Third Party Moderation for Objectivity in Discussions

[Redbelly98]

I have no idea where they come from. They are completely anonymous: moderator 1, moderator 2, moderator 3, moderator 4. That forum is an adjunct of a University. It's conceivable they are grad students or interns, but I don't really know.

It sounds like they are either paid, or perhaps assigned as part of TA duties, to be moderators. If so, then their incentive is a paycheck, or fulfilling requirements towards a graduate degree, or both.

At any rate, it is unreasonable to expect the same in a volunteer-run internet forum like this one.

 

[DaveC426913]

I have seen mentors give an infraction and then report themselves and ask other mentors if they feel it was appropriate.

There is no contention that moderators are, for the large part, conscientious. Does that make the problem raised just go away?

If it's just a zero point informational "warning", there is no need to ask for involvement by other mentors since it is not an infraction. It's basically just a "heads up".

Really.

I am talking with you, and I have a pair of scissors and you do not. And I find myself in an argument I don't like, so I poke you in the chest with the point of the scissors. When you cry foul, I say "Don't be ridiculous, it didn't even break the skin; it's just a heads up. And please, continue discussing as an equal."

Do you think this is a systemic problem in PF? In other words, is this a common occurrence and that it does require a major overhaul on the way we do business here?

Well, there seems to be a lot of support coming out of the woodwork here...

I said nothing about a "major overhaul"; that's disingenuous. The change is trivial. As pointed out, the process is already in place. All it needs to do is become standard procedure.

Again, I'm not making the case for this being the PERFECT means of moderating. I'm saying that given what we have, and given how PF has evolved into what it is now, I don't this as being a systemic problem.

We have checks and balances in place. We are always striving to make PF better than it is today.

Again, the fix I propose is trivial.

But I'm willing to make the following offer: All my postings, all my PMs, everything, including the ones that have been removed by the Mods are made visible to everyone. Also all the infractions, bans etc. I've received here are made public. Then everyone can decide for themselves if there really is a problem and if so what is the best way to fix it.

Alas, I am beginning to fear that, based on how this thread is going, like the Count here, I may simply become self-muzzling. If a Moderator is involved in a lively discussion with me, I may end up slipping on kid gloves.

 

[Evo]

I am talking with you, and I have a pair of scissors and you do not. And I find myself in an argument I don't like, so I poke you in the chest with the point of the scissors. When you cry foul, I say "Don't be ridiculous, it didn't even break the skin; it's just a heads up. And please, continue discussing as an equal."

You're comparing a potentially deadly threat to an informational message that carries no significance? I think you are way over-reacting and don't realize the difference between an infraction, which goes against you, and a message that does not. If you have an issue, follow the guidelines and we will be glad to answer you.

To address members in general that might have posted here about their situations, what a member may think about the infractions they received and the reality may be at odds. They can certainly contact the mentors if they aren't clear about their infractions.

 

[DaveC426913]

You're comparing a potentially deadly threat to an informational message that carries no significance?

That moderator's power is potentially deadly to my PF membership. That's the analogy.

Of course, he would never use that, just like I would never actually stab you.

Are you not seeing how a threat is a threat?

I think you are way over-reacting and don't realize the difference between an infraction, which goes against you, and a message that does not.

I think you are not considering the effect it has.

A slap is still a slap, whether or not you tell me it didn't actually leave a mark.

And again, if it were a dispassionate moderator, I could respond more dispassionately in turn. It would not feel so much like the guy I had been until just a moment ago having a conversation with.

 

[zoobyshoe]

It sounds like they are either paid, or perhaps assigned as part of TA duties, to be moderators. If so, then their incentive is a paycheck, or fulfilling requirements towards a graduate degree, or both.

At any rate, it is unreasonable to expect the same in a volunteer-run internet forum like this one.

No, I would'nt expect anyone to volunteer for it. It would be up to Greg to figure out the incentive offered. Which, as I said, I doubt he'd do. It would be a major paradigm shift.

 

[DaveC426913]

No, I would'nt expect anyone to volunteer for it. It would be up to Greg to figure out the incentive offered. Which, as I said, I doubt he'd do. It would be a major paradigm shift.

Right. So can we drop it? Or split it into a separate thread?

 

[zoobyshoe]

I don't understand. Reduced tolerance for crackpots is "bad"?

Not if you enjoy battle fatigue.

My point was that to the extent any mentor has to go through the whole hassle of moderating, they're not at liberty to relax and be a "mentor"; the tension and vigilance of moderating gets carried over into mentor's " mentor" and "member" type posts.

I think zoob is suggesting that the reduced tolerance means that we don't always give people a fair chance.

That's not exactly what I mean. I am leary of mentors, coming straight from the crackpot front, unwittingly taking an "enforcer" type attitude into their posts in threads. What is actually opinion, no better or worse than anyone else's may come out with the tone of being "moderation", i.e. the pronouncement of a moderator.

There is one notable exception: Greg. His "disinterest" does give him a great trump-card and we appreciate it, but the other moderators are not intended to be "disinterested".

"Disinterested" as I used it, means "unbiased". Enforcement of the guidelines, is, I am sure, intended to be "disinterested" as witnessed by all the attempts at checks and balances mentioned here. Non-participatory moderators would be the ideal.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Right. So can we drop it? Or split it into a separate thread?

I'll drop it now.

 

[russ_watters]

"Disinterested" as I used it, means "unbiased". Enforcement of the guidelines, is, I am sure, intended to be "disinterested" as witnessed by all the attempts at checks and balances mentioned here. Non-participatory moderators would be the ideal.

I assumed by "disinterested", you meant uninvolved in the discussion.

 

[Evo]

I assumed by "disinterested", you meant uninvolved in the discussion.

He does say

Non-participatory moderators would be the ideal.

I assume that is a small forum with no where near the volume of posts we get in so many subjects by anyone wandering in off the internet.

 

[Moonbear]

I haven't chimed in here yet, but as a former moderator, I want to comment on how the process worked while I was still moderator, and I expect it works now.

First, it's not reasonable for the mentor who is active in the thread to not moderate that thread. Mostly, this goes against the grain of the function of mentors here, which is partly to help stimulate and guide discussion in our own areas of expertise. Often a mentor gets actively involved in a discussion BECAUSE they see the red flags of someone's posts and step into try to guide discussion back on track, point out the flaws, etc., which basically gives a person a chance to either concede a misunderstanding or error, clarify their point, provide a reference to support their claim, etc., without any "disciplinary" action being needed.

On the other hand, there are a few areas of the forums where opinion is allowed within discussion, and then the mentor may be just responding as a person with an opinion and not in an official mentor capacity. In those cases, if we felt someone was getting out of control, rubbing us the wrong way, etc., we'd report the thread and ask for someone else to read it and see if we were overreacting in a heated debate or if the other person had indeed stepped over the line. The decision would go either way...often there was active debate in the mentor's forum defending the other member against the mentor.

If the mentors couldn't come to a decision, Greg was the final arbiter.

I will also concur with the above that often members don't see the full extent of the reasons for someone being banned or receiving an infraction, etc. The offending posts are quickly removed from view (but not gone...they can be reviewed by the other mentors). In addition, there were many cases where it was someone's reaction to a post being deleted and them being reminded of the forum rules that got them banned, not the original post itself. For example, if a mentor deleted a post and sent a warning explaining the rule violated and that person responded with a PM full of obscenities and tirades about first amendment rights and that they're going to say anything they want to say, when, where and how they want, rather than respectfully disputing it, that reaction can be the nail in their coffin. Even then, they usually just got a cool down temporary ban unless they returned and did the same thing again when the ban expired.

New mentors are usually amazed when they first view the mentor's forum and see how much really happens behind the scenes here. The moderation isn't as arbitrary as it might appear when you're only seeing the non-deleted posts.

 

[Moonbear]

My point was that to the extent any mentor has to go through the whole hassle of moderating, they're not at liberty to relax and be a "mentor"; the tension and vigilance of moderating gets carried over into mentor's " mentor" and "member" type posts.

Actually, the worst forum moderation I've ever seen was on a forum that had moderators who were just paid to be forum police and not actively engaged in discussions. Because they were not involved in the discussions, and not always fully knowledgeable on the topic being discussed, they tended to lock down threads and ban people for what seemed like even more arbitrary reasons than I've seen anywhere else. They wouldn't recognize that members were being playful or sarcastic with one another and hit up everyone in a thread with flaming infractions and lock the thread when everyone was just having a good time. They'd also merge together every topic that had a similar sounding title, even if the content of the thread was actually quite different, creating giant, nightmarish, disjointed threads that made no sense to read at all.

So, I think having actively involved mentors is a much better method of forum moderation.

 

[ZapperZ]

Well, there seems to be a lot of support coming out of the woodwork here...

Actually, I don't see it. I see particular issues surrounding discussion not related to the physics subforums, and I see only one "supporter" who would likely have issues with the physics subforums, but this supporter himself has a dubious record.

I define PF as being the physics, astro, math, engineering, and Other Sciences forums. These are what define PF and covers the majority of this forum. The others are not central to the identity of PF. What goes on in the Politics sub forum, for example, should not dictate the entire running of this forum.

So, do you see a systemic problem with the running of the physics subforums, for example? Were you ever given an infraction for disagreeing with a Mentor who happened to also participated in that thread? Were you then denied any recourse to challenge that action?

Zz.

 

[russ_watters]

Actually, I don't see it. I see particular issues surrounding discussion not related to the physics subforums, and I see only one "supporter" who would likely have issues with the physics subforums, but this supporter himself has a dubious record.

Nor do I. Much of the dissent comes from people who have run afoul of the system. It is unsurprising and not particularly illuminating that those who run afoul of the system are unhappy with the system. I suspect you'd find the same phenomena in a prison.

 

[DaveC426913]

Nor do I. Much of the dissent comes from people who have run afoul of the system. It is unsurprising and not particularly illuminating that those who run afoul of the system are unhappy with the system. I suspect you'd find the same phenomena in a prison.

Well, three members on page one of the thread.

Why do you group and then dismiss them as members that have gone afoul of the system? Do you not accept that they are part of the system as much as supporters?

Even dissenters of a government are still citizens. You can't dismiss them as unimportant constituents simply because they protest the government.

 

[ZapperZ]

Well, three members on page one of the thread.

Why do you group and then dismiss them as members that have gone afoul of the system? Do you not accept that they are part of the system as much as supporters?

Even dissenters of a government are still citizens. You can't dismiss them as unimportant constituents simply because they protest the government.

I don't dismiss them. However, they are not sufficient evidence of a systemic problem with the moderation system. That is what I am concerned with when I asked for such evidence. Problems with, say the S&D forum, is not a valid reflection on ALL of PF, especially when such a forum is a minuscule aspect of PF. You are using the blemishes on the end of a horse's tail to characterize the whole horse.

You still did not answer my question regarding the moderation on the majority of the major forums in PF.

Zz.

 

[DaveC426913]

I don't dismiss them. However, they are not sufficient evidence of a systemic problem with the moderation system. That is what I am concerned with when I asked for such evidence. Problems with, say the S&D forum, is not a valid reflection on ALL of PF, especially when such a forum is a minuscule aspect of PF. You are using the blemishes on the end of a horse's tail to characterize the whole horse.

I am not "characterizing" anything. My suggestion is sub-forum-independent.

It is simply a general observation that there is a small hole in the system that has the potential for abuse - in any sub-forum.

What are you saying? We don't make improvements unless they have global consequences?

You still did not answer my question regarding the moderation on the majority of the major forums in PF.

I have not given specific examples of where the problem has occurred. This is deliberate, because
1] The details of the actual incidents are not at-issue.
2] I am not the only one who has this concern. And I do not know (or care) where these other incidents have occurred.

So yes, to use your word, I guess I am saying it is systemic.

("Systemic" does not imply it happens frequently, or everywhere, right? Just that it is not limited to a specific area. Just making sure we're on the same wavelength).

 

[ZapperZ]

I am not "characterizing" anything. My suggestion is sub-forum-independent.

It is simply a general observation that there is a small hole in the system that has the potential for abuse - in any sub-forum.

What are you saying? We don't make improvements unless they have global consequences?

Actually, yes.

A specific incident doesn't always mean that there is a "hole" in the system. If something occurs infrequently, and occurs in an obscure part of the forum, then I don't see a need to revamp the whole system. That's like saying that just because some people in the National Science Foundation were caught surfing for porn on their work computers, that the whole America Competes Act that want to increase funding for the Sciences should be strike down. Oh wait, http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/05/the-republican-assault-on-scienc.html" , and it is as ridiculous!

What should have been done instead is to address THAT particular incident or problem that you had. We learn lessons from many different incidents on how to do things better, or what not to do, both on the mentors side and, hopefully, from the members side. This requires no revamping on how we do our moderation and monitoring of the forum.

I have not given specific examples of where the problem has occurred. This is deliberate, because
1] The details of the actual incidents are not at-issue.
2] I am not the only one who has this concern. And I do not know (or care) where these other incidents have occurred.

But you should! Where it occurs and by whom makes a lot of difference, because that completes the whole story. Partial data is bad data. We have seen pseudoscience tries to get away with arguing for legitimacy for something using partial data. As someone who is interested in science, I am surprised by your lack of quality control on what you use to back your claim.

Zz.

 

[Count Iblis]

Actually, not only is there a systemic issue with the physics subforums, but this is having some real impact on discussions. So, it is not just limited to hurting the feelings of someone when giving infractions.

Of course, I have to give evidence of my claim. I think it is best to do this in a new thread when I have more time later today.

 

[cristo]

Actually, not only is there a systemic issue with the physics subforums, but this is having some real impact on discussions. So, it is not just limited to hurting the feelings of someone when giving infractions.

Nonsense. As I said to your post before, your case has been discussed by everyone on the staff.

 

[Count Iblis]

Nonsense. As I said to your post before, your case has been discussed by everyone on the staff.

Such "discussions by everyone on the staff" are perhaps an important part of the problem, I can't be sure about that, though. Anyway, I'll explain my point in detail in another thread, otherwise Dave's more general point about third party moderation would get lost here.

 

[ZapperZ]

Actually, not only is there a systemic issue with the physics subforums, but this is having some real impact on discussions. So, it is not just limited to hurting the feelings of someone when giving infractions.

Of course, I have to give evidence of my claim. I think it is best to do this in a new thread when I have more time later today.

In your case, the problem is that we were TOO LENIENT in taking appropriate actions. To me, that was a systemic problem that I had to bring out with the rest of the Mentors.

Zz.

 

[Count Iblis]

In your case, the problem is that we were TOO LENIENT in taking appropriate actions. To me, that was a systemic problem that I had to bring out with the rest of the Mentors.

Zz.

Thanks, I'll take this new data point about Mentor discussions into account in the new thread.

 

[jostpuur]

You say there is more than one moderator involved in the adjudication process (say the Moderator involved in the thread itself is ModA and, when a dispute come ups, then ModB and modC get involved in the decision process about adjudicating it).

Why must modA be the one to take the punitive action on the member in the thread? Why is it not modB or modC, both of which know as much as modA, but neither of which are interested parties on the discussion under dispute?

If ModA makes a moderation decision partially for emotional reasons, there is a chance that ModB and ModC will think that "well that infraction wasn't really worth punishment, but the punishment isn't worth canceling either."

If ModB and ModC were given the responsibility to carry out the moderation decisions, they might be a chance that they disagree with ModA and say "mr A, that's not really a infraction yet".

Hence, if it is in moderators interest to use moderation power to enforce their own opinions, it will be beneficial to not require third party intervention.

Wasn't this question nearly rhetorical? I'm sure everybody here understands the real answer.

However, they are not sufficient evidence of a systemic problem with the moderation system.

When a person gets banned in politics, philosophy or in skepticism subforum, the person gets banned from math and physics subforums too. It makes no sense to ignore problems in some subforums on the basis that those problems are not present everywhere.

Btw, I guess there are no technical obstacles related to bans for specific subforums?

Not that that would be my business now... I'm not very active in politics, philosophy or in skepticism nowadays at least... but I guess it doesn't hurt if the possibility gets mentioned. Perhaps some guys get interested in the possibility later if they spend time on it.

 

[jostpuur]

Count Iblis, I recommend that you try to record yourself your experiences in the internet.

Some years ago I thought that I had met so dumb people on the internet, that I should start saving these discussions on my hard drive so that they would bring entertainment to me later on.

However, when I read these saved discussions years after they had been saved, and when I had almost already forgotten them, I noticed that a guy with a username "jostpuur" was writing pretty dumb comments. I then destroyed these recordings from my hard drive so that they would not further embarrass me due to some accidental leak.

You see, recording internet experiences is "win guaranteed"-stuff! If your opponents were dumb, the recordings will bring you entertainment later on. If instead you where the dumb one, then seeing the recordings later on will make you wiser! Either way, you will benefit!

 

[DanP]

I *really* don't understand why you guys bother with this.

If you value the place so much that you can't live without it, obey the rules, good or bad. Look, it's their board, akin to their house. When you visit you obey the rules of the home master.

If you don't care and you want to have fun on internet, make some friends, have a good laugh, do whatever you want, and screw infractions. You get banned, you move along. In either case, don't expect perfect moderation and perfectly unbiased moderators. Or that the quality of moderation be the same for all of them. Such things do not exist, humans are simply not capable of being unbiased.

Less complains and more fun.

 

[Borek]

Nor do I. Much of the dissent comes from people who have run afoul of the system. It is unsurprising and not particularly illuminating that those who run afoul of the system are unhappy with the system. I suspect you'd find the same phenomena in a prison.

Well, three members on page one of the thread.

I am sorry Dave, I am afraid I can't be counted like that.

I am not _unhappy_ with the system. I supported your idea as it looks good, but after learning that all infractions are listed as a forum posts in the inner-inner-circle, which makes the moderating process transparent to all Mentors, I think that's an alternate mechanism that serves similar purpose. It makes it difficult to abuse the power.

 

[NeoDevin]

When a person gets banned in politics, philosophy or in skepticism subforum, the person gets banned from math and physics subforums too. It makes no sense to ignore problems in some subforums on the basis that those problems are not present everywhere.

Btw, I guess there are no technical obstacles related to bans for specific subforums?

This might be something to consider. Since most of the problems originate in the PF Lounge, bans from particular subfora instead of global bans might solve some of the problem.

 

[Evo]

This might be something to consider. Since most of the problems originate in the PF Lounge, bans from particular subfora instead of global bans might solve some of the problem.

We very rarely have anyone banned solely for actions in the Lounge. And the ones that have been banned there rarely contribute to the science forums. No one has been permanently banned for getting out of line in the Lounge at all this year. People that have been banned were banned for infractions they received in multiple forums, were outright crackpots, spammers, or sockpuppets of banned members. See, it's that perception thing again. You see someone arguing, then you see a line through their name and the assumption is that's why they were banned. Some of those people have 3 or more pages of infractions from all over the forum before finally getting banned.

 

[rewebster]

I've seen a couple mentors abuse their 'power' more than once, and often its the same couple of mentors. Of course, some like 'power' more than others and they appear to step over the line of being 'mentor', to me, because they 'think' they're right; and, because they were given the power of a mentor, and they use it.

Most mentors, I believe, are here doing what they're doing and doing it almost always in a good way.

This forum isn't perfect.

I've seen other mentors defend other mentors, the way some members defend other members, and some members defend mentors---even when I don't see a clear logically reason.

It's too bad that the 'discussion' of the infraction (in the mentors' subforum) isn't open more to that member in some way, because it may often be avoided.

I think that some mentors need counseling more than some others. And, just because some people are called 'mentors' doesn't make their opinion correct, or that they are doing the right thing.

Do you think members report or have the idea that they can report mentors?

I'll tell you what, I'm going to do it if I see a problem with them from now on, even if I'm not involved with the discussion, and I think other members should too--that may make the other mentors more aware of problems.

 

[Evo]

Do you think members report or have the idea that they can report mentors?

Members report mentors all of the time, and we do discuss it.

 

[lisab]

I've seen a couple mentors abuse their 'power' more than once, and often its the same couple of mentors. Of course, some like 'power' more than others and they appear to step over the line of being 'mentor', to me, because they 'think' they're right; and, because they were given the power of a mentor, and they use it.

Most mentors, I believe, are here doing what they're doing and doing it almost always in a good way.

This forum isn't perfect.

I've seen other mentors defend other mentors, the way some members defend other members, and some members defend mentors---even when I don't see a clear logically reason.

It's too bad that the 'discussion' of the infraction (in the mentors' subforum) isn't open more to that member in some way, because it may often be avoided.

I think that some mentors need counseling more than some others. And, just because some people are called 'mentors' doesn't make their opinion correct, or that they are doing the right thing.

Do you think members report or have the idea that they can report mentors?

I'll tell you what, I'm going to do it if I see a problem with them from now on, even if I'm not involved with the discussion, and I think other members should too--that may make the other mentors more aware of problems.

An excellent idea!

Based on the give-and-take in this thread, I think members and mentors don't always interpret interactions the same way. Maybe the best way to address this is for the committed members to be more active giving feedback, using the report key.

 

[Borek]

Maybe the best way to address this is for the committed members to be more active giving feedback, using the report key.

Who will be the first to risk?

 

[lisab]

Who will be the first to risk?

I nominate you!

 

[rewebster]

I nominate you!

I double nominate you!




(maybe if the 'report' button was just renamed to 'evaluate, please' button)-


--I like the way microsoft has a '?' next to some things---maybe one of those could be put next to the 'report' button with a description of its purpose which would include being able to report a bad/over the top post even by a mentor.