Fussy moderation in 'Sustainability & Environmental issues'

djpbarry

I’ll start off by saying that I’m disappointed that other moderators have taken the issue to publicly criticise my moderation (and there are a few cheap shots in there) when they quite clearly do not have all the facts to hand – they of all people should know what a thankless task moderation can be.

yekahS wrote: »

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

Let's hope you are right, as we've all noticed the forum getting less and less active.

I've chatted to a few guys who have posted here, and there seems to be a view that sometimes the moderation is heavy handed, and treats intelligent and interesting people like naught children to be scolded at every opportunity. I myself am reluctant to post here very often for that very reason, and know others who feel the same.

I have two options here. To say nothing about the conversations I have had with users/former users of the sustainability forum, or to bring the point raised to your attention. I've decided on the latter course, seeing this opportunity has arisen, as to have said nothing and see those people continue to avoid the forum for the reason given, seems the better option. I hope you take the criticism in the constructive spirit in which it is intended.

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.

I previously received almost exactly the same comment in a PM. I entertained it and asked for examples of “heavy-handed” moderation. Guess how many examples were given?

yekahS wrote: »

Obviously, this is an exaggeration of what happens...

This thread is heavy on exaggeration and very light on facts and specific examples.

djpbarry

Insect Overlord wrote: »

It's pointless having a thread on the direction of a forum if its moderation can't be given fair criticism.

We are not above criticism, but comments such as “This whole forum is crap” are not exactly constructive, so I thought it best to close the thread. I should also point out that we will be opening another “comment box” thread in the near future, with an updated, more relevant OP.

djpbarry

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You don’t think it might be relevant to ask why ei.sdraob was banned? Further, ei.sdraob has clocked up 35 warnings and infractions during their time on boards.ie – is that the mark of a “good” poster?

Permabear wrote: »

If I had to guess, I'd assume that djpbarry takes his moderating cues from a certain Soc cat-mod (and Green fellow traveller) who habitually treats posters as if he's the only serious adult in the room while they're a collection of dim-witted four-year-olds.

Actually, when I began moderating, I took my cue from politics as that’s where I spend most of my time on this site and I like the way it’s run.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

How many posters do you suppose are currently perma-banned from the SEI forum?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Oh you mean the way I banned you for posting this? Oh wait, I didn’t. In fact, I got actively involved in the discussion and 770 posts later, the thread is still open. I also note that you didn’t make a single contribution to the thread other than the OP. In fact, that is your sole contribution to the entire forum – curious that you have formed such a negative opinion of my moderation based on this single post.

Permabear wrote: »

In this case, the forum is being overly micromanaged, with moderators zealously clamping down on any perspective that differs from the ideological groupthink of the Green movement. How exactly can users keep mods honest when they are banned within the forum for giving (requested) feedback, and dismissed in Feedback by a c-mod who claims that he doesn't have time?

Who was banned for providing feedback?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Oh that’s convenient.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You got all that from your one post, did you?

djpbarry

Overheal wrote: »

Having parsed most of the threads on the first page I'd make the suggestion that more warnings/infractions should be given instead of what appears to be frequent on-thread warnings, which themselves can be Off Topic and are nearly an invitation in themselves to be argued with when done so often.

Fair enough – maybe we do repeat ourselves a little too often. Although if posters took note of the first warning, we wouldn’t have to.

Overheal wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055771677

With apologies, but you can't have an honest feedback thread about a forum inside of the forum and restrict the discussion of moderation.

To be fair, I did ask for suggested changes to the charter and the reason I asked for moderation to be left out of it was because I knew the thread would otherwise have descended into chaos. Even with that warning in place, we still got 3 posts (from easychair, Needler and Mahatma coat) espousing vague criticism of moderation.

Not to mention a post beginning with “Look climate change ,global warming is a load of bollocks...”.

Overheal wrote: »

I don't see how you can ban the discussion of 'denialism'. It would be like banning a discussion between Evoluton and Creationism. Point being, that Global Warming has it's skeptics, and they should be permitted a platform to engage and enquire.

They are permitted. You know, for all the talk of people being banned left, right and centre, there is only one poster on this thread who does not have access to the forum.

djpbarry

easychair wrote: »

When this was put politely in a thread which he started off asking for views on the state of the forum, is it instructive to note that he appears to have decided to completely ignore it...

Is that so? Did I or did I not ask you via PM to provide examples of instances in which a poster was treated unfairly? I’m still waiting for a response almost 2 months later.

easychair wrote: »

I'm not sure why being a "denialist" should pose a problem, any more than being a "credulist" might be a problem.

People can hold any position they like – I don’ care. All I ask is that you back up what you say and you discuss any given issue in a rational manner. What I don’t like, and what people most often get warned/infracted/banned for, is soap-boxing.

easychair wrote: »

To give an example of how ignoring this problem is affecting the Sustainability & Environmental forums, the last post anyone made there was nearly 24 hours ago... Compare that to the forum of a few years ago...

Says the poster who registered in March. Hmm....

easychair wrote: »

Nesf's position appears to be to want to avoid the issue completely (maybe he could clarify if thats more or less what he's said, and done, in this thread), so it seems that the problem is going to be ignored...

You’ve yet to establish what the problem is that needs addressing? I accept that my moderation is not perfect, but unless specific examples of mis-moderation are provided, how can anything change?

easychair wrote: »

To give an example of how ignoring this problem is affecting the Sustainability & Environmental forums, the last post anyone made there was nearly 24 hours ago, and yesterday there were a total of 5 posts across the whole forum, one of those posts in classic djbarry style ignoring the issues being discussed and instead nitpicking trying to undermine a poster (me) in a style so well expressed above by permabear.

You provided a source that nobody could access – you were politely asked to provide another.

djpbarry wrote: »

easychair wrote: »

I was asked for a reference, and I gave it.

You gave a source that most posters on this forum cannot access. Can you provide another please.

I fail to see the problem.

djpbarry

Mahatma coat wrote: »

The Problem is DjpBarry and his/her notion that the Forum is their own personal Feifdom

I have raised this issue with the Admins & Cmods previously however the Wagons were circled and I was Fobbed off with a 'We'll look into it/PFO'

Again, you were asked to provide specific examples. You didn’t.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

if you contradict the 'official' line as held by the moderators you can expect to be Harassed/Scolded/Infracted/Banned

Have you been banned from the forum?

Mahatma coat wrote: »

it seems that the Moderators have a vested interest in the Science...

I have a vested interest in science because I’m a scientist. If that makes me biased, then so be it.

djpbarry

Wibbs wrote: »

Then throwing toys outa the pram and banning people for actual feedback? Daft.

Again, who has been banned for providing feedback?

djpbarry

robtri wrote: »

Ther was too much my opinion is right and if you want to argue with me either have an encyclopedia of information and nearly pre approved external quotes which I will demand you to provide..

Would you rather we allow posters to post whatever they want without any supporting evidence whatever? You really think the forum would be better in that case?

djpbarry

Chloe Pink wrote: »

...is it reasonable that a mod refer to an ICE Telford Gold Award winning paper as "crap"?

Are mods not allowed to express their opinions now?

djpbarry

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Aye I havent read the thread in full, but wanted to say i got banned for pointing out the "groupthink" that goes on in the forum...

Let’s have a look at the post that finally earned you your perma-ban, shall we?

ei.sdraob wrote: »

There isn't much debate on this forum, its all very one sided.

This followed multiple warnings on other threads about making off-topic generalisations about the “green” movement, environmentalism, etc.

Chloe Pink

djpbarry wrote: »

I’ll start off by saying that I’m disappointed that other moderators have taken the issue to publicly criticise my moderation

Criticism offers each of a chance to be a little self reflective and is taken by many folks as such even if it stings a bit.

djpbarry wrote: »

they of all people should know what a thankless task moderation can be.

You don't have to do it.

djpbarry wrote: »

This thread is heavy on exaggeration and very light on facts and specific examples.

Please would you supply some examples.

Chloe Pink

djpbarry wrote: »

Let’s have a look at the post that finally earned you your perma-ban, shall we?

This followed multiple warnings on other threads about making off-topic generalisations about the “green” movement, environmentalism, etc.

This isn't about this poster, it's about you.

Anyway could we have a link please and was or wasn't it a "perma-ban"?

djpbarry

Chloe Pink wrote: »

Criticism offers each of a chance to be a little self reflective and is taken by many folks as such even if it stings a bit.

Constructive criticism is, yes.

Chloe Pink wrote: »

You don't have to do it.

Somebody has to.

Chloe Pink wrote: »

Please would you supply some examples.

I have listed several in the posts above.

Scofflaw

Chloe Pink wrote: »

Criticism offers each of a chance to be a little self reflective and is taken by many folks as such even if it stings a bit.

You don't have to do it.

Please would you supply some examples.

I think you'll find plenty of examples in the posts he's responded to. It's been claimed that multiple posters have been banned for disagreeing with the mods - but only one example has been provided, and there's an alternative explanation there. It's been claimed that SEI creates a lot of DRP threads - it doesn't. It's been claimed that there's "bullying and harassment" but nobody has provided examples - or have provided examples which show pretty standard moderation of off-topic posts and posts arguing moderation.

cordially,
Scofflaw

djpbarry

Chloe Pink wrote: »

Anyway could we have a link please and was or wasn't it a "perma-ban"?

A link to what? Yes it was a perma-ban and ei.sdraob is the only poster on this thread who has received one.

Chloe Pink

djpbarry wrote: »

We are not above criticism, but comments such as “This whole forum is crap” are not exactly constructive, so I thought it best to close the thread. I should also point out that we will be opening another “comment box” thread in the near future, with an updated, more relevant OP.

Oh so you can call a scientific paper "crap" but someone else can't call the forum "crap"

Chloe Pink

djpbarry wrote: »

A link to what? Yes it was a perma-ban and ei.sdraob is the only poster on this thread who has received one.

To the thread you're referring to re the perma-ban, what did you think I meant, a fruit cake recipe.

Scofflaw

Chloe Pink wrote: »

To the thread you're referring to re the perma-ban, what did you think I meant, a fruit cake recipe.

Not very constructive, surely?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Chloe Pink

djpbarry wrote: »

Again, who has been banned for providing feedback?

How many times are you going to ask this question. I'm sure you know gthe incident posters are referring to - the thread was closed which is as good as banning people from the thread i.e. they can't comment

Scofflaw

Chloe Pink wrote: »

How cmany times are you going to ask this question. I'm sure you know gthe incident posters are referring to - the thread was closed which is as good as banning people from the thread i.e. they can't comment

The two are not in any sense comparable!

cordially,
Scofflaw

Chloe Pink

nesf wrote: »

This is not a newspaper, we do not operate on the grounds that arguments from authority are valid."

That's a really interesting comment because on the forum in question the fact that the IPCC for example says something seems to make it fairly unquestionable to the mod(s).

Chloe Pink

Scofflaw wrote: »

The two are not in any sense comparable!

cordially,
Scofflaw

Look I'm know it would have been better if folks were more accurate in their recounting of incidents but the incident remains; a feedback thread on the forum was closed meaning that feedback could no longer be made...

nesf

Chloe Pink wrote: »

nesf wrote: »

This is not a newspaper, we do not operate on the grounds that arguments from authority are valid."

That's a really interesting comment because on the forum in question the fact that the IPCC for example says something seems to make it fairly unquestionable to the mod(s).

I was referring to posters as the authority. Not treating the IPCC as an authority on climate science is a bit like disputing the Pope's authority on Catholicism.

Chloe Pink

Scofflaw wrote: »

Not very constructive, surely?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Which bit? The question was genuine, the latter part was unecessary I know, I was just trying to inject some humour into the situation.

nesf

Chloe Pink wrote: »

Look I'm know it would have been better if folks were more accurate in their recounting of incidents but the incident remains; a feedback thread on the forum was closed meaning that feedback could no longer be made...

It was locked because instead of it being used for constructive feedback it was used as a platform to attack the mods and the forum, which really isn't constructive. Feedback threads are only useful so long as the users remain constructive.

Scofflaw

Chloe Pink wrote: »

Look I'm know it would have been better if folks were more accurate in their recounting of incidents but the incident remains; a feedback thread on the forum was closed meaning that feedback could no longer be made...

If a thread for feedback consisted entirely of comments such as "this forum sucks", is that useful or constructive? And if you agree that the thread could reasonably be closed for not being constructive, then your argument is just that you feel what was being said was constructive.

That, plus there's Feedback itself, obviously.

cordially,
Scofflaw

themandan6611

How much of the problem is due to the choice of tone being used by the mods ?.

From looking at this thread and some in the S&E forum, while maybe not intentional, the style / tone used whilst steering the debates could be be taken the wrong way.

Sometimes its easier to be direct and straight to the point, which is fine, but maybe more time / thought should go into mods responses.

E-mail can be a dangerous - people read things differently to how they would receive the message verbally

nesf

themandan6611 wrote: »

How much of the problem is due to the choice of tone being used by the mods ?.

From looking at this thread and some in the S&E forum, while maybe not intentional, the style / tone used whilst steering the debates could be be taken the wrong way.

Sometimes its easier to be direct and straight to the point, which is fine, but maybe more time / thought should go into mods responses.

E-mail can be a dangerous - people read things differently to how they would receive the message verbally

And that pretty much sums up my "minor issue" mentioned earlier. Tone is important but a side issue here though, far more serious claims have been made about the moderators.

Chloe Pink

djpbarry wrote: »

Are mods not allowed to express their opinions now?

As a poster and as a moderator, describing the scientific evidence as "crap" is not just bad language but it isn't contstructive to the debate.

Also it was written as a moderation point i.e. in bold. As a poster, it could be called your opinion but as a moderator heavily involved in the discussion, I personally find it inappropriate.

As already said, you didn't tolerate the use of the word when it came in your direction so why should anyone else.

themandan6611

nesf wrote: »

And that pretty much sums up my "minor issue" mentioned earlier. Tone is important but a side issue here though, far more serious claims have been made about the moderators.

yes i would agree - its up to people to back up any claims with fact, clear black and white facts not emotive feelings, otherwise these claims should be withdrawn.