Moderation: split from men vs woman

[Dissily Mordentroge]

On 1/23/2020 at 4:47 AM, swansont said:

(emphasis added)

There are a number of claims here that you have not shown are true, and basing a discussion on false premises leads to a flawed conclusion.

Even though I agree with your analysis of the previous post I’m astonished at your approach to moderation. At times it feels as if one is sitting in on a tutorial where participants are constantly slapped on the wrist for errors in logic &/or unjustified claims. Such an regime of detailed criticism may be justified, however, I find the tone of many critical remarks so coldly judgmental as to discourage participation.  I’m in no position to be diagnosing anything like aspergers syndrome however so depart leaving you to your ‘objective’ moderation. 

Edited February 16, 2020 by Dissily Mordentroge

[Strange]

!

Moderator Note

Moved to amore appropriate forum. 

 

18 minutes ago, Dissily Mordentroge said:

Even though I agree with your analysis of the previous post I’m astonished at your approach to moderation.

I would point out that swansont was just posting as a member, not as a moderator. 

But maybe your comment is still valid more generally?

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, Dissily Mordentroge said:

Even though I agree with your analysis of the previous post I’m astonished at your approach to moderation. At times it feels as if one is sitting in on a tutorial where participants are constantly slapped on the wrist for errors in logic &/or unjustified claims. Such an regime of detailed criticism may be justified, however, I find the tone of many critical remarks so coldly judgmental as to discourage participation.  I’m in no position to be diagnosing anything like aspergers syndrome however so depart leaving you to your ‘objective’ moderation. 

When you see a moderator comment not in a red or green box, they are in 'member-mode' and are participating. When they do this, they relinquish their moderation duties in that thread, which will be handled by one of the others. Sometimes they may have to break that convention if they feel the immediate situation warrants it but it doesn't happen often. When they are in discourse you can sock it to them, within the rules, as any other member.

Edited February 16, 2020 by StringJunky

[swansont]

If someone makes an argument based on the moon being made of cheese, I think people should call out the flawed premise rather than waste effort on the rest of the argument.

YMMV

[iNow]

While I agree wholeheartedly with the tenor of swansonts quote shown in the (now) OP, I have a slightly different criticism of it.

Working from false premises doesn’t necessarily mean the conclusion is wrong by default. What it does mean, however, is that the conclusion can only be correct by accident and that the premises didn’t play any role in arriving upon it.

The flawed premises essentially become mere decorations on the post. They are not foundational to its conclusion (and generally not related to it), but I also trust that swansont agrees with this overly pedantic clarification even though it wasn’t readily apparent in that one short quickly submitted reply above. 

[dimreepr]

doesn’t that mean the premise is only semantically flawed?

[iNow]

No. If the premise is that the moon is made of cheese and that’s why it affects the tides, the flaw here is about more than mere semantics. 

[dimreepr]

for instance, 'power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely' when they mean 'power attracts the corruptible'

[iNow]

Those are not mutually exclusive in the way you seem to be suggesting. We’re also only pushing farther away from the actual thread topic by pursuing it. 

[dimreepr]

👌

[MigL]

I thought he was implying that Mods are corrupted by their power...

 

[Phi for All]

6 hours ago, Dissily Mordentroge said:

Even though I agree with your analysis of the previous post I’m astonished at your approach to moderation. At times it feels as if one is sitting in on a tutorial where participants are constantly slapped on the wrist for errors in logic &/or unjustified claims. Such an regime of detailed criticism may be justified, however, I find the tone of many critical remarks so coldly judgmental as to discourage participation.  I’m in no position to be diagnosing anything like aspergers syndrome however so depart leaving you to your ‘objective’ moderation. 

Accurate, trustworthy, objective information is often clouded by emotional responses and criticisms to it, and we now have the www to help amplify that effect exponentially. It's imperative that science maintain the standards of its methodology, and on a forum that discusses the subject it's too easy for unreasoned arguments to take over the conversations. Many think we're far too forgiving lately.

No matter what obstacles to learning a member may have when they post here, it does them no good to fill the gaps in their knowledge with unsupported popular misconceptions. You obviously were mistaken in thinking swansont was moderating in your example, but even if the quote had been in green or red, his statement reflects the way the site administrators have arranged the moderation. If you make a claim, you have to support that claim if you want to keep talking about it assertively. We have far too many examples IRL of seemingly intelligent people being bulldozed over by unsubstantiated claims that are screamed loud enough and long enough to make them seem real. Do we want to allow that here?

[iNow]