Fussy moderation in 'Sustainability & Environmental issues'

stantom

yekahS wrote: »

I'm not sure whether that particular thread is the best example, but I agree with the OP's point. The moderation in S&EI is ridiculously heavy-handed.

Take the second thread the OP gave. A user gave, what I would consider some pretty reasonable feedback:



and they get a red card? That is ludicrous. It shows a severe lack of maturity on behalf of the moderator that they cannot take even the politest criticism on board.

Its my opinion that the moderators of that forum use their position to steer the debate the way they want it to go. Take this thread for example:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056324244

In post number #8 djpbarry gives a mod instruction to someone he is trying to engage in debate with. Mods shouldn't be here to direct users debating style. Unless it breaks boards.ie guidelines, then the mod should just debate with the person, and if they think that their argument is weak, they should point that out like any other user, not straight away jump to bold boy text and treat the poster like a naughty child.

There have been a few DRP cases from the forum, and while, by the book, the mods made the right decision, I always thought that the attitude of the mod was very schoolteacherish, rather than a facilitator to discussion.

To me this post, from the moderator yekahS hits the nail most on the head. I also notice it was thanked by Chloe Pink, CJhaughey, Cookie_Monster, Dravokivich, easychair, Judgement Day, jumpguy, Tristram, Wibbs. It seems to be very similar to what yekahS described now.

oscarBravo

I'm satisfied that stantom and uruguay are (serial) re-regs, so I've sitebanned both.

There's something pretty pathetic about sockpuppeting, especially sockpuppeting to have a go at someone.

Overheal

djpbarry wrote: »

You didn't "establish a counter-point", you just copy-pasted a wall of text from Wikipedia, the content of which has very little to do with the question I had asked.

Text which, if read, refutes the claim that scientists ever tried to fudge the numbers, as evidenced/claimed by any leaked emails. ie. through Climategate. With which there is no need to have names of individuals.

Asking simple questions is bullying now?

The tone you used twice and as the moderator of the forum did seem needlessly argumentative, I will say that at least.

My name is URL

If I were a conspiracy theorist I'd be fashioning a tinfoil hat for myself right now. There appears to be a well organised team of re-reg's questioning the established line.

We must not stand for this.

Yitzhak Rabin

stantom wrote: »

yekahS wrote: »

I'm not sure whether that particular thread is the best example, but I agree with the OP's point. The moderation in S&EI is ridiculously heavy-handed.

Take the second thread the OP gave. A user gave, what I would consider some pretty reasonable feedback:



and they get a red card? That is ludicrous. It shows a severe lack of maturity on behalf of the moderator that they cannot take even the politest criticism on board.

Its my opinion that the moderators of that forum use their position to steer the debate the way they want it to go. Take this thread for example:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056324244

In post number #8 djpbarry gives a mod instruction to someone he is trying to engage in debate with. Mods shouldn't be here to direct users debating style. Unless it breaks boards.ie guidelines, then the mod should just debate with the person, and if they think that their argument is weak, they should point that out like any other user, not straight away jump to bold boy text and treat the poster like a naughty child.

There have been a few DRP cases from the forum, and while, by the book, the mods made the right decision, I always thought that the attitude of the mod was very schoolteacherish, rather than a facilitator to discussion.

To me this post, from the moderator yekahS hits the nail most on the head. I also notice it was thanked by Chloe Pink, CJhaughey, Cookie_Monster, Dravokivich, easychair, Judgement Day, jumpguy, Tristram, Wibbs. It seems to be very similar to what yekahS described now.

Ii made that point at the very start of this discussion more than half a year ago. The discussion ran it's course and reached a conclusion (eventually) which I and most of the people taking part accepted. So there's no need to quote my post to make the point I already made and was discussed endlessly 7 months ago.

djpbarry

Overheal wrote: »

Text which, if read, refutes the claim that scientists ever tried to fudge the numbers...

Ok, but that is not the point I was responding to in the post in question?

Overheal wrote: »

The tone you used twice and as the moderator of the forum did seem needlessly argumentative...

It was certainly argumentative and it was intended to be - I have limited patience for posters who post the same crap over and over and over again while displaying absolutely no interest in engaging in meaningful discussion. There's absolutely no way I'm going to waste my time putting together a thought-out response when I know full well that the individual in question has absolutely no interest in reading it.

Overheal

djpbarry wrote: »

Ok, but that is not the point I was responding to in the post in question?
It was certainly argumentative and it was intended to be - I have limited patience for posters who post the same crap over and over and over again while displaying absolutely no interest in engaging in meaningful discussion. There's absolutely no way I'm going to waste my time putting together a thought-out response when I know full well that the individual in question has absolutely no interest in reading it.

I used to do that, but eventually I started posting For The Record, not the poster/troll that instigates the response. I just find it to be a lot more constructive. The former simply reads like the start of a 90s era flame war.

djpbarry

Overheal wrote: »

I used to do that, but eventually I started posting For The Record...

Fair enough, but how many times are you going to be prepared to post "for the record" in response to the same post from the same poster?

Overheal

djpbarry wrote: »

Fair enough, but how many times are you going to be prepared to post "for the record" in response to the same post from the same poster?

Analyst2, rereg or not, only posted from what I can see about 5 times, and it's not as if all of those posts are about the same thing. If you mean they are 5 posts by the same GW Denier, then sure, they are the same 5 posts but otherwise not.

How much will I personally tolerate? I have a few favorites. One was SLUSK, who managed to survive in Politics for weeks, twisting whatever opportunity he could find into a campaign to say "This is why we should be more like Thailand" and promote censorship and violent crackdowns on citizens. Yeah he never once showed willingness to contribute to an actual discussion. Standing firm on him though worked. He was ultimately banned. The other was a now fellow poster (and I suppose one other, but he no longer posts in Politics) who when given leeway, fit right in. Wouldn't have the forum without him now.

As for the actual situation in SEI I think it comes down to the fact that a lot of these posts in question are from posters that are lifting quotes up from hell knows where, not citing their sources (that's plagiarism) and then not really offering up any more after their unattributed quote than a one-liner (if that), then their standard of posting are sub-par for what is expected. eg. "[uncited block of plagiarised text] why do you think this is?"

IMO if you suspect you're responding to a suspect troll your best options are either dont reply at all or at the least dont reply in anger, or any other way which could reflect back poorly on you.

D

From what I've seen the responses by djpbarry have while lacking in the social niceties have been appropriate.

From a quick look down the forum and reading several threads there is a significant amount of noise from people who come along post a link to an unsubstantiated, non-peer reviewed, piece of sensationalist literature/media trying to pass itself off as pseudo-science.

From observing that djpbarry is the mod of the postgraduates forum as well I would assume that he has a background in academia or at the very least has put forward research that has been peer-reviewed and needed to list all its sources.

He is likely held to research standards. As such, I would guess that he is sick of people posting the above and as he seems to have a deep knowledge of the area he can spot the unfounded claims and otherwise bull**** diatribes that go on in the forum.

Its the same with people posting questionnaires in other forums eventually you get sick of it and just ban people who do it without permission.

It is covered in the charter that:

"Thread Content

Topics should be relevant to Sustainability and Environmental Issues and posts should not be (for example) verbatim quotes from an article or isolated links (to videos, for example) without comment from the poster. Offer your own opinion on the subject so far as is possible. If a link to a video or article is being posted as a response to another post or to make a specific point, then please state clearly what that point is.

Be Prepared to Discuss Your Posts!

This is not a blog – if you’re not prepared to discuss the content of your posts, which will inevitably involve your opinions being challenged, then please do not post. If you are here to "shout everyone down" with your opinions, we will see you as a negative contributor to the forum and may ban you.

When offering an opinion, please state so; do not present an opinion as "fact". When offering fact, please offer relevant linkage, or at least source. If you do not do this upon posting, then please be willing to do so upon request.

The onus is on all posters to fact check their information. If a poster is corrected, or information corrected in a thread, any poster who continues to relate the same misinformation as fact will be sanctioned. This also applies to posters spreading misinformation across multiple threads.
"

The mods have obviously done this to cut down on this type of posting and when this piece of the charter is ignored then I feel it is justified if the offending poster is treated at something less than the social norm.

twitz

yekahS wrote: »

Ii made that point at the very start of this discussion more than half a year ago. The discussion ran it's course and reached a conclusion (eventually) which I and most of the people taking part accepted. So there's no need to quote my post to make the point I already made and was discussed endlessly 7 months ago.

Things appear to have moved on since 7 months ago.

Just because something "ran its course", doesn't mean that it never needs to be revisited. I've had a look just now we can all see DJBarry is back to treating the forum as if its his personal possession, and many posters there treated as children, to be patronised and scolded.

I used to have a profile here but deleted it as I grew tired of that sortt of "moderation" which has more in common with an old fashioned school master, and does not treat other posters as equals, and seems to constantly "nit pick" to use another posters expression.

Consequently, I have no desire to post in a forum where the moderator appears to be waiting his chance to pounce on anyone with whom he disagrees, and am not at all surprised to see the forums there have so few contributions as a result.

twitz

djpbarry wrote: »

There's absolutely no way I'm going to waste my time putting together a thought-out response when I know full well that the individual in question has absolutely no interest in reading it.

It is this kind of school master type attitude, brimming with intolerance, which perfectly illustrates the point. No one says anyone has to respond to anything, but to assume that other posters have no interest in reading posts, and then use that as a reason for being curt to the point of irritation and rudeness, appears to illustrate what the psycho jonnies call the "god complex". Guessing what other posters may or may not do is not the job of a moderator.

twitz

D wrote: »

The mods have obviously done this to cut down on this type of posting and when this piece of the charter is ignored then I feel it is justified if the offending poster is treated at something less than the social norm.

From what I have seen, its not "the mods" but just the one mod.

P. Breathnach

Yet another instance of a person registering just to join in this discussion: it seems to me a bit odd. Where did I leave that tinfoil hat?

twitz

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Yet another instance of a person registering just to join in this discussion: it seems to me a bit odd. Where did I leave that tinfoil hat?

How many have reregistered to join in this discussion? I suppose that, if one feels strongly about something, then one wants to let others know.

There is a wider issue, and it is this; If the trend on boards.ie is to not only allow, but to encourage, moderators to conduct them selves, and the forums they moderate, like the sort of old fashioned school master that DJB comes over as, then that will have implication for boards.ie in that many more will vote with their feet and leave boards.

That is a thought to ponder.

oscarBravo

I'll reiterate: there's something pretty pathetic about sockpuppeting, especially sockpuppeting to have a go at someone.

djpbarry

Overheal wrote: »

Analyst2, rereg or not, only posted from what I can see about 5 times...

The post in question has been posted before (or at least, something very similar) by one of Analyst2/easychair’s previous incarnations.

Overheal wrote: »

How much will I personally tolerate? I have a few favorites. One was SLUSK, who managed to survive in Politics for weeks, twisting whatever opportunity he could find into a campaign to say "This is why we should be more like Thailand" and promote censorship and violent crackdowns on citizens. Yeah he never once showed willingness to contribute to an actual discussion. Standing firm on him though worked. He was ultimately banned. The other was a now fellow poster (and I suppose one other, but he no longer posts in Politics) who when given leeway, fit right in. Wouldn't have the forum without him now.

That’s all fair enough, but it should be immediately obvious from this thread alone that easychair has absolutely zero interest in contributing anything to the forum – (s)he’s merely interested in having a pop at moderators. Now, that may change at some point in the future (and if it does, I probably won’t recognise the re-reg), but I won’t be holding my breath.

Overheal wrote: »

IMO if you suspect you're responding to a suspect troll your best options are either dont reply at all or at the least dont reply in anger...

This is the nub of the issue – the perception of anger and/or intolerance. My response was certainly blunt and to the point – it was meant to be. But angry? I think that’s really pushing it.

djpbarry

D wrote: »

From observing that djpbarry is the mod of the postgraduates forum as well I would assume that he has a background in academia or at the very least has put forward research that has been peer-reviewed and needed to list all its sources.

He is likely held to research standards. As such, I would guess that he is sick of people posting the above and as he seems to have a deep knowledge of the area he can spot the unfounded claims and otherwise bull**** diatribes that go on in the forum.

I think it’s worth pointing out that I have never suggested that posts in the forum should be of such a standard that they would be fit for peer-review (I know that’s not what D is suggesting, I’m just clarifying) – that would obviously be setting the bar far too high and besides, it’s not a science forum. However, if someone makes reference to a scientific claim and/or the work of scientists and states something with authority that is quite obviously false, they will be challenged and they will be expected to support their claim. They will, at the very least, be expected to try and discuss their claim.

Red Neck Hughie

Maybe instead of locking the odd petitioner or campaigner would the mods consider allowing us to engage with them? The quietness of the forum would suggest there is no problem with us users outright ignoring posts where necessary.
Some of the threads there feature post counts where over half the contributions come from mods.
Just a thought or two...

Macha

Petitions are allowed in the forum.

Quite frankly, I think the reason it's a quiet forum is because it deals with issues that are a lot less interesting to many people than, say, the latest Android phone or what happened on Eastenders last night.

I imagine at least part of the reason djpbarry and I were made mods is because we were already active in the forum, have an interest in the area and know something about the topics being discussed.

Cardinal Richelieu

Macha wrote: »

Petitions are allowed in the forum.

Quite frankly, I think the reason it's a quiet forum is because it deals with issues that are a lot less interesting to many people than, say, the latest Android phone or what happened on Eastenders last night.

I imagine at least part of the reason djpbarry and I were made mods is because we were already active in the forum, have an interest in the area and know something about the topics being discussed.

All and good but its sometimes better if the forum mod just posts when needed otherwise it gives the impression that its your own personal forum and your the superior authority on all things to do with the forum. "Seen and not heard" comes to mind.

I haven't posted in the forum for a while because its one of those topics that attracts its fair share of crackpots or people with an agenda so I can understand why the mods face accusations of fussy moderation.

Red Neck Hughie

Macha wrote: »

Petitions are allowed in the forum.


I imagine at least part of the reason djpbarry and I were made mods is because we were already active in the forum, have an interest in the area and know something about the topics being discussed.

Petitions have been locked for no reason other than being petitions though. See the mod's reponse to fracking for example. Not to flog a dead horse but it might be less quiet if the odd petitioner was debated with rather than be told to go away.
Otherwise I have no issues with mods posting, post early and post often -thanks and keep up the good work.

Macha

OK sorry about that - we'll make sure to try to keep petition threads open.