Over-Moderation

[Gillianren]

Originally Posted by Christopher Ferro

I've started to look forward to Gillian's comments like I do Jay's now, though for somewhat different reasons.

Thank you, guys. Now, if you looked forward to my posts for the same reason as you looked forward to Jay's, that would be odd. I am, for example, absolutely no good at explaining details about exactly how propulsion works!

[R.A.F.]

Originally Posted by Gillianren

I am, for example, absolutely no good at explaining details about exactly how propulsion works!

What you might lack in explaning "details", you more than make up for with your inherent "good sense".

I was going to say "common" sense, but there really is nothing "common" about it...so I like to use "good" instead.

[Warren Platts]

I'm sorry but this just takes the cake. I've got to protest this one.

Originally Posted by Antoniseb

Warren Platts is proudly American which in many circles is seen as a good thing. Here, however, it can sometimes be very off-putting to our members from anywhere but... So, he has been suspended for a week, as a reminder about the 'no politics' rule.

This is inflammatory politics. Please do not respond to this.

Post Edit: There was a question about what specifically was wrong with Warren Platts' post above that got him suspended. ...

Yeah, no kidding, because discussing space politics is specifically not a violation of the rules:

12. Politics & Religion

Due to the contentious nature of these subjects, forum participants are strongly advised to avoid discussing religious and political issues. Please don't begin or contribute to a topic that's merely going to incite or fuel a flame war.

However, the following exceptions apply:

A) Political impact upon space programs, exploration, and science.

But I wouldn't blame a newbie reading the very same thread for coming up with the opposite conclusion!

Originally Posted by Name Withheld

A great many of these bad people were a result of our meddling in their politics or, in many cases, our puppets (the US has installed and/or supported no less than 23 dictators in the last 50 years).

The majority of these guys are a result of this. Take for example Iran, in the 1950's the CIA overthrew the democratically elected government and installed the Shah (lookup Operation Ajax), one of the most brutal dictators in the 20th century until he was overthrown by a popular revolution. The anti-american stance in Iran now is a direct result of this, as is all the trouble they cause in the Middle East. None of this would have happened if we didn't interfere.

Well, there are other differences besides the fact that my post has to do with space politics, and the other does not:

1. my post is pro-American and on topic, whereas the other post consists of off topic, gratutous America-bashing;
2. I wrote my post, and someone else wrote the other post.

Antoniseb was an active participant in that thread, and my post was sandwiched in between the above, so he must have read that. Yet, surely it's the case that non-space related, off topic America-bashing is a violoation of the no politics rule. Therefore, that cannot be the reason I was singled out.

Well, the mere rules have never stopped a moderator from doing whatever he or she really wants to do. E.g., that CT thread where I initially got banned for smugness, but since smugness per se is not against the rules the mods were tripping over each other generating about 20 different post hoc justifications. Actually, I'll admit there was a grain of truth to one or two of those justifications, but those justifications were not the real reasons. The real reason was what ToSeek said it was: smugness. So true to form "Forming opinions as we speak" Antoniseb came up with a different, post hoc justification:

Originally Posted by Antoniseb

Normally we'd address something like that in the About BAUT section. A simple way to think about it is this. "Did the post seem like it is looking for a fight?" This post was brought to our attention by multiple alerts.[/COLOR]

First of all, what does multiple mean? 2 or 3? And what is its relevance? Since when was bautforum.com a democracy?

Actually, never mind. But for the record, I was not "looking for a fight". Antoniseb, instead of trying to read my mind, you could have just asked me. You could have said "Hey Warren, are you looking for a fight?"

And I would have said I was merely responding to people above who in one breath were complaining about high military budgets on the one hand, and the slow pace of lunar exploration on the other. Thus I pointed out a simple solution to the conundrum: get the military into the act. But of course the only strategic goal worthy of the military would be the traditional military task of establishing use and occupation in order to defend a claim of national sovereignty.

I would have said the idea that the world would be better off as a result was not mine originally: USAF General Homer Bouchey said the same thing in the 1950's.

And I would have asked anyone interested to indulge in a little counterfactual speculation and consider an alternate history wherein the USA did not sign the OST, but instead followed through on its original plan to claim the Moon (Yes, that was the original justification cf. Space Review Pt I and Pt II). What would the world be like?

1. There would have been a continuous human presence on the Moon since the 1970's;
2. lunar geology, and by extension the early history of Earth and the entire Solar System would have been revolutionized;
3. we would know where valuable mineral deposits could be found;
4. there would be entire journals dedicated to nothing but lunar geology;
5. there would be an infrastructure in place now capable of routine flights to the Moon at least as often as they now go the ISS;
   super-rich space tourists would be walking on the Moon;
   the Moon would be American territory in perpetuity.

Now, I can understand why many people would consider the above scenario to be a worse situation than the present situation of no one at all on the Moon for 50 years or more. But surely it's not the case that the opposite opinion is so morally and repugnantly beyond the pale that it cannot be discussed at all! It's not as if I seriously proposed solving the world's overpopulation problem through nuclear genocide.

That would rightly engender legitimate righteous indignation. The problem is that some people can't tell the difference between legitimate righteous indignation and the normal annoyance that happens whenever educated people reach an honest, if disagreable, impasse.

Take for example this post:

Originally Posted by antoniseb

I don't mind if the big delay is in going to the Moon. That's much better than delaying the robotic space astronomy and planetary probes. . . .

I'm a geologist by training (among other things), so when I read posts like that, it makes me feel upset. What is lunar geology (and by extension the early history of the Earth and the Solar System)? Chopped liver? If robotic probes are so wonderful, why haven't we sent any rovers to the Moon? Could it be that there is absolutely nothing that a rover could accomplish no matter how many thousands of days it lasts that a handful of test pilots didn't accomplish 40 years ago in a few days? It makes me feel tempted to yell: WHO ARE YOU TO DICTATE RESEARCH PRIORITIES WHEN YOU OBVIOUSLY DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT! It makes me feel indignant. It seems as if Antoniseb is looking for a fight.

But then the rational part of my brain says "Simmer down, Warren. Antoniseb is entitled to his opinion. It's not as if he is advocating solving the world's overpopulation problem through nuclear genocide. It's probably best not to respond. That horse has been beat to death a thousand times before anyway. You're just going to have to agree to disagree. Just move on."

The thing is, that the Moon ought to be considered terra nullius rather than res communis has been discussed multiple times in this forum before. Here is an excerpt from my very first post at bautforum.com:

Originally Posted by Warren Platts

How to Colonize the Moon without breaking NASA's budget

Simple, we take the project away from NASA and give it to the Air Force instead. . . .

The OST is inherently unfair to the nation that spent the treasury and blood to get there first—the USA. We planted the American flag there in several places. Therefore, the whole Moon is American territory. . . . If anyone lands on the Moon without American permission, their astronauts will be captured and sent back to Earth in handcuffs. . . .

The Chinese, Russians, Iranians and the French will howl, but when faced with the fait accompli, there will be little that they will be able to do about it. In any case, any program that accelerates the project lunar should be seen correctly as in everyone's best interests.

There, the very same idea I just got banned for. And guess who the first person to welcome me to bautforum.com was. Yep:

Originally Posted by antoniseb

Hi Warren Platts, welcome to the BAUT forum. . . .

BTW, we have rules against political discussions, but the one exception is space related politics, and the OST is right in the middle of that category.(my emphasis)

So what has changed?

1. The rules haven't changed;
2. the idea hasn't changed;
3. I haven't changed.

So I guess I must be on some sort of double secret probation. Secret because I haven't been notified that I'm on the dump list, and it's double secret in that I'm being held to rules that aren't written down anywhere. Basically, I'm being singled out, that's not fair, and it's really hurt my feelings!

[Warren Platts]

There's a double standard here. Antontiseb said it "seems as if" I was looking for a fight. But what about this recent, unpunished example that is clearly and obviously looking for a fight, no if's, and's, but's or seems's about it:

Originally Posted by Name Withheld

[Y]our website is unscientific hand waving at the best of times - but the claim that you invented the Direct launcher is an outright lie. It's not a NEW idea, and it's sure as heck not YOUR idea. You should retract your utter nonsense from the Augustine Comission Facebook page as well. That should be used for realistic, fact based suggestions and ideas, and NOT your fictional nonsense.

While you're editing your website to reflect that, you can take down your lies and misinformation about saving astronauts lives by canceling the completed, successful, safe servicing mission that has given a whole new lease of life to Hubble.

This is not even an ad hom because ad homs necessarily require the context of an ongoing argument. This is just using bautforum.com as a platform to act out personal grudges. Here a guy posts a link to an interesting article without comment that provokes a stimulating discussion, and the thanks he gets is a personal attack for things he wrote on other websites!

The only difference between my post and the above (besides the fact that mine was not a personal attack on anybody, and the fact that mine was a "seems as if" rather than a "without a doubt") is that I wrote my post, and someone else who apparently happens to be in "The Clique" wrote the other.

So clearly the problem with bautforum.com these days is not overmoderation or undermoderation: it's inconsistent and capricious moderation.

I know what you moderators are thinking: you're thinking that yes, that personal attack was a bad violation, but we can't do anything about it if we don't know about it. That's why you users need to keep hitting that little yellow triangle in the upper right corner. . . .

But don't you see: that's part of the problem that's causing the poisenous atmospherics around here these days. I've been reading about how the moderators are having to spend most of their time reacting to and chasing down "alerts" from users reporting on each other and how they have little time for just reading and participating in the various fora anymore.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there was as much button pushing going on a couple of years ago. Back then the moderators would actually patrol because they had time because users generally tended to reserve the little yellow triangle for the most egregious violations. If users had issues with each other, they put each other on their ignore lists.

Nowadays, it's different. I think part of it might be the result of the new batch of moderators, and all the self-congradulatory "promotion" talk that went along with it. I read that thread; sorry to say, but it made me sick. Anyone who regards becoming a moderator as some sort of promotion ought to be automatically disqualified from the job. It's an onerous, dirty, but necessary job that someone has to do. Calling it a promotion is like calling a switch from construction worker to garbageman a promotion. It's not an excuse to break out the Lagavulin.

Because the resulting subtext is that if I can show what a good little moderator I could be by reporting a bunch of rules violations, someday I might get "promoted" and get to be a moderator.

The effect is a culture where the official moderators are practically forced to cede their jobs to an anonymous cadre of moderator wannabe's.

And who are these tattletales? If the Pareto Principle holds here, as I am certain that it does, then the vast majority of alerts are produced by a tiny minority of the 50,000 registered users. They either tend to be in The Clique or they are trying to get into The Clique. Since they are in the in group, they don't report on each other in a sort of unspoken prisoner's dilemma way. At worst, they send each other PM's saying "Hey man, you better tone that post down before a moderator sees it."

But if a person is in the out group, it's open season. The slightest rules violation gets reported. The little yellow triangle becomes a means for carrying out personal vendettas, and as a mode of discussion by other means. Don't agree with someone, just report them on the slightest deviation from the letter of the law, and with any luck you will shut them up and win the argument without even having to argue.

In fact, there doesn't even have to be a rules violation. Like this most recent banning. And then there was the sock puppet episode. It was obvious to anyone who looked at those posts that my daughter is my daughter and not my sock puppet. Therefore, whoever reported me knew that as well. (If they didn't carefully look at the posts, then hitting the little yellow triangle without careful reading is just as bad.) Yet were they sanctioned for abusing the little yellow triangle? I seriously doubt it.

And while we're on the subject, why is it that people who've made it clear that they don't like me are poking around my personal profile? I'm sure it's not because they make a point of scanning my each and every post in search of rules violations.

I'm not sure what the solution is. But if it's the case that moderators have to spend most of their moderator time chasing down "alerts" based on hair-splitting interpretations of the rules with the result that egregious violations are going unreported because the moderators don't have time to patrol the forum, then you're bound to wind up with a situation where the moderation is skewed, unbalanced, and unfair. But here are three respectfully submitted, humble suggestions (i.e., they are not "demands"):

1. formalize the moderator selection process so that people who want to be moderators can demonstrate their qualifications by means other than the little yellow triangle;
2. encourage people not to swamp the mods with trivial rules violations;
3. obtain more moderators so they have time to patrol instead of just reacting all the time.

TIA for allowing me to vent.

[R.A.F.]

Originally Posted by Warren Platts

Basically, I'm being singled out, that's not fair...

All seriousness aside, I'm surprised you haven't seen the obvious...the "powers that be" are out to "get ya" and are looking for any excuse to permanently ban you...and you're falling right into their "trap".

Seriously, Warren, are you really that paranoid?

[Warren Platts]

Originally Posted by R.A.F.

All seriousness aside, I'm surprised you haven't seen the obvious...the "powers that be" are out to "get ya" and are looking for any excuse to permanently ban you...and you're falling right into their "trap".

Seriously, Warren, are you really that paranoid?

Just because you're paranoid, does not entail that they're not out to get you.

[mahesh]

Mr Platts:
Why are you so angry?
Have you been simmering, for these past eight days....waiting to get back to BAUT, so that you could yell? ...inspite of trying to put it gently across....it didn't quite work, did it?:

Originally Posted by Platts

...It makes me feel tempted to yell: WHO ARE YOU TO DICTATE RESEARCH PRIORITIES WHEN YOU OBVIOUSLY DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT! It makes me feel indignant. It seems as if Antoniseb is looking for a fight. ....

just calm down already....enjoy your Fourth of July.

dear oh dear....

[Warren Platts]

You didn't read what I had to say carefully, and your little quote is taken way out of context. As I'm sure you realize. My point was that it is easy to get offended when confronted with someone who disagrees with something you feel strongly about. But such offense taken is not rational, and such anger generated is not legitimate, and thus not grounds for suppressing the conversation.

[HenrikOlsen]

Originally Posted by Warren Platts

1. formalize the moderator selection process so that people who want to be moderators can demonstrate their qualifications by means other than the little yellow triangle;

Reports are a very little part of the moderator selection process, general behavior in the threads counts much more.

[R.A.F.]

Originally Posted by Warren Platts

2. encourage people not to swamp the mods with trivial rules violations.

...and just who would be deciding which rules are "trivial"?

On the contrary, Warren....posters here are encouraged to report rule violations rather than become involved in flame wars and such. I would imagine it actually saves time in the long run doing it that way.

Well, that's 2 of Warren's "suggestions" which appear to be unnecessary...anyone care to explain to Warren why we don't need more mods? (at least at the moment)

[captain swoop]

Hello Warren, nice to see you back.

[Warren Platts]

Originally Posted by R.A.F.

...and just who would be deciding which rules are "trivial"?

On the contrary, Warren....posters here are encouraged to report rule violations rather than become involved in flame wars and such. I would imagine it actually saves time in the long run doing it that way.

Well, that's 2 of Warren's "suggestions" which appear to be unnecessary...anyone care to explain to Warren why we don't need more mods? (at least at the moment)

I'm not looking for a flame war here either. Among my many areas of expertise, at my last year at Colorado State I took two graduate seminars in the political science department where we studied how various actors in various milieux acquire or lose power. So I have some creds.

So I have a political science hypothesis about how the balance of power has shifted in bautforum.com say from 2006 to 2009: I might be wrong about this, but in those bygone days, there was less emphasis on users reporting on each other, and there was more what I call patroling by moderators. That is, the mods back then had more time to just float around bautforum.com and actually do some reading and some participating. Now, however, mods spend 80%-90% of their moderation time reacting to reports produced by users, rather than mods going out and finding their own busts. It's no wonder the mods are grumpy these days.

(And don't get me wrong. I appreciate what the mods do and what a crappy job it really must be. I would never want to do it. But without the thin blue line provided by the mods, this place would rapidly devolve to a _____-tard creativity contest.)

So we have a situation where the mods have basically stopped being cops and are now judges instead. That is, their job now is merely to pass sentence on people who have been turned in by other users, rather than going out and uncovering wrong-doing as it happens.

And it wouldn't be a big deal if the serial tattletales weren't human. But they are. So we have a situation where a self-appointed cadre of informers are basically doing the official moderators' job for them. Unlike the official mods, the cadre have never taken an oath to be impartial, for example. They are under no obligation to be impartial. They don't have to report on their friends, for example, whereas real cops are in theory supposed to. They are free to stalk other users they don't like. They are free to use the little yellow button as a mode of discussion by other means.

So who are the people that compose this unofficial cadre of psuedomoderators? We can venture some hypotheses. First of all, they are probably relatively few in number compared to the total number of registered users. According to the ordinary Pareto Principle--the 80-20 "rule"--20% of the registered users should account for 80% of the "alerts". Now, I may be wrong, but I don't think that there are 10,000 people who routinely report on their fellow users. In fact, I would bet dollars to donuts that there are no more than 50 users (0.1%) that account for 80%-90% of the total number of alerts.

Second of all, they probably share similar demographic characteristics. Their ages probably vary widely, but they share a common vision on what they think bautforum.com ought to be like. They mostly tend to be within The Clique. Most of them sincerely feel that they are doing a service for bautforum.com. Probably a few of them take actual sadistic pleasure in shooting down their fellow users; for this subspecies, the little yellow triangle is the trigger of their virtual sniper rifle; they make a game of patiently seeking out just the right post of their selected target; these are the guys who go poking around other people's profiles and like to use the "See all posts by So_and_So" function. These guys are few and far between. They probably compose less than 0.01% of the total population of registered users.

But even if the actual number is 100 users that account for 90% of the alerts, think about what that entails! Nobody appointed them to their role as informer. Nor were they elected to their position. Yet when they say "jump!", the official moderators jump!

What a power grab! It would be kind of beautiful, really, if we were talking about insects in a jungle ecosystem. And the thing is, no one designed the system, i.e., bautforum.com, to behave that way. Yet it happened. On the other hand, that's normal. People do their best to create a system that they think will behave one way, and then it takes on a life of its own. It's the law of unintended consequences.

Which leads me to a 4th practical suggestion: make all posts to the little yellow triangle public.

OMG!!!

But just take a minute and think about it from a consequentialist viewpoint rather than worrying about idiological qualms regarding the virtues of anonymity. Think about it:

What's the harm? And what are they afraid of anyway? That someone they narc off on an internet discussion forum is going to track them down and burn down their house or something? Give me a break. Most people will still be anonymous, since they choose to use anonymous "handles".

On the other hand, I realize that for many people these days, their online persona is more real than their physical persona, and so they have a reputation to protect, and so I can see why they might not want their online persona to be known as the neighborhood snitch.

Yeah, well then, if you don't want to be known as the neighborhood snitch, then don't be the neighborhood snitch!

If something is so beyond the pale that action is necessary, then people should have the hair to step up to the plate and say it out loud where everyone can hear the accusation. And if the "violation" is not so beyond the pale, then maybe people will think twice before they go imposing on the moderators time. Because an open little-yellow-triangle forum would allow the game theoretical evolutionary strategy known as tit-for-tat.

Somebody's been picking on me. They have made it their special purpose in life to "get" me. I have an idea who at least some of them are. However, my sense of ethics prevents me from watching their every post for the slightest rules violation. Thus, if I knew for sure who was ratting me out for crap that even is not a violation of the rules, then I could turn the tables on them, and rat them out the next time they mention the name of a biblical character in vain.

In any case, the little yellow triangle isn't anonymous anyway: you have to be logged on to use it. So here's a 6th suggestion: make it so that you don't have to be logged on at all to hit the little yellow triangle.

Honestly, why is it that the little yellow triangle is only for people who are logged on? If the goal is the preservation of anonymity, then the little yellow triangle should be totally anonymous. In real life, the police have anonymous tip lines where people don't have to identify themselves to the real police. So why do the virtual police at bautforum.com insist on knowing who's pressing the little yellow triangle?

Well, it's retribution actually. The mods make a big deal about how they occasionally bust someone down for "abusing" the little yellow triangle function. (I have yet to see a member of The Clique who has been busted down little yellow triangle abuse.) But they can't bust someone down for abusing the little yellow triangle button if they don't know who's pressing it. So they get you coming and they get you going. Speaking for myself frankly, I'm afraid to press that little yellow triangle. I'm afraid that the mods will turn the tables on me and use it against me.

So the little yellow triangle should be either totally open or totally anonymous-if being fair is a desirable value, that is. The former option would save the mods a lot of time and thus allow them to be actual participants in bautforum.com once again; the latter would no doubt result in even more "alerts" because there would be no retribution for those reporting who aren't members of The Clique.

Anyway, that's how I see it. It's just a theory. It may be false. But it must might be useful if you paid attention. Thanks all.

[Drunk Vegan]

Personally I think the fact that this thread about a minor complaint is still going 3 months later is a symptom of under-moderation.

I don't know who I'd side with RE the original dispute, but arguing about it for 3 months? Wow.

[mahesh]

Mr Platts....with your #132....where are you? where are you coming from? where are you going? I can't believe what I'm reading....and i'm trying to, not say it too loudly.

You are generally, whether intentionally or not, insulting BAUTzens here. You say, you took two graduate seminars, political, or whatever....did you participate as a teacher or as a student? I suspect, with due respect to you and your intelligence, (not..devolve to a _____-tard creativity contest)...you need to be able to absorb a bit more 'ethos' at BAUT, of BAUT.

I find your comments offensive. I know of no 'clique' here. I know of no one here, who 'snitches' on any one, here. And please, if you don't mind, don't go around implying or calling people/mods/admin names. It's not nice.
The name I use here, is my real name. My persona...online or otherwise, isn't different. Not by much. I'm probably, more of a moaner, here, than in real life.

Platts, too much theoretical induction at college is not very good or healthy. Come out of your coccoon and feel the real world, Platts. It's nice. As is BAUT.

So lighten up already. I told you before. (And I am not, not reading/quoting out of context.) I am really surprised that you actually sat down, thought (or not) this through and posted this long-winded item at #132! Amazing.

Anyway, it's nice making your acquaintance. I say it in the best possible taste. There's room for lots of people/BAUTzens here.
You have a nice day Sir.

edit:
And if you are a cricket fan, or would like to be, just now is a very good opportunity for you. The Ashes commence July 08, in England.
You talk of hostility. You know nothing. You haven't seen the divine, the sublime hostility that makes up The Ashes.
Certain things are not / cannot be taught at a school or a college.

[captain swoop]

Warren I think you are being Paranoid.
What is your evidence that Mods spend most of their time 'reacting' to reports? I know I certainly don't. ALso what si this self appointed 'clique' you prattle about? You have no evidence for any of your points.

Somebody's been picking on me. They have made it their special purpose in life to "get" me. I have an idea who at least some of them are. However, my sense of ethics prevents me from watching their every post for the slightest rules violation. Thus, if I knew for sure who was ratting me out for crap that even is not a violation of the rules, then I could turn the tables on them, and rat them out the next time they mention the name of a biblical character in vain

What evidence do you have for this accusation? If this was true then whoever was 'ratting you out' woulod fall foul of the misuse of the triangle you talk about and would get a warning or suspension themselves. Do you think the Mod's can't see when things like that are happening?

[HenrikOlsen]

Warren, try for 2 seconds to consider the possibility that your problems are caused by yourself.

You have posting behaviors that files straight in the face of the purpose of this forum and are exasperating to watch.

One such is your constant willful refusal to learn from others while treating what could have been an invaluable education as a debate club where the purpose is to "win" the discussion.

Can you see how it leads to irritation and anger when people spend hours trying to explain something to you just to see you declare yourself "winner" of the debate with a statement that shows you have learned nothing whatsoever about the subject?

Can you see how such behavior is detrimental to the forum and why it's in the interest of the forum to keep it to a minimum?

Somebody's been picking on me.

Oh, do grow up!

[captain swoop]

As for the number of people you think are reporting compared to the overall number of board members, you don't know who reports so you can't know the percentage. Most members aren't active, you can see how many are on line and who they are at any time.

[Moose]

For what it's worth, Warren, we're generally aware of the little squabbles and vendettas that are getting expressed through the report button. There aren't many, and there are none targeting you. Just your behavior sometimes. (Besides, we generally won't tolerate the report posts feature being used as a way to stick it to someone else. We have suspended people for that particular abuse.)

There are no (as in zero) moderators who act based solely on a reported post.

The only common feature of your interaction with others is you.

But hey, if it's more fun to believe in some big conspiracy out to get you, go to town. We won't mind. You certainly won't be the first. (Not even today.)

[Swift]

Originally Posted by Warren Platts

<snip>
So I have a political science hypothesis about how the balance of power has shifted in bautforum.com say from 2006 to 2009: I might be wrong about this, but in those bygone days, there was less emphasis on users reporting on each other, and there was more what I call patroling by moderators. That is, the mods back then had more time to just float around bautforum.com and actually do some reading and some participating. Now, however, mods spend 80%-90% of their moderation time reacting to reports produced by users, rather than mods going out and finding their own busts. It's no wonder the mods are grumpy these days.

I have no idea what it was like to moderate this board in 2006, but your numbers are very wrong for 2009. I probably spend 10% of my time on the board going through reported posts; certainly not 90%. Another 10 to maybe 25% is other moderator things. I still spend the majority of my time surfing around the board, though I certainly don't check every thread.

Comparing my pre-moderator to post-moderation percentages, obviously I now spend a higher percent of my time not-surfing, but since I also now spend more time on the board (I feel it is my obligation as a moderator), it probably works out to about the same number of hours looking around.

[Swift]

Originally Posted by Warren Platts

Which leads me to a 4th practical suggestion: make all posts to the little yellow triangle public.

I think that is a horrible idea. Though it is rare, sometimes people have to report very personal things, such as personal attacks on them in PMs (yes, PMs can be reported too). I do not think it would be appropriate for all of that to be show in public, where every person surfing the web could have a look. I am absolutely fine with the current system.

[Tucson_Tim]

Originally Posted by Drunk Vegan

. . . , but arguing about it for 3 months? Wow.

It hasn't been going on for three solid months--this thread was reactivated yesterday after almost 2 months of dormancy.

[slang]

Originally Posted by Swift

I think that is a horrible idea. Though it is rare, sometimes people have to report very personal things, such as personal attacks on them in PMs (yes, PMs can be reported too). I do not think it would be appropriate for all of that to be show in public, where every person surfing the web could have a look. I am absolutely fine with the current system.

Besides, if someone wanted to inflict trouble*) on someone without being seen, there are other ways of contacting friendly moderators. PM, skype, yahoo, etc etc. It would just seem as if the moderator happened upon the post by himself. And if it's just a trivial rule violation the moderator wouldn't get away with a undeserved severe punishment, it's not uncommon to see a punishment changed into a warning, or to a shorter time.

*) which is nonsense anyway, reporter doesn't violate the rule, poster does...

[Moose]

Originally Posted by Swift

I think that is a horrible idea. Though it is rare, sometimes people have to report very personal things, such as personal attacks on them in PMs (yes, PMs can be reported too).

And it would open that person up to retaliation. That would be utterly unacceptable.

[Warren Platts]

Originally Posted by Mahesh

I find your comments offensive.

Mr. Mahesh, you should save your righteous indignation for occassions when it is appropriate, that is, when a real moral wrong has been committed. I merely happen to disagree with your ingenuous theory about how the culture at bautforum.com operates. There's nothing wrong with that.

Originally Posted by Mahesh

(And I am not, not reading/quoting out of context.)

Actually, yes you are. But I'm not going to waste the keystokes to explain it to you.

BTW the word "snitch" entered the English language in the 18th century. It means the same as "informer". It carries no negative connotations that are not also carried by the word "informer", which refers to a person who informs on other people.

Originally Posted by Captain Swoop

Warren I think you are being Paranoid.

Sir, let's briefly review the last 4 times I got banned:

1. Someone reported me for using a sock puppet after I made a post from my daughter's account, which I immediately deleleted and left an explanation for the screwup. The explanation was clear to anybody who read it. Yet someone decided to go on a spearfishing expedition anyway, and suffered no consequences as a result.
2. Then there was that CT thread. It's true that I got a little snarky with a couple posters. Granted, they had upped the notch first, but still I shouldn't have taken the bait. But I know, you know, everybody knows that the real reason for my banning was "smugness", yet smugness is not a crime. (And why was Neverfly of all people receiving PM's from mods about why I was banned? Actually, never mind; but that does definitely add to the overall fishiness.)
3. Then there was the religion incident, where, in the context of a debate about how The Clique operates, I paraphrased philosopher Anthony Flew's analysis on how the relation of two opposing major religions operates. In the explanation, I was told that if there was a rule against discussing smelly feet, then I shouldn't write down the words "smelly feet." This despite the fact a search using the names of several major religions generated well over 2,000 hits. Were there 2,000 bannings for those instances? I don't think so.
4. Which brings us to the most recent episode. I was banned ostensibly for violating the no politics rule, despite the fact that my post was not in fact a violation of the no politics rule, and despite the fact that my post was straddled by two obvious and blatant violations of the no politics rule in which the USA was blamed for every bad thing that Iran has done for the last 30 years! Yet I get suspended for a week; and the other person doesn't even warrant a warning. True, Antoniseb later provided a different explanation, but only after PraedSt had pointed out the obvious: that my post was not in fact a violation of the no politics rule. But the further irony is that 3 years ago, I had posted the exact same idea, and Antoniseb himself had ruled it OK back then. Yet on or about the same day I get busted, someone else gets away with a vicious and probably libelous personal attack; but since the person on the receiving end (gaetanomarano) is detested by The Clique, no foul is declared; even if that post was not seen by a mod, I'm quite certain that one of the regular informers saw it--indeed, one of them may have written it--yet they chose to not report that gem.

So, yeah, I'm a little paranoid.

Originally Posted by Captain Swoop

ALso what is this self appointed 'clique' you prattle about?

You should know! You're a charter member! In fact, all mods are in The Clique, with the possible exception of tusenfem. Actually, on second thought, he is in The Clique: he just doesn't behave very cliquishly. Similarly Grant Hutchison is an honorary member, but to his credit, he stays aloof from all cliquish shenanigans. Drunk Vegan above has made it to the periphery. Mahesh is definitely in there. Same with people like Chistopher Ferro or Jay Utah or djellison. Gillianren is the paradigmatic cliquemeister; if The Clique had a formal organization, she would be President. R.A.F. once got rejected by The Clique, but he's been striving mightily ever since to redeem himself and gain Clique status. I think he may have succeeded. Similarly, Neverfly, wanted to be in The Clique, but made the fatal mistake of thinking he actually was on the inside. Same with Candy. mugaliens would be allowed into The Clique, but he's got to get his mind right first.

Who is not in The Clique? Well, me, obviously. GuetanoMorano is definitely not in The Clique. Tommac? Not a chance. The vast majority of ATMers are by definition out of The Clique. Newbies have to rack up at least a thousand proper posts before they are allowed into The Clique. Non cliquesters are tolerated as long as they keep a low profile. But if they "make the scene", then they are deemed "disruptive", and will get hammered like a stuck-out nail. Paradoxically, The Bad Astronomer and Fraser are not in The Clique. Their status is transcendent, and they can't be bothered with it--unfortunately, as they are the only one's with the power to reign in The Clique.

Then there are guys like PraedSt who aren't sure what to do. He wants to be one of the guys, yet he is personally appalled by the cliquishness of The Clique--and rightly so if you ask me. But of course I would say that. I hope that answers your question.

Originally Posted by Henryk Olsen

Warren, try for 2 seconds to consider the possibility that your problems are caused by yourself.

You have posting behaviors that files straight in the face of the purpose of this forum and are exasperating to watch.

One such is your constant willful refusal to learn from others while treating what could have been an invaluable education as a debate club where the purpose is to "win" the discussion.

Can you see how it leads to irritation and anger when people spend hours trying to explain something to you just to see you declare yourself "winner" of the debate with a statement that shows you have learned nothing whatsoever about the subject?

Can you see how such behavior is detrimental to the forum and why it's in the interest of the forum to keep it to a minimum?

Believe me, sir, I know what you mean WRT exasperating behaviors where people refuse to change their minds when presented with evidence and compelling arguments. However, the purpose of a discussion forum is discussion. Discussion implies give-and-take; it implies that there will be disagreement; it does not imply that all disagreements will eventually be resolved. Eventually there will come a point where no further empirical evidence, and all possible arguments have been exhausted, where an impasse is reached and yet two intelligent people honestly disagree. At the point, the only civilized thing to do is to agree to disagree.

With regard to that CT thread, what you call my "constant willful refusal to learn from others", I call a refusal to retract a proposition that I literally believe to be true. If I retracted it, I would be lying--and why should I do that? You say I learned nothing whatsoever, but I beg to differ. I learned among other things:

1. that contrary to initial reports, the satellite in question did in fact possess an active orientation system to complement its gravity boom;
2. the satellite was decommissioned after being used for approximately half its rated lifetime;
3. it possessed parts that look an awful lot like 1 Newton thrusters used on American satellites;
4. a 1 Newton thruster is sufficient to move a satellite several hundred yards within the time frame required.

Nobody spent more hours on that thread than I did. Yet how much credit was I given for the above findings. Absolute zero. But that's OK, because Geoffrey Gordon at armscontrolwonk.com allowed me to publish my findings that--contrary to the widespread misperception--the Cosmos 2251 did in fact possess an active guidance system. Believe me, they don't allow nonsense over there. That's good enough for me.

Meanwhile, my little declaration of victory was my little way of signaling that everything that could be said and done had been said and done, and that at the end, I believed that I had proved my point--to my satisfaction to be sure, but who else's satisfaction am I to be concerned with? Am I my brother's keeper?--and that I was through spending six hours a day on that thread. Call my point trivially true if you want; call it false if you want. But from my POV, that is a willful refusal to learn from others. But I'm OK with that. There is nothing to be said or done in such a case except to agree to disagree because there's nothing else that can be said or done that will change either mind. That's just the way life is.

And what's wrong with that? Your characterization, Henryk, of the existence of honest disagreements as a willful refusal to learn on the part of one party is really unfair. Honest disagreements happen. I don't see why that should be considered detrimental to the functioning of a discussion board.

Anyway, if I'm so detrimental the functioning of this discussion board, then why do you suppose I keep getting PM's from various people that say variations of "Awesome post, Warren! That was spot on! Keep up the good work!"? Actually, the answer is quite simple: such PM's tend not to originate from those well entrenched in The Clique.

Thus, I have a proposition for you all. Let's put it to a vote. Let's start an anonymous poll thread where the question is "Should Warren stay or should he go?" and let it run for 24 hours. If the majority of voters give me the thumbs down, then I'll gladly go away and promise never to come back; but if the majority wants me to stay, then I respectfully request that I cease to be singled out for special treatment.

[antoniseb]

I had posted the exact same idea, and Antoniseb himself had ruled it OK back then.

Any time you post something in the gray area of the rules you should expect the possibility of different outcomes. There is no exact formula saying what will be permitted or not. You are often close to the line, and you have been reminded of that often.

If you'd like to post remarks that are insulting to the rest of humanity, I bet you can find a forum that encourages that. We suppress it. Do you feel suppressed? That's why.

[01101001]

Warren, you don't seem happy to be a BAUT member.

[captain swoop]

If you are so unhappy with culture and atmosphere of BAUT Forum why do you make yourself suffer so much?
You seem to like Philosophy and edebate. Why not find somewhere more in line with that and reserve BAUT for the science?

[Robinson]

If you are so unhappy with somebody being unhappy, why do you make yourself suffer? Reading the unhappiness, responding to the unhappiness?

[Robinson]

FYI, It made me happy to write the previous post.

[Tucson_Tim]

Personally, I like to see folks like Warren here on BAUT. He's intelligent, patient, perseverant, and (like most of us) he gets out-of-line sometimes. BAUT, like any organization, needs those who view things differently.