Should Moderators Remain Impartial Bystanders in Online Discussions?

[Surrealist]

What are the philosophical ramifications for having moderators?
If you believe we should have them, then what personal characteristics should moderators have?
Should they be more "moral" than the rest of us?
Certainly, anyone given the "power" (for lack of a better word) to edit the words of others should display a high level discretion and integrity.
After seeing a few moderators engage in arguments based on emotion rather than reason, I wonder if moderators should not be allowed to participate in discussions.
Perhaps, they should remain impartial bystanders.

 

[DaveC426913]

Nothing's perfect. If we require it to be so we will never get anything done. Look at the larger picture - the end that justifies the means. If we didn't have moderators, imperfect or no, the board would be much less useful to many more people than it is now.


I like to use a similar logic in political discussions. eg.: Democracy is a terrible way to run a country. But of all the ways to run a country, it's the least terrible. Remember, you still have to run the country...

 

[Stevedye56]

I'd run and hide if I was you now...

 

[chroot]

1) There's no such thing as impartiality. Even if we didn't particpate in discussions, that doesn't mean we'd be impartial.

2) We generally do display a high level of discretion for editing other peoples' words. Deleting posts which do not meet our posting guidelines is a different story -- we've tried to be as objective as possible when developing those guidelines, so we feel rather justified in enforcing them.

3) We do indeed get into discussions, sometimes heated discussions, with other members. I don't believe any of us have ever tampered with an opponent's posts in effort to "win" any arguments, however. If you see a mentor breaking the guidelines -- incuding me -- feel free to make it known here on the feedback forum.

- Warren

 

[berkeman]

Boy, that wouldn't be any fun. Only being a nuts-and-bolts Moderator, and not getting to give Homework Help and not being able to participate in discussions (like this one). I think most or all of the Mods are people who got a lot out of the PF (and gave a lot back) before becoming Moderators, so primarily they are users just like everybody else. But in addition, we do feel good about enforcing the PF Guidelines, because it helps keep the PF working so well.

We discuss issues of impartiality and integrity regularly in the Moderator forums -- we really do try to do our best to be fair and keep things running well around here. BTW, in addition to posting here on the Feedback forum, keep in mind that if you see a post (even/especially by a Moderator) that appears to violate one of the PF Guidelines, please use the Report Post button to report the violation, where it will be read by the Mentors and discussed.

 

[Moonbear]

I'll just echo what berkeman wrote, and emphasize that those of us who are moderators were here as regular members for a long time before that. It's because we enjoyed the site with all its guidelines (it's much more conducive to intellectual discussion than "free-for-all" type forums) that we are happy to take on the extra responsibility of helping moderate the forums when invited to do so.

 

[Astronuc]

What are the philosophical ramifications for having moderators?

None really.

If you believe we should have them, then what personal characteristics should moderators have?

Saintliness.

Should they be more "moral" than the rest of us?

They are, especially the Nuns with Guns.

Certainly, anyone given the "power" (for lack of a better word) to edit the words of others should display a high level discretion and integrity.

They do.

After seeing a few moderators engage in arguments based on emotion rather than reason, I wonder if moderators should not be allowed to participate in discussions.

Afterall moderators are human.

Perhaps, they should remain impartial bystanders.

They are fairly impartial, or reasonably so.

I agree with chroot, berkeman, and Moonbear.

 

[moe darklight]

I think what makes this forum different (and better) from most other science forums is the strict rules.

... it's much more conducive to intellectual discussion than "free-for-all" type forums ...

yep. if we didn't have the moderators, physics newbs like me wouldn't know who to trust ; any dude with a crazy theory could reply to a question and it wouldn't be a very educational. And non-newbs would probably get frustrated and leave.

After seeing a few moderators engage in arguments based on emotion rather than reason, I wonder if moderators should not be allowed to participate in discussions.

Yea that happens sometimes. It's only happened to me once, and I'd rather the odd good post to be deleted than all the flat out wrong answers to be allowed or the crazy irrational theories.

edit: if you want to see why we need moderators, here's a simple experiment:

1 - start a thread that includes the words words "God" or "religion"
2 - sit back and watch it get out of control

 

[radou]

They are, especially the Nuns with Guns.

Wouldn't that classify as hyper-moral?

 

[chroot]

yep. if we didn't have the moderators, physics newbs like me wouldn't know who to trust ; any dude with a crazy theory could reply to a question and it wouldn't be a very educational. And non-newbs would probably get frustrated and leave.

If you want first-hand evidence of how such forums turn out, look at www.sciforums.com or the newsgroup sci.physics. I gaurantee you'll be cross-eyed in fifteen minutes or less.

- Warren

 

[Integral]

What are the philosophical ramifications for having moderators?
If you believe we should have them, then what personal characteristics should moderators have?
Should they be more "moral" than the rest of us?

Moral? What the heck has moral got to do with it? Note that officially we are not called moderators, we are MENTORS. This means that the primary reason for our existence is to guide members to a physically sound answer to question. This is not matter of morality, it is a matter of knowledge.

Certainly, anyone given the "power" (for lack of a better word) to edit the words of others should display a high level discretion and integrity.
After seeing a few moderators engage in arguments based on emotion rather than reason, I wonder if moderators should not be allowed to participate in discussions.
Perhaps, they should remain impartial bystanders.

How in the world could we provide our primary function if we were not involved in the discussions? I believe that this involvement is one of the strong points of these forums. The mentors are actively involved in the direction discussions take, we do not just watch. We guide.

Now a question for the OP, what other names have you used here? How many have been banned? How long do you expect to last this time? Our experience tells us that knowledgeable members like the tightly maintained guidelines, it is the crackpots and flakes that object. You are not putting yourself in very good company.

 

[Chris Hillman]

A word of thanks to all the PF moderators who make PF usable

I actually was looking for something mundane (instructions for uploading jpeg or whatever images, to illustrate a tutorial I have been writing with some plots, each of my pictures being worth a thousand of my words), but found this instead. Based on a quick scan of his PF contribs, I'd say that Surrealist likes to argue about controversial topics, but dislikes it when a moderator expresses diagreement with his views In any case, as a PF user with no rootly powers, I'd like to say that I wouldn't be here except for the invaluable service performed by the PF moderators in suppressing the kooks. No social system for keeping forums on track is perfect, but I really think that on balance PF works as well or better than anything else I've seen, mostly because PF is blessed with enough hard working moderators--- who also happen to be decent individuals--- to make the system work. Thanks, you guys!

 

[mattmns]

I would also like to thank the moderators of this forum for their time and effort to make the forum a better place for all!

 

[Evo]

Now a question for the OP, what other names have you used here? How many have been banned? How long do you expect to last this time? Our experience tells us that knowledgeable members like the tightly maintained guidelines, it is the crackpots and flakes that object. You are not putting yourself in very good company.

He was on his way to a ban anyway, but yes, he's a previously banned member.

 

[G01]

I enjoy these forums more than any others I've been to. It's rare to find a place on the internet where intelligent discussions can be held easily and openly without nut jobs coming in an ruining them. I think most people agree that these forums are great the way they are.

 

[ZapperZ]

This may already be a moot point since the OP is no longer with us, but I think all the members on PF here should also be aware that we do seriously consider our "biases" and roles in a thread that we participate in, especially if the discussion becomes heated. I know of many times of which I have personally recuse myself from taking actions on a thread or against a certain member because I have been involved with the heated discussion, and I know of many other moderators and mentors who did the same also.

So contrary to popular belief, we do also watch over each other's actions, and there have been many times in which we ourselves have our own discussion on certain actions that was taken, or need to be taken, either against a thread, post, or a member. We may represent a "united" front, but we certainly do not have blind loyalty to each other where we endorse every single thing that the other is doing. It is why we do have to have a rather good excuse to dismiss a member or take actions on a thread or post, because one may be asked to defend such actions.

Zz.

 

[Mallignamius]

I find it strange anyone would've asked that kind of question to begin with. It's usually the Moderators and a few certain regulars I look for in posted replies to keep things in order and on track. Without their interactions here, this place wouldn't be any fun at all.

*tips beer mug* Cheers!

 

[chroot]

It's true, I've even had other mentors come to me and tell me they think I should undo some action I've taken, or rewrite some objectionable part of a post. It's amazing that they'll critique me, when they know I can vaporize them with one little flick of my magic wand. It just goes to show you how effectively our system works.

Thanks for the compliments, you guys. We all appreciate them.

- Warren

 

[Lisa!]

Well I don't have time to read all posts so I usually just read some special members' post like science advisers and mentors! I'm glad that this forum have moderators, since I wouldn't be mislead by others posts!
However I have to admit that whenever I see the name of a mentor as the last poster in a thread, I think that thread's locked!

 

[matthyaouw]

The mentors on PF are a godsend. Unmoderated/ leniently moderated forums are often near impossible to have a serious meaningful discussion in without all the nutjobs and crackpots posting their own poorly researched attempts at science and derailing the discussion completely. Forums like that can be fun and I'll admit that I frequent one or two, but there are plenty of those around already, so I'm glad PF is as it is.
Thanks mentors.

 

[Evo]

The mentors here have the ability to take action, but we rely heavily on the input from our members to help us keep PF the way it is. There is no way we could keep the forum in the shape it is without members reporting spam, cranks, flaming and posts that just need to be moved.

Our members are the heart of the forum.

Oh, and did I mention that I "love" chroot? Why, I would *never* argue with chroot, because it wouldn't be wise to argue with someone that could vaporize me.

 

[russ_watters]

He doesn't scare me - if he bans me, I'll just sign up again with a new alias.

 

[Evo]

He doesn't scare me - if he bans me, I'll just sign up again with a new alias.

All right, this is my last keyboard. We need a spew warning.

 

[Moonbear]

I'm not too scared of being banned, but that whole getting vaporized thing sounds a bit painful.

 

[G01]

He doesn't scare me - if he bans me, I'll just sign up again with a new alias.

Whoa, Russ! Don't give the crackpots ideas!

Seriously though, you guys must put a lot of time into moderating these forums. We do appreciate it!

 

[quantumdude]

I just skimmed this thread for the first time. I don't know if anyone made this point yet, but just in case the (banned) thread author is still following this discussion...

Regarding the non-participation of Mentors in discussions: The performance of members in discussions is precisely the basis we use for choosing new Mentors. We look for just the right mix of (among other things) knowledge, helpfulness, level-headedness, consistency, and longevity. So it wouldn't make any sense for us to tap a gem of a member and say,

"Hey there, we've been observing you for a while and we'd like for you to join the staff. Everyone is impressed with the way you carry yourself in discussions at PF. Now stop doing it."

 

[Lisa!]

"Hey there, we've been observing you for a while and we'd like for you to join the staff. Everyone is impressed with the way you carry yourself in discussions at PF. Now stop doing it."

No, thanks!

 

[Chris Hillman]

Vaporization risking behavior at PF

Oh, and did I mention that I "love" chroot? Why, I would *never* argue with chroot, because it wouldn't be wise to argue with someone that could vaporize me.

I disagreed with chroot over Wikipedia and he didn't vaporize me! Yet

 

[Evo]

I disagreed with chroot over Wikipedia and he didn't vaporize me! Yet

But you're worth more to the forum than I am. All I do is keep the PF sandbox scooped out.

 

[raolduke]

If they are being payed to moderate the board it would be a different story unless you are..

They seem fair and even funny at times

So..
How does one become a moderator?
By consensus?
Credibility?
Magic!?

 

[chroot]

We only promote new mentors when we have a position to fill. We then look at our membership, and identify individuals who are active and routinely make well-formed, appropriate posts on a variety of topics. We look for people who clearly understand, appreciate, and would uphold our guidelines. We look for people who have charisma and decent "people skills." We look for people who are highly educated or experienced, and who can serve as an "expert" in certain field. Next comes the vote, and then... the fish.

- Warren

 

[G01]

Next comes the vote, and then... the fish.

Oh man! I've heard stories about the new mentor hazing! Hopefully the fish aren't frozen!

 

[chroot]

Oh man! I've heard stories about the new mentor hazing! Hopefully the fish aren't frozen!

They used to be frozen, but we lost too many new mentors that way.

- Warren

 

[G01]

And I thought the fish abuse was bad over in GD...

 

[Moonbear]

If they are being payed to moderate the board it would be a different story unless you are..

They seem fair and even funny at times

So..
How does one become a moderator?
By consensus?
Credibility?
Magic!?

We only promote new mentors when we have a position to fill. We then look at our membership, and identify individuals who are active and routinely make well-formed, appropriate posts on a variety of topics. We look for people who clearly understand, appreciate, and would uphold our guidelines. We look for people who have charisma and decent "people skills." We look for people who are highly educated or experienced, and who can serve as an "expert" in certain field. Next comes the vote, and then... the fish.

- Warren

Aww...shucks...I wanted to answer "magic," but you spoiled it too quickly.