: »

And without going through the whole argument again, the problem is that other people do not necessarily agree with you.

You may be right, and we can all speculate as to who may or may not agree that there is/was a problem with the SEI forums. Some "other people" probably don't agree with you, or me, or anyone.

I've looked at the first two pages of this thread, (I haven't the time to trawl through the whole thread) and the following people took the time to say why they think there is/was a problem with the SEI forums;

Needler
yekahS (Thanked by Chloe Pink, Cookie_Monster, Dravokivich,easychair, Judgement Day, jumpguy,Tristram, Wibbs)

Overheal (Thanked by Judgement Day, K-9, Permabear, RoundyMooney, Wibbs)

sendit

easychair( Thanked by Chloe Pink, Judgement Day, themandan6611)
Mahatma coat


Mods;

Wibbs
Permabear

DJBarry has said on the SEI forums that he noticed that the SEI forums have got a lot quieter lately, suggesting that a number of posters who had been contributing are no longer posting there.

I know that I have discussed the issue with others, many of whom have made the point that they no longer post there due to what they view as unfriendly and sometimes hostile moderation.

I'm personally saddened to have seen what was an attempt at highlighting what some see as a problem turning into others name calling, and making personal accusations.

I decided to contribute to this thread because I thought it was important, and I have better things to do with my time than to be called names someone who is charged with moderating a forum.

Really, I wish the SEI forums well and hope they thrive.

djpbarry

easychair wrote: »

I know that I have discussed the issue with others, many of whom have made the point that they no longer post there due to what they view as unfriendly and sometimes hostile moderation.

Which we have tried to address. Are you suggesting we have not gone far enough? What do you propose?

nesf

easychair wrote: »

I know that I have discussed the issue with others, many of whom have made the point that they no longer post there due to what they view as unfriendly and sometimes hostile moderation.

Two things cropped up.

a) Some posters felt the mods were moderating too heavily, djpbarry in particular. He's taking a step back and we'll see how the forum runs. Thus this has been listened to and acted on.

b) The charter was causing some problems. It's been reworded and reformatted. Again, listened to and acted on. We'll see how this works going forwards.

The third thing that's happened has been the setting up of a Mega thread to give sceptics a place to challenge the consensus held up in the forum. This is another action towards what's been brought up and hopefully will alleviate some of the problems.


Overall I'm happy that firstly the mods have listened and secondly that the mods have acted to help with the perceived problems.


Are you willing to take a step back from this now and see if the changes will have the desired effect and leave things drop for the moment?

easychair

nesf wrote: »

Two things cropped up.

a) Some posters felt the mods were moderating too heavily, djpbarry in particular. He's taking a step back and we'll see how the forum runs. Thus this has been listened to and acted on.

b) The charter was causing some problems. It's been reworded and reformatted. Again, listened to and acted on. We'll see how this works going forwards.

The third thing that's happened has been the setting up of a Mega thread to give sceptics a place to challenge the consensus held up in the forum. This is another action towards what's been brought up and hopefully will alleviate some of the problems.


Overall I'm happy that firstly the mods have listened and secondly that the mods have acted to help with the perceived problems.


Are you willing to take a step back from this now and see if the changes will have the desired effect and leave things drop for the moment?

Yes, I absolutely recognise, and have said here, that djbarry has been magnanimous in his statement here, and I again salute him for so doing.

I have also decided to do just as you have asked, and also wish the SEI well and hope the SEI forums thrive, having also noted my own reservations about what I view as the censorship in the updated charter.

djpbarry wrote: »

Which we have tried to address. Are you suggesting we have not gone far enough? What do you propose?

My view is that the change to the charter, which demands everyone must post with the assumption that the climate change predictions are correct, is limiting, more especially as it’s far from universally accepted by many good and respected scientists, and others.

I know that moderation is not always easy, and none of us is perfect, (I know especially that the older I get, the less perfect I am and the less I realise I know), and I hope that SEI will eventually become a place for interesting and thoughtful debate.

nesf

easychair wrote: »

My view is that the change to the charter, which demands everyone must post with the assumption that the climate change predictions are correct, is limiting, more especially as it’s far from universally accepted by many good and respected scientists, and others.

I think it is reasonable enough of a position for an environmental forum. A Mega Thread gives people a place to challenge the consensus so that need is being catered for without allowing a free for all that could derail and disrupt threads in the main forum.

Chloe Pink

djpbarry wrote: »

However, if I have misinterpreted, I think it would be constructive for you to take Insect Overlord’s advice and come up with a coherent argument in a single (brief) post so we can better consider what it is you’re suggesting we do.

Thank you djpbarry.

Below is my view of some solutions that I feel could help matters and of some areas that I feel could be improved slightly for the sake of clarity thereby saving any confusion later.
If I have missed any relevant responses to the points I raise, I apologise in advance.


Take up of the cmods offer of assistance in certain situations

As described below, the cmods have offered to help out with moderation when a mod is heavily engaged in discussion with a poster and moderation is needed.
I feel the reasonable use of the cmods offer may be helpful.
However I am not sure if this approach has generally been agreed/acknowledged as a way forward.
Macha has already expressed the view that this could be a good idea although only in certain situations (see post 364) which seems reasonable to me.

P. Breathnach post 290:
"I am sure a cat-mod would step in if one mod were involved in a thread and the other mod were unavailable to deal with a problem post."

Nesf post 290
"The Cat Mods have already offered this to the Mods as an option."


Agreement between the mods and cmods involved with SEI on exactly what the consesus is.

The consesus has been described in the charter as the fact “that mankind is most likely responsible for the observed upward trend in global temperatures over the last century or so.”

This may be fine but in discussion in this thread, it was pointed out that “It isn't (just) the increase in temperature, it's the change in climate. That is why we don't talk about global warming, we talk about climate change - the changes are more complex than just an increase in temperature.”

For the sake of clarity thereby saving any confusion later, I feel it is important that the mods and cmods responsible for the SEI forum are happy that the the consesus is worded to accurately reflect their joint view of it.


“If” details like the extent of future changes etc are open for debate, that the charter is explicit about this.

In post 364 reference is made to an earlier agreement that details like the extent of future changes etc are open for debate; it was not however ascertained that this agreement had been made.
If details like the extent of future changes etc are open for debate, I feel it would be good to state as much in the charter, again for the sake of clarity thereby saving confusion later.


That the discrepancy between the Forum charter and the OP of the CC mega thread is resolved.

The charter uses the phrase "that mankind is most likely responsible" whereas the OP of the CC mega thread uses the phrase that "humans are contributing significantly".
These phrases have different meanings and I feel should ideally be aligned for the sake of clarity thereby saving confusion later.

Chloe Pink

nesf wrote: »

I think it is reasonable enough of a position for an environmental forum.

I disagree with you Nesf but realise that this decision is set for the time being and so be it.

nesf

Chloe Pink wrote: »

I disagree with you Nesf but realise that this decision is set for the time being and so be it.

If every thread was open to the consensus being challenged we would have threads constantly being derailed by off-topic argument which makes the forum unusuable for people wanting information on environmentally friendly living and other topics the forum was set up to cater for.

I'd argue that the forum was never meant to be a platform for challenging the consensus.

Scofflaw

nesf wrote: »

If every thread was open to the consensus being challenged we would have threads constantly being derailed by off-topic argument which makes the forum unusuable for people wanting information on environmentally friendly living and other topics the forum was set up to cater for.

I'd argue that the forum was never meant to be a platform for challenging the consensus.

And I have to agree.

cordially,
Scofflaw

easychair

nesf wrote: »

If every thread was open to the consensus being challenged we would have threads constantly being derailed by off-topic argument which makes the forum unusuable for people wanting information on environmentally friendly living and other topics the forum was set up to cater for.

I'd argue that the forum was never meant to be a platform for challenging the consensus.

We had a teacher who used to ask of an unruly pupil, at assembly, "what would happen if everyone did that?" To which the answer was, and is, "they don't". In any case, isn't the job of a moderator to prevent your fear of threads constantly being derailed?

In the scientific community there is no consensus, with many respected and good scientists challenging both the predictions made for the future, and some of the findings of the past.

There is no consensus about, for example, the Hockey Stick Graph, with many scientists challenging both the results and the data upon which the Hockey Stick Graph depends.

I'd argue that the only place I've seen a consensus on, for example the issue of the Hockey Stick Graph, is with the mods and cmods in SEI who keep telling everyone there is a consensus., Whatever ones personal views might be on the issue, many will find it hard to believe any of the mods can really pretend there is a consensus among the scientific community about the Hockey Stick Graph, for example.

Even if there were a consensus among the scientific community, that's never been a good reason to ban discussion of viewpoints which one thinks one might find uncomfortable.

I'll be dipping from time to time into the SEI forum to have a look. Whether or not I'll take part there I can't say, and as I've already said, I wish the SEI forums well.

Gordon

easychair wrote: »

We had a teacher who used to ask of an unruly pupil, at assembly, "what would happen if everyone did that?" To which the answer was, and is, "they don't". In any case, isn't the job of a moderator to prevent your fear of threads constantly being derailed?

Which is why as a mod you use your wealth of experience to prevent something before it happens.

It's also not a mod's job to prevent threads from constantly being derailed, this is the job of the users, but if a thread does get derailed it is the mod that will attempt to fix the situation. Sometimes that means, putting it back on track by warning people or banning people, sometimes all hope is lost and the thread should be closed.

nesf

easychair wrote: »

We had a teacher who used to ask of an unruly pupil, at assembly, "what would happen if everyone did that?" To which the answer was, and is, "they don't". In any case, isn't the job of a moderator to prevent your fear of threads constantly being derailed?

You're asking that the mods actively are watching each thread post for post. This is unreasonable. You can argue about the consensus and what the consensus covers in the Mega Thread, I don't feel like there's a problem with a blanket ban on anti-Climate Change posting elsewhere in the forum.

Macha

Thanks for the summary Chloe Pink. We're working on it at the moment.

djpbarry

Chloe Pink wrote: »

Take up of the cmods offer of assistance in certain situations

Ok – this has already been covered.

Chloe Pink wrote: »

Agreement between the mods and cmods involved with SEI on exactly what the consesus is.
...
“If” details like the extent of future changes etc are open for debate, that the charter is explicit about this.
...
That the discrepancy between the Forum charter and the OP of the CC mega thread is resolved.

These are all essentially the same point – the wording in the charter and mega-thread OP has been changed slightly so they are now in agreement.

djpbarry

easychair wrote: »

My view is that the change to the charter, which demands everyone must post with the assumption that the climate change predictions are correct...

That’s not what the charter states.

easychair wrote: »

In the scientific community there is no consensus...

If there were no consensus whatever, then producing IPCC assessment reports (for example) would be impossible.

easychair wrote: »

...with many respected and good scientists challenging both the predictions made for the future, and some of the findings of the past.

I'd be surprised if there were not, but that doesn't mean that a consensus cannot exist.

easychair wrote: »

There is no consensus about, for example, the Hockey Stick Graph...

Actually, the hockey stick graph has been reproduced by several independent investigators using a variety of different methods. If you wish to argue otherwise, you may do so in the relevant thread.

easychair

djpbarry wrote: »

If there were no consensus whatever, then producing IPCC assessment reports (for example) would be impossible.
I'd be surprised if there were not, but that doesn't mean that a consensus cannot exist.
Actually, the hockey stick graph has been reproduced by several independent investigators using a variety of different methods. If you wish to argue otherwise, you may do so in the relevant thread.

I keep thinking I am finished with this thread and that the thread has run its useful course. And then up pops another post which demands a response.

The OED describes "consensus" as "a general agreement". In the example I gave, there is not general agreement in the scientific community about the Hockey Stick graph. In fact, there is a considerable disagreement. I don't wish to argue one way or the other about the Hockey Stick Graph, and used it as an example which contradicts the view that there is a scientific consensus.