Hiring Moderators

[brian0918]

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

That's a popular quote, but I don't see its relevance to this discussion. I can likewise cite other popular quotes in my defense - e.g. "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again" - but will we have made any progress with the discussion as a result?

I have made my recommendation for those who believe they have been wrongly acted against. If you have better recommendations for how the system should work, please elaborate.

Edited September 1, 2010 by brian0918

[SapereAude]

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.

I cannot respond to the past, especially since I wasn't involved in that incident.

What I do know for fact is

1) the admin realised that the few mods for such a rapidly growing user base were stretched thin

1a) they responded by adding more mods showing some initiative to correct the problem

2) if you PM me I will respond, I may not be the person you want a response from and I may not give the response you want, but respond I shall.

Accepting statements 1 and 2 can you move forward from this hoping for better responsiveness in the future?

edited b/c

Edited September 1, 2010 by SapereAude

[Greebo]

That's a popular quote, but I don't see its relevance to this discussion. I can likewise cite other popular quotes in my defense - e.g. "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again" - but will we have made any progress with the discussion as a result?

I have made my recommendation for those who believe they have been wrongly acted against. If you have better recommendations for how the system should work, please elaborate.

Well, for starters, Moderators should be, at a minimum, encouraged not to intervene (if not directly barred) in matters in which they are already involved.

Secondly, if a user raises questions about a moderator action, that user should actually get responses.

Thirdly, when a moderator takes action, that action should be reviewed by other moderators to confirm the correctness of the action. (Privately, of course).

Finally, when a moderator takes action, that action should not be phrased in the form of a unilateral ORDER that pretty much tells the recipient not to even bother replying: "Your rudeness is disruptive. This does not require reply from you, just change in your conduct. "

[brian0918]

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

I believe we all get it. I'll take a look at this further.

[Greebo]

I cannot respond to the past, especially since I wasn't involved in that incident.

Were you a moderator here last month?

Did you get any kind of notice when I reported the PM I received?

Accepting statements 1 and 2 can you move forward from this hoping for better responsiveness in the future?

I was prepared to move forward from this and put it behind me - but recent posts in this thread have caused me to change my mind and bring what I consider to be a very poor communication system to be brought out for examination.

I don't expect my status to be changed - I WAS rude and I certainly earned a warning - but I was absolutely appalled that the warning came *from* a moderator who was directly involved in the discussion, and apparently on his judgment alone, and at the tone of said warning.

[SapereAude]

Well, for starters, Moderators should be, at a minimum, encouraged not to intervene (if not directly barred) in matters in which they are already involved.

Secondly, if a user raises questions about a moderator action, that user should actually get responses.

Thirdly, when a moderator takes action, that action should be reviewed by other moderators to confirm the correctness of the action. (Privately, of course).

Finally, when a moderator takes action, that action should not be phrased in the form of a unilateral ORDER that pretty much tells the recipient not to even bother replying: "Your rudeness is disruptive. This does not require reply from you, just change in your conduct. "

Point 1) mods are already discouraged but not forbidden. Part of the reason for more mods was to make this more feasible.

Point 3)already in place from what I've seen

I am confused about Points 2 and 4. They seem contradictory to me unless I'm reading you wrong..

-you seem to be complaining about the response while complaining you got no response. Would you mind clarifying?

[Greebo]

Oh #5 to "how would I improve it"? I would require that moderators have a private forum here in which all communications to and from users pertaining to moderation actions be copied so all moderators could see them. This would be a hidden forum to the regular users - we'd have no way of knowing what you all said - but it would create an environment of accountability among the moderators, making it unlikely that any one moderator could act unilaterally for long and get away with it.

And to be clear - I don't *know* that this moderator acted unilaterally. I merely suspect it. Maybe that PM I received *was* endorsed by the moderators at large - but if that's the case then I think the moderators need some serious Andrew Carnegie training.

[Greebo]

Point 1) mods are already discouraged but not forbidden. Part of the reason for more mods was to make this more feasible.

Point 3)already in place from what I've seen

I am confused about Points 2 and 4. They seem contradictory to me unless I'm reading you wrong..

-you seem to be complaining about the response while complaining you got no response. Would you mind clarifying?

I got the PM in question, and raised questions about it. I got no "responses" to my questions. The PM in question seemed to clearly imply to me that no discussion on the issue was welcome, at least to the moderator in question.

[Marc K.]

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

It is perfectly clear with what I was agreeing: the quote immediately preceding.

This illustrates the point me, CapitalistSwine and Sophia are making: it is almost always argumentum ad infinitum with you. And the argument seems to have no point, it is argument for argument's sake which is unproductive, boring and childish.

Reputation is generally relevant when the author's actual performance has to be guessed at.

David Odden's reputation is relevant when you call for his removal as moderator.

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.

Au contraire, Sophia and I both defended what David Odden said -- I, in my only other post; she, in her reply to Hermes. I found his response to be tough but reasonable and thus there is no behavior to excuse. Tough responses are often appropriate on an internet forum, sometimes they work sometimes they don't. It is interesting in this case that you are the one voicing concern about David's tone and not Hermes -- he took it in stride and responded in kind.

You seem to acknowledge Mr. Odden's tendency to be abusive when you mention "thick skin."

No, I acknowledged the tendency of those who lack the integrity to examine the logic of another's response to be thin skinned.

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?

As I said, my assertions of Mr. Odden's understanding of Objectivism and his value to this forum are related to your call for his removal as moderator. And to call them just "assertions" is a thinly veiled attack which speaks to your willingness to avoid the truth of the matter. Please, don't take my word concerning David Odden's knowledge and understanding of Objectivism, evaluate it for yourself. He has over 9000 posts here which are easily accessed by viewing his profile, examine just a smattering and you will discover the truth of my assertions.

A person should be grateful when someone points out an error they made and they shouldn't take it as a universal condemnation of their character. But you haven't judged David Odden by this standard. After all, he was only pointing out Hermes error and all we have as evidence of his abuse are your assertions and those assertions have been effectively refuted by Sophia and I.

I doubt you could tell me anything about the standards of thought, or behavior, on any of the major four Objectivist forums.

Well that's a little insulting and presumptuous of you.

[DavidOdden]

I WAS rude and I certainly earned a warning - but I was absolutely appalled that the warning came *from* a moderator who was directly involved in the discussion, and apparently on his judgment alone, and at the tone of said warning.

Then it seems to me that the only issue, in terms of you, is your mistaken belief that a moderator may not take action when rudeness is aimed at him. You belief is belied by the facts -- it simply is not the case that there is a rule to the effect that you can attack moderators with special impunity. I am absolutely appalled that you would think that, so the appalleds cancel each other out. Sure, idealistically all actions by moderators would be subject to an extensive system of review and voting by a panel of experts with appropriate appeals and re-appeals. It's now more plausible that something like what you wish for can be realized given the addition of more moderators.

[Greebo]

Then it seems to me that the only issue, in terms of you, is your mistaken belief that a moderator may

Should.

Not may.

Should.

not take action when rudeness is aimed at him. You belief is belied by the facts -- it simply is not the case that there is a rule to the effect that you can attack moderators with special impunity.

But they can apparently ignore posts that had a lot of thought behind them, subsequent requests for clarification and finally dismiss them in an insulting and provoking manner, and then if the recipient of said provocation rises to the bait, invoke their authority in a totalitarian fashion.

I am absolutely appalled that you would think that, so the appalleds cancel each other out.

Sort of like that behavior there, yeah.

Sure, idealistically all actions by moderators would be subject to an extensive system of review and voting by a panel of experts with appropriate appeals and re-appeals. It's now more plausible that something like what you wish for can be realized given the addition of more moderators.

You're crossing contexts. My suggestions were a response to a direct request for input. Possibly it has not occurred to you that the addition of more moderators prompted my input on how things could be improved.

If there are as few as three moderators, my suggestions can be implemented. I know this from personal experience.

[brian0918]

Greebo: I told you this in PM and will repeat it here for everyone else: The addition of more moderators should help us avoid potential conflicts of interest like this, by allowing us to spread out the work load. We have *all* discussed in the Moderator Forum how to better avoid these types of concerns. All I can offer you is to wait and see if there is improvement.

Edited September 1, 2010 by brian0918

[softwareNerd]

I can address the mechanical details:

... a private forum here in which all communications to and from users pertaining to moderation actions be copied so all moderators could see them. This would be a hidden forum to the regular users ...

Such a sub-forum does exist, and mods do post copies of some communications there. In the past, we've generally followed a system where moderators actions are not reviewed as a default, but as an exception. The most typical case is where a mod posts copies of communications, for others mods to review. In addition, the user on the other side of the transaction will sometimes PM other moderators, asking them to review the action. I believe that system has worked well in the past. Since we now have more moderators, it may be feasible to have a standard whereby all communications are always posted for review. I would not vote for having such a rule: I'm just saying that it is more feasible given the increase in the number of moderators.

I got the PM in question, and raised questions about it. I got no "responses" to my questions. The PM in question seemed to clearly imply to me that no discussion on the issue was welcome, at least to the moderator in question.

The way you reported it (using the report button) all moderators were notified of your report.

[Dante]

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?

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=20065

Her position in this thread, as clearly as I can state it, is that if a bookseller has a particularly loose return policy, you are not cheating that bookseller if you buy a book with no intention of keeping it at the time of purchase, so long as your return is allowed under the policy.

[claire]

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=20065

Her position in this thread, as clearly as I can state it, is that if a bookseller has a particularly loose return policy, you are not cheating that bookseller if you buy a book with no intention of keeping it at the time of purchase, so long as your return is allowed under the policy.

All this fuss and hostility over one opinion. Wow. Interesting.

[Dante]

All this fuss and hostility over one opinion. Wow. Interesting.

I believe that that was simply the most concrete and easily referenced instance of disagreement between her and others on this forum, not the only one.

[Mindy]

It is perfectly clear with what I was agreeing: the quote immediately preceding.

The quote was a statement that people were upset. You agree with it? Are upset people automatically in the right? Or is there a sub-text to which you wish to add your amen, without having to state it explicitly?

This illustrates the point me, CapitalistSwine and Sophia are making: it is almost always argumentum ad infinitum with you. And the argument seems to have no point, it is argument for argument's sake which is unproductive, boring and childish.

Do look up your fallacies. I suppose you mean I have an answer to your best points? What does that imply?

Or are you saying that if I'd only stop and let you have the last word, you and CapSwine would like me? Or are you wishing, impotently, to imply that my arguments are weak? Please do be specific as to which argument, and what weakness, thanks.

Well that's a little insulting and presumptuous of you.

Let's see, you may set your limited experience up against mine, not knowing what mine is, but then feel insulted when it is pointed out to you that you come out short? Which of us knows the posting experience of both of us? You, who stated yours, or me, who read yours and knows my own? Which of us is in the position to make the comparison? I've known chickens who reasoned better than this. (Just a little oddity of speech, there, to spare you the "boredom" of my typical argument.)

Mindy

Edited September 1, 2010 by Mindy

[Dante]

I've known chickens who reasoned better than this. (Just a little oddity of speech, there, to spare you the "boredom" of my typical argument.)

I'm somewhat surprised that you think such "oddities of speech" are atypical of your posts. I think as a general rule, posters are better off without including snarky comments.

[JASKN]

The quote was a statement that people were upset. You agree with it? Are upset people automatically in the right? Or is there a sub-text to which you wish to add your amen, without having to state it explicitly?

Do look up your fallacies. I suppose you mean I have an answer to your best points? What does that imply?

Or are you saying that if I'd only stop and let you have the last word, you and CapSwine would like me? Or are you wishing, impotently, to imply that my arguments are weak? Please do be specific as to which argument, and what weakness, thanks.

I can't speak for Marc, but the impression I get is that you don't "pick your battles" here when replying. Sure, every point, implication, subtext, word choice, etc., of all posts on the forum can be debated, but they don't need to be. Only those points that a member considers important toward his interest or the specific topic he is replying to should be clarified (when needed), or explained exactly. A better thread is one where all participants edit strenuously to keep out what isn't important and to explain "perfectly" what is important.

This is an internet forum, where body language and vocal inflection are completely absent. I'm sure you realize it makes an incredible difference, mostly for the worst if the poster is not careful about the medium.

[Mindy]

I can't speak for Marc, but the impression I get is that you don't "pick your battles" here when replying.

It seems to me that I pick my battles. What criterion do you think I'm overlooking, possibly with an example? That is, what "battle" should I have left alone?

Mindy

Edited September 1, 2010 by Mindy

[CapitalistSwine]

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),

If I missed the mentioning of another chatroom incident here other than the one I mentioned, then my mistake, however if you are referring to the chat incident I recently brought up, that is not what happened, but rather the opposite.

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.

I am not concerned with the politeness or honesty element, I am concerned about overall behavior.

See here:

This illustrates the point me, CapitalistSwine and Sophia are making: it is almost always argumentum ad infinitum with you. And the argument seems to have no point, it is argument for argument's sake which is unproductive, boring and childish.

David Odden's reputation is relevant when you call for his removal as moderator.

Edited September 1, 2010 by CapitalistSwine

[RationalBiker]

All this fuss and hostility over one opinion. Wow. Interesting.

Is the quantity of opinions what matters?

[claire]

Certainly, it is, Rational (?) Biker. If a person or group cannot tolerate a single difference of opinion withou getting hostile and ganging up on the differing person, there's a problem, and it is not with the person who is disagreeing. As if happens, I, too, disagree strongly with her assessment. So what? We are not clones who all think alike. There will be divergence of opinion. Someone will be wrong. That's life.

[SapereAude]

Certainly, it is, Rational (?) Biker. If a person or group cannot tolerate a single difference of opinion withou getting hostile and ganging up on the differing person, there's a problem, and it is not with the person who is disagreeing. As if happens, I, too, disagree strongly with her assessment. So what? We are not clones who all think alike. There will be divergence of opinion. Someone will be wrong. That's life.

But it isn't a single differing opinion as stated over and over ad nauseum it is opinions and frequently exhibited behaviors. Why aren't you being given links to her offending posts to review for yourself? Why ... because two Mods have already stated that turning this into a "what's wrong with Mindy" post would be inappropriate.

[Jonathan13]

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).

I haven't requested an anti-Mindy list of posts. I simply asked for someone -- anyone -- to point me to the single thread where Mindy has been accused by Vern of appearing to advocate some form of dishonesty which is so vicious and evil that, "hell no," Mindy should not be a moderator. I didn't think it would require a lot of effort.

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.

Are you talking about Mindy's post #115? If so, she wasn't "condemning" you, she was merely stating that you were abusive in your post #109, and she wasn't criticizing your "moderatorial actions," but your behavior as a poster. I agree with her that you were abusive in that post, and needlessly so, and there's no additional knowledge of "private conversations" needed to come to that judgment since the judgment was not about you in your role as moderator.

I think maybe the question should be, "Who moderates the moderators?" or "Why are moderators allowed to abuse others?" In most forums that I've posted in over the years, moderators are usually seen as something akin to neutral jurists whose purpose is to try to eliminate insults, personality conflicts and other abuse. Even when they're not acting as moderators, they're expected to behave with a certain elevated decorum.

Your attitude in post #109 appears to be the opposite: you seem to want to inflame and degrade, and to do so from the position of untouchable moderator. It appears that you like to throw gasoline on the fire rather than trying to cool things off. It seems that you can't just politely and respectfully say that you disagree with someone, or that you think your opponent is in error, but you have to assert that his or her statement was "fundamentally dishonest," that if they don't agree with you, they are "conceptual savages" who are "incapable of concept-formation." It seems that you like to taunt people, talk down to them and attempt to intimidate them.

Now, sure, you weren't posting your abusive post in the role of moderator, but you were engaging in behavior that would get others' posts deleted instantly (I've personally had posts deleted for much less than that). I would think that forum moderators would want to lead by example rather than play the game of getting away with behavior that isn't allowed from others.

Presumably you now grasp the injustice of your selective comments, and that is the end of that.

No, I disagree that my comments were an injustice, for the reasons explained above. Are you now going to call me some names and engage in some psychologizing and Objectivist cliché smears against me?

J