Hiring Moderators

[SapereAude]

I don't know about if it was passive aggressive or not, all I was trying to say was that I thought it was pretty clearly a joke and what it meant and that it was not seriously saying that unpopularity was a positive factor in making it to being made a moderator as DavidOdden seemed to think she may seriously have been saying. ^^;

I can't answer for David but it is a fairly common tactic to use when someone is being passive aggressive to ingore that and behave as if you were taking their actions and statements at face value. It is common in dealing with persons with borderline personality disorder.

For some reason this was my interpretation of how David was responding... I found it droll.

But my sense of humor ain't for everyone

[DavidOdden]

I can't answer for David but it is a fairly common tactic to use when someone is being passive aggressive to ingore that and behave as if you were taking their actions and statements at face value. It is common in dealing with persons with borderline personality disorder.

Although you cannot authoritatively answer on behalf of me, you have demonstrated that you can accurately respond as I probably should have responded.

[Jonathan13]

Moderators do answer reasonable questions, by people who in turn give reasonable responses to the answers that they get. Generally speaking: people get the responses that they have earned.

Generally, that hasn't been my experience here. I've politely (and privately) asked very reasonable questions about why my posts were either deleted or split off to new threads, or why I've been ordered not to post on a specific thread (even if what I post is obviously polite and germane to the discussion, and even if I'm correcting someone's errors or misrepresentations of Rand's views), and I've asked if I've violated any OO policies or said something that is untrue, insulting or viciously upsetting, and I've received either no response or I've been told by the moderator that he had no intention of discussing the issue with me.

J

[SapereAude]

Generally, that hasn't been my experience here. I've politely (and privately) asked very reasonable questions about why my posts were either deleted or split off to new threads, or why I've been ordered not to post on a specific thread (even if what I post is obviously polite and germane to the discussion, and even if I'm correcting someone's errors or misrepresentations of Rand's views), and I've asked if I've violated any OO policies or said something that is untrue, insulting or viciously upsetting, and I've received either no response or I've been told by the moderator that he had no intention of discussing the issue with me.

J

It is hard to answer to incidents that happened privately in the past.

If you ever have cause to question my actions via PM I assure you I will respond.

Speaking for myself, private messages seem best. Mods don't punch a clock. They may not login in for a few days, forget about a topic or simply lose interest meaning that your question may not be seen by the person for whom it was intended.

[bluecherry]

Alright then. My apologies I didn't catch the sarcasm. That was far too deadpan a presentation for me to catch what was going on over the internet. ^^; I shall now vanish from this thread in a puff of smoke as if I was never here. *poofs*

[Marc K.]

Mindy,

Wow... you have managed in a very short time stir an incredible amount of drama here and with people with whom many of us have been interacting for years and greatly respect.

Thank you for saying this Sophia, I agree completely.

If you want to defend what DavidOdden said, please do so.

She already did. David Odden's reputation speaks for itself. He is knowledgeable on a plethora of subjects and his understanding of Objectivism and its application to those many topics is exceptional.

David Odden is tough but consistent in his replies, I like that about him and it is part of what makes him a great moderator. We get a whole range of people here from newbies to trolls to anarchists to libertarians, from skeptical determinists to determined skeptics. We also get ignorant, self-described Objectivists who make it their mission to defend a system they don't understand. David Odden has to deal with them all and he possesses a valuable ability that assists him, a trait he shares with Ayn Rand and a trait I try to foster in myself: he can see the necessary implications of almost any position projected across time, philosophy and logic. So, when Hermes proposes a hypothetical "what if ..." and David Odden answers with "then you will have ..." he is simply pointing out the consequences of the hypothetical -- in a very effective and intelligent way I might add -- if one develops a thick skin and has enough integrity to look.

I will further agree with Sophia in that I think David Odden and softwareNerd are two of among five or six people who make this site what it is, which, in my opinion, is probably the best site of its kind on the web. If you want to see what a poorly moderated, tolerant site looks like go to Objectivist Living. I perused there one day after someone here had linked to it. While there are a few good people there, it is for the most part a cesspool of rude, ignorant, Rand-Peikoff-Schwartz hating, anarcho-liberals. If this site every becomes like that one it will be worthless and I will leave.

[Mindy]

Thank you for saying this Sophia, I agree completely.

She already did. David Odden's reputation speaks for itself. He is knowledgeable on a plethora of subjects and his understanding of Objectivism and its application to those many topics is exceptional.

What are you agreeing with? That some, unnamed people are "upset?"

Reputation is generally relevant when the author's actual performance has to be guessed at. Which attorney to hire? Mr. Banks has a good reputation for this sort of case... When someone's performance is extant, there is no need to look to their reputation to evaluate those actions.

Neither you nor Sophia attempt to defend the facts of the case, you just think Odden's general contributions ought to excuse his behavior here. A sort of a "greater good" argument, no?

You seem to acknowledge Mr. Odden's tendency to be abusive when you mention "thick skin." Why do you give it a pass?

If a person's errors, even of behavior, are criticized, does that mean the whole person is being mis-evaluated? Are your assertions of Mr. Odden's knowledge logically related to my objection that he was abusive?

I doubt you could tell me anything about the standards of thought, or behavior, on any of the major four Objectivist forums. As to how Objectivism Online compares to the other three, I'm very interested in finding that out.

Mindy

Edited August 31, 2010 by Mindy

[SapereAude]

You seem to acknowledge Mr. Odden's tendency to be abusive when you mention "thick skin." Why do you give it a pass?

To say that David's knowledge is more easily absorbed by those who are not easily ass-hurt in no way implies that he is abusive. Not sure what logic to are using to claim it does.

[CapitalistSwine]

I believe the reason that people are having trouble taking your gripes seriously, among other reasons, is that you seem to create some form of contention in almost every discussion you have be it here or in the chatroom (I would like to make it clear to everyone here that this is simply based on what *I* have observed and this may not hold regarding all instances overall), and at times the sources of those points of contention are unfounded and seem to be more of a result of this "people are always against me/ridiculing my position" type of mentality, or comes from what seems to be, rather frequent miscommunications/misinterpretations. This was quite clearly highlighted in an instance the other night in the chatroom when West simply asked how fresh in your mind was The Logical Leap and you took it as a suggestion that you were not knowledgeable of it or something else of a similar nature, which led to what I believe was something like a 8-15 minute altercation. My point in stating this is not out of disrespect to your or to tarnish your reputation, but when people see these exact kinds of back and forths and they are usually between people that the overall website population doesn't take much issue with, and they are so often found to involve you in the conversation, and usually as the start of it, then your concerns may not be viewed as valid as they would otherwise when raised.

Edited September 1, 2010 by CapitalistSwine

[Mindy]

To say that David's knowledge is more easily absorbed by those who are not easily ass-hurt in no way implies that he is abusive. Not sure what logic to are using to claim it does.

To say he is abusive is to say he is abusive. Do you understand that?

Mindy

[~Sophia~]

Neither you nor Sophia attempt to defend the facts of the case,

Yes I have. I went and read the relevant posts to check the validity of Hermes accusations. I found them to be completely unfounded - absolutely false.

you just think Odden's general contributions ought to excuse his behavior here.

This is not a foregone conclusion that there is something to excuse.

David was not acting here as a moderator on some abstract topic.

If Hermes had concerns about David's moderation - this could have been privately brought up the to attention of other moderators.

Instead, Hermes publicly made serious accusations. He either publicly lied or displayed serious epistemological mess. I am not sure which one.

David responded accordingly to his judgment about the accuser and while his response may have been harsh - it certainly was not abusive. Considering the circumstances, I personally judge it as deserved.

I find it interesting that you focus on David's response to Hermes but not a peep from you about Hermes actions.

Edited September 1, 2010 by ~Sophia~

[~Sophia~]

When someone's performance is extant, there is no need to look to their reputation to evaluate those actions.

And David's record is that of an exceptional moderator for many years.

I will be very frank with you. Given how you chose to go about this - I question your motives.

You did not just use this as an opportunity, if you thought necessary, to improve moderation. If you felt something could/should improve, if that was your motivation, there are constructive ways of going about it which translate into effective ways of influencing change. Most of participants here, and especially moderators who volunteer so much of their time to this cause, want this forum to be a success - and you are dealing here with people open to reason.

But that is not what you chose to do.

Instead, you suggested David ought not to be a moderator. Even Hermes did not go that far.

I find your actions very off-putting.

[SapereAude]

To say he is abusive is to say he is abusive. Do you understand that?

Mindy

You were deliberately choosing to infer something that was never implied. Do you understand that?

I'm not certain that you are discerning between good and bad attention.

You are obviously fairly intelligent and well read. You've stated that you enjoy the overall tone of this board above others that you're tried. There is a good deal that you could contribute and, one would think, a good deal you could take away.

Yet it seems a good portion of your time here is spent creating a shrill tone where none is warranted and harping upon a moderator you've taken issue with.

My question is- as a rational being what are you trying to gain?

Do you think if you belabor the point hard enough, often enough, shrilly (a word?I dunno?!) enough that one day everyone will wake up, facepalm and say "shit! she's right! David doesn't know what the hell he's on about!" ?

Right now all I see is someone who seems to be thriving on making what was supposed to be a post about how moderators could better the site all about them.

Am I wrong?

edit typos

Edited September 1, 2010 by SapereAude

[Jonathan13]

And David's record is that of an exceptional moderator for many years.

How would one know whether or not a moderator has an exceptional record, or if he is often unfair, abusive or non-responsive? As SapereAude said in post #129, it's hard to answer incidents that have happened in private in the past. Without access to the private exchanges between a moderator and the people he has taken action against, how can one claim to be able to judge his record?

Nothing against David here. I don't recall ever having dealt with him in his role as moderator, so I can't say one way or the other whether or not I think he's fair. I'm just wondering how anyone would think that they could make a rational judgement about his record if they haven't been privy to all sides of private conversations.

I will be very frank with you. Given how you chose to go about this - I question your motives.

I don't know of Mindy's past, but on this thread she stepped forward and expressed interest in becoming a moderator, and then a couple of people quite rudely registered their disapproval while offering no explanation, and when asked to explain, compounded the rudeness by not grasping the common meaning of "obliged to explain," and then went into Objectivist Heroic Lecture mode about not having a contract with Mindy and therefore not owing her anything (which makes me wonder how many times Rand used phrases like "obliged to explain oneself," and if she too would have been lectured about what she was and was not owed).

If any motives are to be questioned, I would question the motives of those who feel the need to publicly register their disapproval of Mindy, but to then resist clearly explaining why they disapprove. As things stand, all I know from reading this thread is that certain people are very angry with Mindy, first because of something she didn't say in chat (her accuser was confused and later apologized), and second, because of things she gave the "appearance" of believing on unidentified previous threads (which were not linked to, and therefore which I and others who are reading this thread can't review for ourselves in order to inform our own judgments of Mindy and her accusers).

The gripe seems to be that Mindy gave "RationalBiker"/Vern Stevens the "appearance" that she might believe it to be morally sound to "misrepresent ones true intentions as long as its legalistically okay even when the other party is being honest and upfront with you." Mindy says that's not a fair representation of her views. I'd be interested in reading her actual views. Would someone mind posting links to them, or at least identifying the name of the thread which contains them? Was she advocating something like Peikoff's opinion that Howard Roark wasn't being dishonest in passing off his work as someone else's (as I discussed here)? If Mindy has a similarly peculiar view of honesty, I could certainly understand why people would be hesitant to trust her in the capacity of moderator.

You did not just use this as an opportunity, if you thought necessary, to improve moderation. If you felt something could/should improve, if that was your motivation, there are constructive ways of going about it which translate into effective ways of influencing change. Most of participants here, and especially moderators who volunteer so much of their time to this cause, want this forum to be a success - and you are dealing here with people open to reason.

But that is not what you chose to do.

But it IS what she chose to do. Mindy politely mentioned her interest in exploring the idea of becoming a moderator. Others then jumped on her with "hell no!" She politely asked why, and she was given rude little lectures in response. SoftwareNerd then suggested getting the thread back on course, and Mindy made some constructive suggestions.

What has Mindy done to cause such anger and hatred in you?

J

[DavidOdden]

I'm just wondering how anyone would think that they could make a rational judgement about his record if they haven't been privy to all sides of private conversations.

...

What has Mindy done to cause such anger and hatred in you?

Can you now apply these same underlying principles but switch the names of the accused? You've identified the reaction to Mindy as "such anger and hatred", but in justice you must also identify the reaction by Mindy as "such anger and hatred", and you should equally wonder what causes "such anger and hatred" from her. You question the rational judgment of Sophia for not being "privy to all sides of private conversations", but you do not question the judgment of Mindy who is also not "privy to all sides of private conversations". To quote from VOS p. 71, "It is not justice or equal treatment that you grant to men when you abstain equally from praising men’s virtues and from condemning men’s vices."

[SapereAude]

How would one know whether or not a moderator has an exceptional record, or if he is often unfair, abusive or non-responsive? As SapereAude said in post #129, it's hard to answer incidents that have happened in private in the past. Without access to the private exchanges between a moderator and the people he has taken action against, how can one claim to be able to judge his record?

Nothing against David here. I don't recall ever having dealt with him in his role as moderator, so I can't say one way or the other whether or not I think he's fair. I'm just wondering how anyone would think that they could make a rational judgement about his record if they haven't been privy to all sides of private conversations.

I don't know of Mindy's past, but on this thread she stepped forward and expressed interest in becoming a moderator, and then a couple of people quite rudely registered their disapproval while offering no explanation, and when asked to explain, compounded the rudeness by not grasping the common meaning of "obliged to explain," and then went into Objectivist Heroic Lecture mode about not having a contract with Mindy and therefore not owing her anything (which makes me wonder how many times Rand used phrases like "obliged to explain oneself," and if she too would have been lectured about what she was and was not owed).

If any motives are to be questioned, I would question the motives of those who feel the need to publicly register their disapproval of Mindy, but to then resist clearly explaining why they disapprove. As things stand, all I know from reading this thread is that certain people are very angry with Mindy, first because of something she didn't say in chat (her accuser was confused and later apologized), and second, because of things she gave the "appearance" of believing on unidentified previous threads (which were not linked to, and therefore which I and others who are reading this thread can't review for ourselves in order to inform our own judgments of Mindy and her accusers).

The gripe seems to be that Mindy gave "RationalBiker"/Vern Stevens the "appearance" that she might believe it to be morally sound to "misrepresent ones true intentions as long as its legalistically okay even when the other party is being honest and upfront with you." Mindy says that's not a fair representation of her views. I'd be interested in reading her actual views. Would someone mind posting links to them, or at least identifying the name of the thread which contains them? Was she advocating something like Peikoff's opinion that Howard Roark wasn't being dishonest in passing off his work as someone else's (as I discussed here)? If Mindy has a similarly peculiar view of honesty, I could certainly understand why people would be hesitant to trust her in the capacity of moderator.

But it IS what she chose to do. Mindy politely mentioned her interest in exploring the idea of becoming a moderator. Others then jumped on her with "hell no!" She politely asked why, and she was given rude little lectures in response. SoftwareNerd then suggested getting the thread back on course, and Mindy made some constructive suggestions.

What has Mindy done to cause such anger and hatred in you?

J

To your final question...

You reference several people's responses (both by name and in general) but your reply quotes are all Sophia.

I'm not sure if you are looking for all called out to respond or if the question is meant for Sophia, it is unclear.

[Jonathan13]

Can you now apply these same underlying principles but switch the names of the accused? You've identified the reaction to Mindy as "such anger and hatred", but in justice you must also identify the reaction by Mindy as "such anger and hatred", and you should equally wonder what causes "such anger and hatred" from her.

I haven't interpreted Mindy as expressing anger and hatred on this thread. She began by asking for an explanation of the "hell no" comment, and was treated rudely in response. She appears to be the one exhibiting patience in the face of a clique of attackers (that patience may wear a bit thin here and there, but I wouldn't describe it as passing over into anger). Now, granted, my perception could be wrong, which is why I'm asking to review the evidence. Will someone please post a link to the thread where I can read for myself whether or not Mindy holds views that are so disturbing as to instantly disqualify her from being a moderator?

You question the rational judgment of Sophia for not being "privy to all sides of private conversations", but you do not question the judgment of Mindy who is also not "privy to all sides of private conversations".

I think you're confused. My point was that a moderator in a forum like this generally deals privately with complaints from those he's taken action against. The general readership is usually not even going to be aware of the fact that there was an incident which required moderation, let alone be given an explanation as to why the moderator thought it necessary to step in. So there's really no way to judge how good or fair a moderator is, in his role as moderator, without access to those private conversations. The same is not true of judging whether or not a member has made a fair or reasonable comment about the publicly expressed opinions of other members. See, there's no reason to need to know about any "private conversations" to make judgments about public conversations because what is being asked to be judged is out in the open and public and doesn't depend on knowledge of private conversations.

To quote from VOS p. 71, "It is not justice or equal treatment that you grant to men when you abstain equally from praising men’s virtues and from condemning men’s vices."

I'm open to hearing any evidence that supports the idea that Mindy deserves the treatment that she's been getting here. From my perspective, she's the one trying to remain polite and to ask for the reasons behind people's harsh judgments of her. My perspective could be wrong. I'm simply asking to review the evidence in order to make an informed judgment.

J

[~Sophia~]

How would one know whether or not a moderator has an exceptional record, or if he is often unfair, abusive or non-responsive? As SapereAude said in post #129, it's hard to answer incidents that have happened in private in the past. Without access to the private exchanges between a moderator and the people he has taken action against, how can one claim to be able to judge his record?

Based on a long, many years long history of pubic responses, both in the role of a moderator and as a poster, David has shown to be an exceptionally rational and knowledgeable man. I have no reason to suspect that for some reason when in private he turns to irrationality. To hold such suspicion in light of what is known would have been an epistemological error - completely arbitrary claim.

Now that I reflect on it, I am actually glad that Harmes made his post public so we can all see just what kind of absurdities moderators have to deal with.

As to people's responses to Mindy, which may appear out of the blue, clearly there is more to this than just this isolated thread alone. She is a very active participant on this board, averaging sometimes 10 posts a day so people have a lot of opportunities to interact with her and be exposed to her demeanor and her views on numerous topics.

[SapereAude]

I'm open to hearing any evidence that supports the idea that Mindy deserves the treatment that she's been getting here. From my perspective, she's the one trying to remain polite and to ask for the reasons behind people's harsh judgments of her. My perspective could be wrong. I'm simply asking to review the evidence in order to make an informed judgment.

Here's where I as a mod, albeit an inexperienced one take some issue with this.. and I believe that since you are inclined to defend Mindy you may want to rethink it.

Essentially what you are asking for here is to (leaving aside that it will forever take away any hope of this post being on topic) make this a forum where the person in question is publicly put on trial. Despite what you may think (and I am not saying you do) the earlier offhand remarks do not amount to a public trial. I've had such things addressed at me before- someone says I'm a troll someone else says no she's not and so on.

I question the wisdom of this for these reasons

1) it isn't what this particular post is supposed to be about

2) has it ever been determined that a public trial about a forum member is beneficial or proper?

3) if Mindy already feels beset by unfair detractors will that not worsen said feelings?

4) if this isn't a matter of unfair bullying then we are simply feeding into someone attempting to create drama and discord around themselves

I don't see how any of this is the proper function of this forum.

You do however raise a good point Jonathon if you think it would be good to discuss how forum members are to know that the mods are acting in an ethical manner. That's legitimate, even if it seems only a very small but very vocal minority seems to think it is an issue.

edited- my trademarked artisanally crafted typos

Edited September 1, 2010 by SapereAude

[DavidOdden]

I haven't interpreted Mindy as expressing anger and hatred on this thread.

I know: I'm just saying that you did interpret other views as expressing anger and hatred against Mindy, and I'm saying that this is a mistake. There is no anger or hatred aimed at her. Opposition is distinct from anger and hatred. You cannot equate "conclude that X would not be a suitable moderator" and "expresses anger and hatred". Your anger + hatred conclusion is wrong. (I won't comply with a request to compile an anti-Mindy list of posts since I don't think it's appropriate).

My point was that a moderator in a forum like this generally deals privately with complaints from those he's taken action against. The general readership is usually not even going to be aware of the fact that there was an incident which required moderation, let alone be given an explanation as to why the moderator thought it necessary to step in.

This is completely correct. But that same reasoning applies to anyone including Mindy who condemns a moderator for improper or unjust moderatorial actions. So your criticism of Sophia should, in justice, be aimed at Mindy.

I understand that it would be more convenient for you if someone would compose a compendium of relevant posts, but fortunately we have the search function that will allow you to read anything that might be relevant. Maybe someone else cares enough to make a list, but my interest is on the substantive issues of Objectivism, and I don't see that this is a substantive issue relevant to Objectivism. When you raised your questions, it seemed to me that there is a clear application of Objectivism to be had here, the application of objective reasoning methods to the same fact. Presumably you now grasp the injustice of your selective comments, and that is the end of that.

[Greebo]

What is a user here to do if a user has been subject to an act of moderation that appears to have been done unilaterally by a moderator who was involved in a dispute with the user who was moderated? What if that user feels that the moderator acted in the same manner towards the user first?

And what is a user here to do if that user petitions the rest of the moderators to find out if said act of said moderator was unilateral or sanctioned and gets no response?

[brian0918]

What is a user here to do if a user has been subject to an act of moderation that appears to have been done unilaterally by a moderator who was involved in a dispute with the user who was moderated? What if that user feels that the moderator acted in the same manner towards the user first?

And what is a user here to do if that user petitions the rest of the moderators to find out if said act of said moderator was unilateral or sanctioned and gets no response?

Your second paragraph answers your first. If they get no response, but believe they are right, then they should keep trying, or appeal to other users to contact the moderators (or admins).

[Greebo]

Your second paragraph answers your first. If they get no response, but believe they are right, then they should keep trying, or appeal to other users to contact the moderators (or admins).

Insanity is trying the same thing over and over in the hope of different results.

[SapereAude]

What is a user here to do if a user has been subject to an act of moderation that appears to have been done unilaterally by a moderator who was involved in a dispute with the user who was moderated? What if that user feels that the moderator acted in the same manner towards the user first?

And what is a user here to do if that user petitions the rest of the moderators to find out if said act of said moderator was unilateral or sanctioned and gets no response?

I've seen several instances where a person felt there was an injustice in moderation started a post about it. I never saw one go unresponded to (that is not to say that I see all). If you PM all the mods and get no response I would say start a topic asking about it.

..but I would also say take a deep breath first and don't go vomiting up all your anger and perceived injustices up onto the page. A statement of fact as you know them should suffice.

and generally try not to "demand" or talk of what you're "owed"... we've all seen where that gets one.

[Greebo]

I've seen several instances where a person felt there was an injustice in moderation started a post about it. I never saw one go unresponded to (that is not to say that I see all). If you PM all the mods and get no response I would say start a topic asking about it.

..but I would also say take a deep breath first and don't go vomiting up all your anger and perceived injustices up onto the page. A statement of fact as you know them should suffice.

and generally try not to "demand" or talk of what you're "owed"... we've all seen where that gets one.

Am I wrong in thinking that when a PM is reported, the moderators are made aware of it?

Because when I got a unilateral ORDER from a moderator here, I reported it, and raised my concerns then, and got no response.

A subsequent PM to the site administrator has also gone unanswered.

Now, if you all DON'T get PM reports, fine, I'll start over - but I don't think it unreasonable to assume that, on a message forum like this, if a PM is reported, the moderators get told about it. That's how it works on the sites I've managed.

Edited September 1, 2010 by Greebo