Mod feedback

[Tridimity]

Moderator Note

Tridimity, if you have problems with a moderator decision or you wish to clarify something, there are appropriate channels to make your case. I'm closing this thread pending staff review as well.

 

Anybody know what these 'appropriate' channels are? Why is it okay to publically criticise a member's contribution but not for a member to publically criticise a Mod's contribution? They should either both be public or both be private.

Edited December 12, 2013 by Tridimity

[hypervalent_iodine]

We have the report function, which will sometimes (depending on the nature of the report) be responded to in this thread or via PM. Alternatively, you are welcome to PM a member of staff about a moderator decision.

 

Your original thread was initially closed by me, but the closure was agreed upon unanimously by 3 or 4 other moderators. We would prefer not to house threads that we think will start flame wars between members. They are not constructive and they are a pain to moderate. If you had wanted to start a thread on why people hit children as a form of discipline and whether or not it is a good or bad thing, you would have been better to place the thread (with a bit more explanation) in the psychology section and not frame it as a question of why religious people abuse children.

 

As for the soap boxing claim, I think that is fairly self-explanatory. Simply linking an article or posting nothing but the text of an article isn't a good starting point for discussion, as it doesn't inform people of the points you wish to raise and engage in conversation about.

[Tridimity]

There are certain interesting linguistic terms here, 'flame wars' is presumably any heated discussion, silly me I thought that was the point of a discussion Forum. Any unwanted emotional response is labelled 'soapboxing'. So what if the children involved in these abuse cases were to come out and emotionally appeal against their abusers, would that also be soapboxing? Perhaps if they set their case in context with a few lines of text it will be worthy of an audience? I appreciate that not all religious people use physical violence as a means of punishing their children, and it would have been quite an effective argument against my thread title, if posed within the thread. However, the source of the advised punishment methods in this particular case was inextricably linked to the religious affiliations of the parents and is, I think, reflected more broadly in the nature of religions which demand that believers become subservient to the will of God and religious authority figures. My hope was that a member would comment further on what I had posted and I would subsequently follow up - I never planned to spawn a 'hit-and-run' thread.

[John]

"Flame war" usually connotes something closer to mudslinging, or at the very least, hostile back-and-forth with neither side really considering the other's position. "Soapboxing" refers to a certain level of preachiness that doesn't admit much in the way of debate.

Whether your thread constituted the latter or would have led to the former, I don't know. It's the moderators' responsibility to make these decisions, and they do a pretty good job at it. A mod decision (especially one that includes closing a thread entirely) isn't made on a whim, and if you find yourself on the receiving end of a mod note, it's fair to say you made a mistake somewhere. It's not the end of the world, but moderator actions do warrant consideration if you intend to continue posting here.

The public nature of mod notes serves the apparent purpose of reminding readers and thread participants (not just the targets of the notes) of the rules and providing examples of infractions, which helps to clarify the standards of the forums. Public responses to mod notes, on the other hand, lead either to thread derailment or (in the case of new mod response threads being created) ultimately to superfluous repetition of what the mod notes said in the first place.

Edited December 12, 2013 by John

[Ophiolite]

I think one of the problems, Tridimity - perhaps the problem - is that your thread title was obviously and seriously inflammatory. The problem you highlighted was disturbing and could, potentially, have generated productive discussion. However, your thread title doomed it to become a religion versus atheist discussion, then debate, then argument, then flame war, then closure, possibly accompanied by bans. The mods made an educated guess that was where it was heading and cut it off before things got out of hand.

 

Let's be clear, the majority of religious would be as appalled by this story as you were and as I was. What you did was equivalent to me posting information about the Piltdown hoax with the title "Here is why I don't trust Science". And it would have had as much justification.

[Tridimity]

"Flame war" usually connotes something closer to mudslinging, or at the very least, hostile back-and-forth with neither side really considering the other's position. "Soapboxing" refers to a certain level of preachiness that doesn't admit much in the way of debate.

 

 

"Mudslinging" and "preachiness" - not very helpful in trying to understand the meanings - replacing one verb or noun with a synonym. The Mod actions certainly prevented any 'flame wars' or 'soapboxing' but also prevented any productive discussion of what I think is an important topic. New method for cancer prophylaxis: kill every cell in your body before it has a chance to go awry

 

 

Whether your thread constituted the latter or would have led to the former, I don't know. It's the moderators' responsibility to make these decisions, and they do a pretty good job at it. A mod decision (especially one that includes closing a thread entirely) isn't made on a whim, and if you find yourself on the receiving end of a mod note, it's fair to say you made a mistake somewhere. It's not the end of the world, but moderator actions do warrant consideration if you intend to continue posting here.

 

 

"If you find yourself on the end of a mod note, it's fair to say you made a mistake somewhere." In order for that statement to have any validity, you must have first given some independent thought as to the rationale of Mod actions following members' posts. In order to extrapolate to my particular situation, you would need to extend the same thought processes to this particular case, and make a judgment. You have already said that you "don't know" so the extrapolation is invalid. I think you actually agree with the Mod action but are too politically correct to say so. Say so! I really don't care

 

The public nature of mod notes serves the apparent purpose of reminding readers and thread participants (not just the targets of the notes) of the rules and providing examples of infractions, which helps to clarify the standards of the forums. Public responses to mod notes, on the other hand, lead either to thread derailment or (in the case of new mod response threads being created) ultimately to superfluous repetition of what the mod notes said in the first place.

 

 

Mod notes make the poster, who may have contributed a substantial number of quality posts, look like an idiot by immediately cutting them off and censoring their opinions not only on the topic at hand but also on their treatment at the hands of Mods who are, let's face it, probably younger and less qualified who nevertheless feel it is their noble duty to silence anything that might rock the boat. So the poster is disrespected and shamed, the Mod leaves on high horse, and there is no opportunity for the poster to justify their actions.

 

I think one of the problems, Tridimity - perhaps the problem - is that your thread title was obviously and seriously inflammatory. The problem you highlighted was disturbing and could, potentially, have generated productive discussion. However, your thread title doomed it to become a religion versus atheist discussion, then debate, then argument, then flame war, then closure, possibly accompanied by bans. The mods made an educated guess that was where it was heading and cut it off before things got out of hand.

 

 

The title was strong - I have already mentioned that the argument against the generalisation of the thread title would have been well received within the thread itself, but alas any communication was prevented before any such discussion could take place. Not all religions recommend physical violence as a means of modifying children's behaviour, but in this particular case the suggestions were inextricably linked to Christianity, and symptomatic of a trend that pervades some religions especially Christianity and Islam - to promote the absolute submission of women and children to authority figures: the family patriarch, religious authorities and God.

Let's be clear, the majority of religious would be as appalled by this story as you were and as I was. What you did was equivalent to me posting information about the Piltdown hoax with the title "Here is why I don't trust Science". And it would have had as much justification.

 

The trend of promoting absolute submission of subjects - especially women and children - to the will of male family members, religious authorities and God stands. This does not occur with all religions (e.g. it does not feature in Buddhism or Humanism, both religions I adore) but does pervade some of the major world religions, especially Christianity and Islam. If you can prove this not to be the case I will be receptive to withdrawing my entire argument.

[Ophiolite]

 

The trend of promoting absolute submission of subjects - especially women and children - to the will of male family members, religious authorities and God stands. This does not occur with all religions (e.g. it does not feature in Buddhism or Humanism, both religions I adore) but does pervade some of the major world religions, especially Christianity and Islam. If you can prove this not to be the case I will be receptive to withdrawing my entire argument.

I was raised as a Christian within the Church of Scotland. The church was arguably less restrictive of women than the rest of society at that time. My elder sister, for example, was unable to acquire a mortgage in the 1960s without a gauruntee from a male relative, not because her income was too low, but because she was female. Ten years earlier the church was more than happy to entrust biblical education of youngsters to her in weekly Bible school.

 

I found the openess of the church to ideas the equal of what I encountered in the science class at school.

 

Several decades on, and by now a long standing devout agnostic, I was delighted - as school governener - to have our local minister (again Church of Scotland) give occassional talks to the children on religious matters. If there had been even a hint of what you refer to in your post I should have made it my priority to get him out of ths school, and for that matter out of the community. (Incidentally, when he retired he was replaced by a woman.)

 

So, my experience of Christianity is quite different from yours. Moreover, you have taken the most extreme example and tied it behaviour that is much more embedded in society than in the church.

 

Let me take another science example. The Piltdown hoax was, we would all agree not science. What about the work of Mendel, which was crucial evantually, to the acceptance of evolution. Do you want to link that kind of science with the Piltdown hoax? After all, it is probable that Mendel cooked the books to make the ratios in his experiments come out too nearly perfect. The two are different. I'm not defending Mendel, nor am I defending patriachal societies. But.....

[Tridimity]

Ophi,

 

The religious leaders whom you have encountered certainly sound worthy only of admiration. Please could you clarify, what would be the advice of your local minister to a child or young person who is attempting to make some difficult decision in life?

Edited December 12, 2013 by Tridimity

[John]

"Mudslinging" and "preachiness" - not very helpful in trying to understand the meanings - replacing one verb or noun with a synonym. The Mod actions certainly prevented any 'flame wars' or 'soapboxing' but also prevented any productive discussion of what I think is an important topic. New method for cancer prophylaxis: kill every cell in your body before it has a chance to go awry

 

Replacement of an unfamiliar word with a perhaps more common synonym doesn't help? This is news to me.

 

To go with the cancer analogy, the situation is more akin to removing moles or polyps. The mods don't close every new thread in an effort to prevent problems, but they do close threads that seem likely to cause problems.

 

 

"If you find yourself on the end of a mod note, it's fair to say you made a mistake somewhere." In order for that statement to have any validity, you must have first given some independent thought as to the rationale of Mod actions following members' posts. In order to extrapolate to my particular situation, you would need to extend the same thought processes to this particular case, and make a judgment. You have already said that you "don't know" so the extrapolation is invalid. I think you actually agree with the Mod action but are too politically correct to say so. Say so! I really don't care

My statement is the result of hanging around these forums, talking to mods, and knowing roughly how their process works. I did see your thread, before it was locked, and I'm not sure whether I would have locked it, though I might have at least suggested a change in title. However, I'm not a mod, and even if I were, if several others had agreed with locking the thread, the outcome would have been the same.

 

As for extrapolation, if not knowing is grounds for rendering extrapolation invalid, then any extrapolation is invalid. Any extrapolation comes with a certain degree of uncertainty. It's the nature of inductive reasoning. In my experience, moderator actions are almost always justified, and those few that aren't are quickly reversed--it's that whole multiple moderators thing in action again. I can't be certain that all future moderator actions will be justified, but based on my experience, I think it's safe to say any given new action is.

 

 

Mod notes make the poster, who may have contributed a substantial number of quality posts, look like an idiot by immediately cutting them off and censoring their opinions not only on the topic at hand but also on their treatment at the hands of Mods who are, let's face it, probably younger and less qualified who nevertheless feel it is their noble duty to silence anything that might rock the boat. So the poster is disrespected and shamed, the Mod leaves on high horse, and there is no opportunity for the poster to justify their actions.

It's difficult to set aside one's ego in the face of criticism, especially when it's public. You seem to have a pretty good track record here, and no one thinks you're an idiot just because a couple of your posts have resulted in moderator response.

 

Whatever you think about the age, qualifications, or whatever else of a moderator, the fact remains that the moderators are given the authority to make decisions regarding possible violations of the forum rules. Also, you have the ability to justify yourself, through the proper channels.

Edited December 12, 2013 by John

[swansont]

Threads that are only quoted text or videos are suspect; often they are there to provoke and not in a good way. The author has not made an investment in the thread by declaring a specific area of discussion. In any subforum outside of Science News, that's a warning sign. The title was another. We shut down threads when people proselytize for religion, but we're not going to give a pass for religion bashing, even if some of us might agree with the sentiment. The rules apply to all.

 

Both of these reasons were pointed out in the modnote. Neither of these reasons are a new precedent being applied here.

 

I don't agree with "Mod notes make the poster … look like an idiot". If that happens, the post itself does it. Mod notes simply point out that the post violates the rules. Everyone errs. Accept it, learn from it and move on. Denying responsibility is not the way to go.

[Moontanman]

I am going to side with Tridimity on this, while it could have been done a bit less abrasively the subject is real in the USA where one of the most popular books actually advocates what can only be termed child abuse and it is religious and religion is being used to justify it. I think we could have had a productive discussion around it...

[CharonY]

I kind of doubt it. There is a dearth of statistics of child abuse data that allow the elucidation of religious influence.I will not derail this thread further but the result is almost inevitably based on anecdotal evidence (such as the sale number of a single book). Point is that child abuse is a complex matter and the way it is posited (and posted) makes it pretty clear that OP tried to push a specific narrative.

As Phi mentioned, putting it into one of the more scientific threads would have made a much better place as discussion starter and also would have called for better statistical evaluation.

 

 

 

It's difficult to set aside one's ego in the face of criticism, especially when it's public. You seem to have a pretty good track record here, and no one thinks you're an idiot just because a couple of your posts have resulted in moderator response.

 

Absolutely, I would also add that the way one treats criticism is usually much more telling than the criticism itself.

[Tridimity]

Absolutely, I would also add that the way one treats criticism is usually much more telling than the criticism itself.

 

 

I would have been receptive to criticism if it had been justified but instead it was handed from on high with zero opportunity for discussion. If the Mods had suggested the necessary modifications e.g. change to thread title, more commentary, I would have implemented those changes - that would have been constructive criticism. I haven't seen a single Mod take into consideration any of the reasons as to why I posted in that manner, and frankly I don't look forward to coming here again, and clearly my contributions here will not be missed. Surprising that Despedida

[Phi for All]

 

I would have been receptive to criticism if it had been justified but instead it was handed from on high with zero opportunity for discussion. If the Mods had suggested the necessary modifications e.g. change to thread title, more commentary, I would have implemented those changes - that would have been constructive criticism. I haven't seen a single Mod take into consideration any of the reasons as to why I posted in that manner, and frankly I don't look forward to coming here again, and clearly my contributions here will not be missed. Surprising that Despedida

 

Criticizing someone for being on a high horse is compromised while doing it from the saddle yourself. You are choosing, very visibly and very demonstrably, to take this personally. You are choosing to see modnotes as humiliating when they were never intended to be such. You are choosing to ignore what most of the members are saying to you about this.

 

It's obvious that you're not used to being criticized, which probably means you're not used to making mistakes. That's great, but in the estimation of the entire staff, you made one here and are now reacting very badly and avoiding responsibility for that mistake. Your intentions are not the issue here. Your behavior is, and I for one was banking on you being responsible enough to see it. I truly hope you stay and can get over this incident.

[swansont]

 

I haven't seen a single Mod take into consideration any of the reasons as to why I posted in that manner

 

Maybe because the reasons would be largely irrelevant. The tone, placement and title scream "danger" to a moderator.

 

You got pulled over for speeding. Justification for it doesn't matter all that much, and it's not the cop's fault for catching you.

[Ophiolite]

I really hope you stay with the forum. I am very inefficient at noticing who is posting. I focus much more on what is posted, but my recollection is that your posts have been interesting, relevant, mature and informative. I was surprised by the thread under discussion.

 

Why? As I think I have noted, and as your responsese seem to confirm, you have a highly jaundiced view of religion that bares no relationship to any reality I am aware of either directly, or through reading. Of course there are wings and sects of Christiantiy whose attitudes and behaviour are reprehensible. The same is true of atheists, plumbers and people who are left handed. You posted a thread with a "one size fits all" condemnation that is consequently unscientific, prejudiced and bigotted. I had thought much better of you. I hope to do so again.

[CharonY]

As a side note with regards to criticism, from the viewpoint of the one issuing them there are almost always perceived as justified and maybe even constructive (why else would they offer it?). On the receiving end almost always the opposite is true (oneself cannot be wrong, can one?). Often this devolves into an argument of how and whether criticism is justified rather than the subject at hand.

 

This is obviously rather unproductive and if I got a dime for each time I have to steer lab discussions away from that ("it was not my fault, i did everything right!" I do not care I just need it done regardless whose fault it is) I would not need any external grants anymore. On the other hand (to give a connected example), in grant or paper reviews sometimes referees criticize a missing point that is clearly present in the manuscript. I could throw a hissy fit and attack the referees (which some do) or i just thank them for their insight and repeat the point a couple of times in the manuscript. While the criticism is objectively unjustified (it is clearly present) it did not appear so to the person that missed it.

 

You cannot easily change another person's perception, but you can try to see it from their perspective and provide different contexts and solutions (which is an important skill to acquire).

[StringJunky]

Tridimity

 

Just take it on the chin and carry on. Past experience tells the mods when a thread is likely to go awry. An ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure.

[Tridimity]

You got pulled over for speeding. Justification for it doesn't matter all that much, and it's not the cop's fault for catching you.

 

 

But unlike speeding, there could have been the potential here to very quickly change the thread so as to promote productive discussion, but that chance was denied by the Mods.

I had thought much better of you. I hope to do so again.

 

I don't care for your opinion and am not accountable to you.

 

You cannot easily change another person's perception, but you can try to see it from their perspective and provide different contexts and solutions (which is an important skill to acquire).

 

 

You cannot provide a solution if the moderator decides to discard your piece wholesale - it would be the equivalent of flatly rejecting a manuscript rather than suggesting points for improvement.

 

Edited December 13, 2013 by Tridimity

[swansont]

 

 

But unlike speeding, there could have been the potential here to very quickly change the thread so as to promote productive discussion, but that chance was denied by the Mods.

 

 

There are many threads that get closed where he poster is admonished not to re-introduce the subject — usually when the discussion has dragged on and the poster refuses to engage in some critical way such as only repeating previous arguments. I don't recall there being any such restriction put in place with regard to your post. Just a modnote saying it was closed pending staff review. So claiming you've been denied anything is false, or at least premature.

[Tridimity]

 

 

There are many threads that get closed where he poster is admonished not to re-introduce the subject — usually when the discussion has dragged on and the poster refuses to engage in some critical way such as only repeating previous arguments. I don't recall there being any such restriction put in place with regard to your post. Just a modnote saying it was closed pending staff review. So claiming you've been denied anything is false, or at least premature.

 

I restarted the topic under the thread title 'Neutral Comment' and that too was locked - with 2 Mod notes for good measure!

[StringJunky]

The title indirectly references the previous thread, has a distinct smell of resentment about it and, most importantly, says absolutely nothing about the content. You wish to talk about a very delicate topic - think matches near petrol. You need to use all your skills to present and navigate such a discussion in an objective and calm manner.

[Tridimity]

The title indirectly references the previous thread, has a distinct smell of resentment about it and, most importantly, says absolutely nothing about the content. You wish to talk about a very delicate topic - think matches near petrol. You need to use all your skills to present and navigate such a discussion in an objective and calm manner.

 

Obviously but there has been zero opportunity to make those changes - instead any who introduce a controversial topic are silenced outright.

Edited December 13, 2013 by Tridimity

[hypervalent_iodine]

 

Obviously but there has been zero opportunity to make those changes - instead any who introduce a controversial topic are silenced outright.

 

You have been told countless times in this thread as well as in mod notes and in PM that you can restart the topic. No one is stopping you from doing that and no where in any of the mod notes that were issued did staff say that they / we would; all staff have asked is that you use your skills in persuasive argument to direct the thread in a manner that does not come across as downright inflammatory as your last thread(s). Heck, you've even been given pointers on how to do it.

 

Take ownership of your actions and just move on. This thread really isn't doing you any favors.

[swansont]

I restarted the topic under the thread title 'Neutral Comment' and that too was locked - with 2 Mod notes for good measure!

And it was clear from the tone of that post that you had no appreciation for the reasons why the first post was locked, and was little more than figuratively stamping one's feet in a sarcastic huff. Phi for All made a reasonable suggestion in the second mod note.