Rules discussion

[antoniseb]

Originally Posted by Moose

Eroica's PMs are turned on, Fraser.

That is true, and I warned Eroica publicly as a matter of choice, which is within the latitude of our policies.

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

Originally Posted by antoniseb

That is true, and I warned Eroica publicly as a matter of choice, which is within the latitude of our policies.

Um, THERE I Think you Lost us ...

Next Time, may I Suggest ...

You Try Privately, First?

[Musashi]

Originally Posted by Fraser

Our policy is to warn people privately unless they've turned off their email/PM, and to try and keep things discreet.

Originally Posted by antoniseb

That is true, and I warned Eroica publicly as a matter of choice, which is within the latitude of our policies.

[Doe, John]

Originally Posted by antoniseb

That is true, and I warned Eroica publicly as a matter of choice, which is within the latitude of our policies.

Originally Posted by Frasier

Our policy is to warn people privately unless they've turned off their email/PM, and to try and keep things discreet.

Seems to me to be a difference of opinion on policy.

[antoniseb]

Originally Posted by Musashi

hey, there were some misunderstandings, I think I did the right thing, but I may have been a bit hasty or acted a bit harshly, so Roy and Eroica, I am sorry for that." The reality is that, in acting on the word "overzealous," he appeared to me to become overzealous.

First, I didn't do anything with Roy that could be considered a problem. I told him I wasn't warning him, but I provided guidance that discussion of "angels dancing on the head of a pin" was getting close to the line as far as religious discussion went. You've looked at the post. Can you tell me that you think it was hasty or harsh? How could I have provided any guidance and seemed less 'harsh' than that?

As for your impression of my reaction to Eroica, that's your impression. I work pretty hard to be fair and reasonable to everyone. When the statement was made Eroica had thought I'd warned Roy. Eroica made a harsh hasty statement to me based on misreading my message. It was a later message that revealed that the misunderstanding was Eroica's.

So I do think I did the right thing. I agree that the word "overzealous" came across to me as a lie and an attack on my character. I was not overzealous dealing with Roy. I was following our guidelines about ad homs when I warned Eroica. The fact that *I* was the target of the attack, and judge and jury is what is troubling you VR, and Moose. I can agree to involve other mods the next time I feel personally attacked.

[Doe, John]

Darn you Musashi

[Melusine]

Originally Posted by Fraser

Is that distinction clear enough? And does it explain why we have that info in the rules? If not, fire away, I'm at your disposal, and ready to earn your respect. But you're going to have convince me why you think criticizing people out in public on the forum is a positive thing, and generally improves the forum overall.

Fraser, I already respect you, but apart from this Eroica/Antoniseb issue that I didn't pay close attention to, I think criticism is in the eye of the beholder. It's one thing to say, "You're a jerk for thinking that way," and another to be genuinely miffed by a person's comments. But, if you try to walk on eggshells too much, the ability for public-conflict resolution goes underground, people start PM'ing eachother, cliques form, yada, yada. Sure, one shouldn't air out everything, but people can successfully resolve a disagreement/snide remark in a thread--it's been done many times, as you are probably aware.

A mild case in point. In the UFO thread Archer criticized FortWayne's meandering post. I stepped in and told Archer it was just his style, blah, blah. Archer, who is a strong-minded person came back the next day and apologized to Fort Wayne on his own, without a warning being publicly issued to him. You know the feeling when a cop stops you and questions you, it kinda makes you feel like a criminal? When someone is chastised by a moderator it sort of feels like that. I'm not talking about the real obvious wacky people or rage posts, I'm speaking of mild disagreements...I believe I know the difference. If nobody sees how two people can resolve something publicly with grace and civility, then feelings get buried and build resentment. This happened on BABB to a large degree and things seemed to get very cliquey in alot of people's minds. Some people have graciously moved beyond all that.

Sometimes I wonder what is worse--saying something condescending to someone or not saying anything at all and ignoring them.

Sorry, if I'm not being brief or making myself clear, I'm a bit sleep-deprived.

[Doe, John]

Originally Posted by antoniseb

This will be in interesting discussion. I believe that Eroica's ad hom attack of me was completely out of place, and we have warned people for less.

Since then Eroica has explained that my original post was misread, and that caused Eroica's ad hom attack. I took that as an apology, and an effort to correct things. No further discussion has happened between myself and Eroica since then, but in other threads we've been interacting like any other two people on the forum.

That being the case, I'm taking your protest as more of a what-if kind of issue as opposed to genuine concern that a terrible miscarriage of justice has been done.

Originally Posted by antoniseb

2. I missed the smiley, but saw the "overzealous".

so you obviously misread Eroica's post which let to your feeling a warning was justified. since eroica apologized for his mistake, and you are not, some members are viewing this as moderator high-handedness.

[Fraser]

Okay, I've had a chance to listen to everyone. I stand by my original opinion that this is a simple misunderstanding that has been blown way out of proportion.

However, I think the moderators need clearer policies on how to deal with what they feel are personal attacks. By bringing another moderator or admin in to deal with the situation, it will eliminate the possibility of things getting personal - it would have diffused this situation. I'll talk to Phil about it some more, but this is my take on it.

[Musashi]

Originally Posted by antoniseb

First, I didn't do anything with Roy that could be considered a problem. I told him I wasn't warning him, but I provided guidance that discussion of "angels dancing on the head of a pin" was getting close to the line as far as religious discussion went. You've looked at the post. Can you tell me that you think it was hasty or harsh? How could I have provided any guidance and seemed less 'harsh' than that?

I thought it was strange that in a discussion about Noah's Ark you decided to offer guidence about Roy's joking post.

Originally Posted by antoniseb

As for your impression of my reaction to Eroica, that's your impression. I work pretty hard to be fair and reasonable to everyone. When the statement was made Eroica had thought I'd warned Roy. Eroica made a harsh hasty statement to me based on misreading my message. It was a later message that revealed that the misunderstanding was Eroica's.

Yes, Eroica misread your message AND you misread his. Sure overzealous might seem insulting, but couple your strange not-warning with Eroica's smiley and maybe it wasn't so harsh?

Originally Posted by antoniseb

So I do think I did the right thing. I agree that the word "overzealous" came across to me as a lie and an attack on my character. I was not overzealous dealing with Roy. I was following our guidelines about ad homs when I warned Eroica. The fact that *I* was the target of the attack, and judge and jury is what is troubling you VR, and Moose. I can agree to involve other mods the next time I feel personally attacked.

I think you are right that you should be able to defend yourself. I think your defense was, considering the entire context, a bit harsh and hasty. But, like Fraser and others have said, this may seem blown out of proportion. In a sense, this is more a meta-conversation with the hopeful result of clarifying some blury lines. Thank you for your patience and your responses.

Also, thank you Fraser.

[Roy Batty]

I hesitate to post here since things seem to have died down in several hours (I was away from the board for a day, & look what happens ), but since I seem to be involved in this I'd like to make my position clear.

It was a joking reply in the previously mentioned post (as i'm oft known to do) so was a bit surprised to be 'not warned' first (ie not a 'formal' warning in the context of this board, but still a warning non the less), however, I took it on the chin.. it was a discussion on Noahs Ark that was getting pretty silly(sillier?) afterall IMHO .

I was surprised Eroica was warned (formally) subsequently, but I also think this particular incident has been blown out of proportion.

But I also do agree with a lot of the posts so far about moderation so I welcome Frasiers previous comments about review etc.

I'm probably coming across as walking on eggshells too here
Btw I was away yesterday celebrating my girlfriends birthday & finally getting to see V for Vendetta ... oh the irony (joke!).

[Disinfo Agent]

Since I had a hand in triggering this discussion, too, I feel I should say a few words.

My only question regarding the rules was that it was not clear to me whether discussing moderator decisions on the main forum was entirely prohibited, or simply discouraged. From what Fraser wrote in this post, I conclude that it was the latter.

For the record, I would have nothing against a total prohibition of discussing moderator decisions on the main forum. I understand that moderators are in a special situation in the forum, and it's good to avoid public challenges to their authority.

I have nothing to say about the particular decision that initiated this discussion, other than it seems to have been resolved to the satisfaction of the three people directly involved, Antoniseb, Roy Batty, and Eroica. I just felt that a clarification of the rules might be in order.

[Jeff Root]

I just now read the recent posts in this thread. I agree with
all of Moose's comments and concerns. Having read the posts
which provoked this discussion, I'm disturbed to see Eroica's
comment referred to as an "ad hom attack". It obviously was
no such thing. It was true, it was relevant, it was important,
and it was meant to help, not to hurt. Labelling it an attack
amounted to an attack itself, and was clearly an attempt to
blame someone else where there was no need for blame at all.
Eroica's comment was justified. The response to it was not.

This reaction to Moose's comments:

I'm taking your protest as more of a what-if kind of issue as
opposed to genuine concern that a terrible miscarriage of justice
has been done.

Dissmissing his concerns and attempting to make them into a
straw man argument by dramatizing them, is equally eggregious.

I want to make clear that I think the post:

Originally Posted by antoniseb

This is not a warning, but you are getting dangerously close to
discussing religion here.

was ridiculous. That is to say, so silly that it provokes
derision, laughter, and ridicule. Are moderators immune from
making ridiculous remarks? Obviously not. Are they immune
from being called on them? Obviously not.

I agree with Van Rijn:

Originally Posted by Van Rijn

As it is, I have a "Walking on eggshells" feeling when I post on
BAUT. My perception was that a poster was suggesting a moderator
was being overenthusiastic (with a smiley!), and the moderator
gave him an official warning for saying it. Frankly, that was
chilling.

And I agree with Moose that Antoniseb should apologize to Eroica
if he hasn't already.

And I think the moderators should worry less about religion and
politics creeping into the forum, and more about how censorship
works and what its effects are. Overbearing control is about
as likely as anarchy to generate chaos, and significantly more
likely to produce disaffection and contempt.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[Fraser]

I think I've stated the position on religion and politics in the past, but I'll have another go at it. We ask people to minimize their conversations on those two subjects to where they relate to astronomy, space exploration and pseudoscience because those are the topics that this board tries to cover. In all other areas, it just becomes to difficult to moderate.

And if I understand you correctly, you'd prefer there was no moderation. Moderation = censorship? Let people chat about whatever they like, flame however they like and if people can't hack it, too bad. Well, that's not the kind of forum that Phil and I want to be associated with - there are plenty of places out there that choose not to moderate at all, and I don't think they provide welcoming friendly atmospheres.

Keep in mind that we have children partipating in this forum.

So, we've gone with moderators who are trying to keep the peace. When we've had completely off-topic discussions about politics and religion, they veer unerringly into flamefests, personal attacks, and hurt feelings. It chews up moderation time and bandwidth that could be used trying to deal with the ATM section, which is a full time job on its own.

Sometimes there are going to be misunderstandings, and sometimes we're going to need your patience while we fine tune the rules. But I think that's a long way away from overbearing control.

[Van Rijn]

Originally Posted by Fraser

And if I understand you correctly, you'd prefer there was no moderation. Moderation = censorship? Let people chat about whatever they like, flame however they like and if people can't hack it, too bad. Well, that's not the kind of forum that Phil and I want to be associated with - there are plenty of places out there that choose not to moderate at all, and I don't think they provide welcoming friendly atmospheres.

I'll let others speak for themselves, but I certainly would not prefer an end to moderation even assuming you were to agree to it. While I accept there was a misunderstanding in this case and the proposed response will help reduce cases like this, I have a concern about the possibility of arbitrary moderation. I try hard to follow the rules. But if that isn't enough, what do I do?

Sometimes there are going to be misunderstandings, and sometimes we're going to need your patience while we fine tune the rules. But I think that's a long way away from overbearing control.

I don't like putting people on the spot, and I do think I've tried very hard to be understanding. At the same time, I would hope that the admins and moderators would be patient and understanding of posters' concerns as well. Part of being a moderator is that issues like this will come up from time to time - it comes with the territory.

[Jeff Root]

Originally Posted by Fraser

And if I understand you correctly, you'd prefer there was no
moderation.

I'd prefer that moderation be appropriate and constructive--
which of course is what you want and what it usually is--
rather than antagonizing and counterproductive-- which it can
very easily become. I'll repeat that: very easily.

Originally Posted by Fraser

Moderation = censorship?

I added a complaint about censorship into a complaint about
bad moderation, since the moderation action in this case was
a warning to not say anything about a particular subject--
specifically, religion.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[Moose]

Okay, my strike has ended. And as Eroica assures me that he is satisfied with Antoniseb's retraction in the original thread, and that I see there has been a pledge made that should help prevent similar situations in the future, I am content to let the matter drop.

Thanks for doing the right thing, Antoniseb.

I still have concerns about the "no public criticism" rule, however. Fraser, you need to understand that what I valued most about Phil's BABB is the tradition that nobody's opinions get a free ride. Not even Phil's. If you haven't already, take the time to ask Phil about SciFi Chick.

Now, a rule that says a person who is abusing a mod with constant criticism and/or nitpicking will be suspended and/or banned is fair. I've seen plenty enough griefers to know how they can bring a board down. This was my original understanding of the "no criticism" rule.

But now you folks are telling me that "hey dude, bad call, please reconsider" is similarly verbotten. If this is the standard to which you intend to hold us, I have to tell you that such a board is most definitely not the one I joined in BABB, and not the one I agreed to join when the boards merged.

I acknowledge the admin can run the board as they see fit, and as a truly private board, my options are limited to either persuasion or finding another place. Consider this my attempt at persuasion. But at the same time, I won't be a party of a board that censors constructive criticism.

As Van Rijn said, it's chilling. I am unwilling to tolerate such an environment.

As such, I would ask the admin to consider very carefully how that rule is to be applied, for the sake of the board's morale, before anyone is tempted to apply that rule in the future.

[Gerald Lukaniuk]

Originally Posted by Van Rijn

There may be practical difficulties, but in marginal cases, I certainly would like to see something like that. Is it safe to say that many of the posters here didn't see the comment in question as an ad-hom attack? There clearly is a case of different perceptions here. As it is, I have a "Walking on eggshells" feeling when I post on BAUT. My perception was that a poster was suggesting a moderator was being overenthusiastic (with a smiley!), and the moderator gave him an official warning for saying it. Frankly, that was chilling.

That's all I'll say for now, things are getting heated and it would be good to let things cool down and give the admins and moderators time to discuss it.

Thank the uh Universe you didn't say water. Figures of speech are not religious dogma. This "pin" thing was and continues to be used in the main streams in such things as dimensionality. Einstein's dice thing was not a condemation of casino's.
I agree BAUT should do their homework like all of us. I've seen trains of "bad" logic used arrogantly crush earnest speculation in ways that would make my logic prof. refute his proof that there can be no such thing a a "bad" idea in logic. Good or bad are labels evil, religious or Alternative are labels and people that have advanced the sciences avoid them. The worst thing that can happen in any science can be summarized by. "I don't have to prove anything I'm a "good" astronomer. Nor can you dismiss a speculation it can be true because its "bad" or unpopular astromomy if we expect the universe to become a better place. Rules, theories. "facts" have no reality but are "intellectual tools". The universe is real and so are we. I can't speak for the universe but I don't like heavy handed rule An old friend my mine and former employee is a PHD world renowed physicist,knows all the big guys.worked everywhere including Nasa and that area, said to me once, "We don't know blink. There is something wrong with our ideas so simple we are all to smart to see it." I don't mind being called a stupid astronomer but not a bad one.

[antoniseb]

Originally Posted by Moose

now you folks are telling me that "hey dude, bad call, please reconsider" is similarly verbotten.

It is my impression that something worded like that would never have raised an eyebrow. It certainly would never have caused trouble if PM'd to the moderator in question, or any other moderator.

As it is now, if someone questions the action of a moderator in a thread, the moderator will step out of that thread until the issue is resolved.

The concern, as you pointed out, is to avoid death by nitpicking.

[Moose]

Originally Posted by antoniseb

The concern, as you pointed out, is to avoid death by nitpicking.

I would like to think the concern is to acknowledge that even mods are fallible from time to time, and that when a bunch of people say "hey, that's not right", one should have the moral fortitude to be able to step back seek a second opinion.

This isn't an us-vs-them situation, Antoniseb. The regulars are as much interested board members and are just as invested in the success of BAUT as the mods (with the financial exception of Fraser and Phil).

You might come to consider that having other mods around to backcheck you in marginal situations is one heck of an advantage, rather than some sort of slap to the face, Antoniseb. Just imagine how tough Phil had it when he was modding BABB solo.

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

Originally Posted by Moose

I would like to think the concern is to acknowledge that even mods are fallible from time to time, and that when a bunch of people say "hey, that's not right", one should have the moral fortitude to be able to step back seek a second opinion.

This isn't an us-vs-them situation, Antoniseb. The regulars are as much interested board members and are just as invested in the success of BAUT as the mods (with the financial exception of Fraser and Phil).

You might come to consider that having other mods around to backcheck you in marginal situations is one heck of an advantage, rather than some sort of slap to the face, Antoniseb. Just imagine how tough Phil had it when he was modding BABB solo.

Yeah ...

There Were Times I Was Afraid he Was Going to STROKE Out ...

Let's Hear it for Phil, Now he Can Get Back, to his "Real" Job!

[Tinaa]

No mod here thinks of him/herself infallible. Second and third opinions are sought in many situations. I very much prefer to PM warnings but transparency is lost, which as I take it was a big deal on the old BABB. So which is more important: Transparency in moderation or private warnings with a loss of transparency? It cannot be both ways.

[Disinfo Agent]

Originally Posted by Moose

I still have concerns about the "no public criticism" rule, however. Fraser, you need to understand that what I valued most about Phil's BABB is the tradition that nobody's opinions get a free ride. Not even Phil's.

My understanding was that that only applied to opinions about science, and particularly about astronomy. Moderation always has its unavoidable amount of subjectivity. I'm reminded of Phil's warning in the rules of the old BABB:

Originally Posted by The Bad Astronomer

I am the final law here.

Quite so.

[Moose]

Originally Posted by Tinaa

No mod here thinks of him/herself infallible. Second and third opinions are sought in many situations. I very much prefer to PM warnings but transparency is lost, which as I take it was a big deal on the old BABB. So which is more important: Transparency in moderation or private warnings with a loss of transparency? It cannot be both ways.

My personal preference, overall, is transparency and public warnings, with freely public appeals where warranted. As you say, transparency was very much a valued tradition of the old BABB.

What I don't want to see is a double-standard in mod-member dialogue. If the admin really want appeals/objections to be under the table, then warnings should be similarly under the table. If warnings are to be publicised, then we must have the ability to respond in public when necessary, such as with this event. Trust and morale are both two-way streets, and they seldom thrive in environments where double-standards exist.

What I especially don't want to see is good members (and Eroica may well be among the very best of us) get sanctionned for daring to publically question a mod's actions. That simply won't do, in my mind.

[Moose]

Originally Posted by Disinfo Agent

I'm reminded of Phil's warning in the rules of the old BABB:

Yeah, he is the final law, as he and Fraser are here. But Phil never banned/warned anyone for disagreeing with him about an admin action, even when he declined to change his mind (which was most of the time.)

[ToSeek]

The obvious solution to me is that if a moderator thinks they are being inappropriately criticized (e.g., ad homs) in public for their moderator actions, then they should report the post just as any other member would and refrain from taking any action themselves. (I might make exceptions for blatant violations, though.)

And I also go along with the preference for public warnings. I think it's good that if there's an inappropriate post it's apparent that disciplinary action has been taken against it.

[Disinfo Agent]

Originally Posted by Moose

Yeah, he is the final law, as he and Fraser are here. But Phil never banned/warned anyone for disagreeing with him about an admin action, even when he declined to change his mind (which was most of the time.)

As far as I remember, posters rarely discussed Phil's administrative decisions on the main forum. I can only think of one or two cases where that happened.

[Melusine]

Hmm, something I noticed or was hoping for regarding Archer was that he would prune his posts in the time from when I suggested he do that. Apparently, he did not prune them enough, but I was hoping that if he did, the BA would realize Archer had seen the "error" of his comments. There were hours in between. Sorry Archer, I tried to intimate that to you as much as possible.

I like the idea of being able to have time to think whether I said the wrong thing or not, or that it might be misconstrued, and then edit my post. I've done that, whether it was necessary or not, and left an explanation. I don't think the BA or Fraser are so stringent...I think they get frustrated with repeat offenses because it undermines their judgment calls about previous amnesties, and sets a bad example (at least that's how interpret it, which I may be wrong).

In some cases the attacks are so blatant that giving some time wouldn't apply, but for regular members, it seems like there is a nicer way to ask them to reconsider their comments via PM and let them save a little face. Eroica, for example, is a regular poster and an intelligent person who is not irrational. We all get miffed at times...it shouldn't become WWIII.

[Moose]

Originally Posted by Disinfo Agent

As far as I remember, posters rarely discussed Phil's administrative decisions on the main forum. I can only think of one or two cases where that happened.

Nearly every banning of a long term poster generated some comment on the subject. I remember many times where someone pled clemancy despite the relative clarity of the situation. I repeat: nobody ever got in trouble for publically disagreeing with Phil, even on administrative matters.

[Gillianren]

I mean, heck, we had the ongoing Banned Posters discussion thread. Granted, we seldom criticized Phil for banning people, but I do remember a couple of pretty vocal discussions about certain bannings.