Is It Time For Moderators?

[Thomas savage]

Having someone in a different time zone might be useful. 

[sandyk]

33 minutes ago, Thomas savage said:

Having someone in a different time zone might be useful. 

 

Yes, that is done in some other forums, including Hi Fi Critic forum.

 It is a VERY big advantage when Spammers unleash a barrage of Spam when their Admin /Moderators would normally be sleeping.

 This way the Spam can often be removed within minutes, making the Spammer(s)  less keen to try again after all the time they spent getting it organised .

Even when the different time zone moderator isn't looking in much, as it is usually much quieter in the forum at those times, a member can report the Spam and usually have it fairly quickly removed.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

44 minutes ago, Thomas savage said:

Having someone in a different time zone might be useful. 

 

Yeah but people i don't like stubbornly refuse to move...oh, you mean moderators available 24/7, 🤨

[audiobomber]

0 warning points

No restrictions being applied

I feel like I'm underachieving. 😃

[Ralf11]

maybe it is time for Muderators

[wgscott]

1 hour ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Yeah but people i don't like stubbornly refuse to move...oh, you mean moderators available 24/7, 🤨

 

I would love to see you as a moderator.

 

I think you would do a fantastic job, and are uniquely qualified, due to all of your very special intellectual gifts and deep insights, not to mention your commitment to honesty and fair play.  You are the very personification of audiophile style.

[sandyk]

Hmmm. Nearly every time I see a post like the one above this one , not so long afterwards the Yes Vote appears to increase a little further.  It's now >13% ahead.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

7 minutes ago, sandyk said:

Hmmm. Nearly every time I see a post like the one [edit: now two] above this one , not so long afterwards the Yes Vote appears to increase a little further.  It's now >13% ahead.

Yep

[wgscott]

Is that before or after you subtract the banned sock puppets?

[wgscott]

1 hour ago, sandyk said:

Hmmm. Nearly every time I see a post like the one above this one , not so long afterwards the Yes Vote appears to increase a little further.  It's now >13% ahead.

 

That's right.  This is a personal referendum for you and your buddy, Swamp Thing.

[esldude]

1 hour ago, sandyk said:

Hmmm. Nearly every time I see a post like the one above this one , not so long afterwards the Yes Vote appears to increase a little further.  It's now >13% ahead.

😀

[wgscott]

1 hour ago, sandyk said:

Hmmm. Nearly every time I see a post like the one above this one , not so long afterwards the Yes Vote appears to increase a little further.  It's now >13% ahead.

 

Funny, that.  The post you refer to is one hour old.  The most recent "Yes" vote is four hours old.  So you are just making shit up to suit your agenda.  Again.

[Ralf11]

8 minutes ago, wgscott said:

 

Funny, that.  The post you refer to is one hour old.  The most recent "Yes" vote is four hours old.  So you are just making shit up to suit your agenda.  Again.

 

He is the inventor of SKEW

[Allan F]

4 hours ago, wgscott said:

 

Funny, that.  The post you refer to is one hour old.  The most recent "Yes" vote is four hours old.  So you are just making shit up to suit your agenda.  Again.

 

Funny that but, IMO, it's pretty hard to view the unnecessary bickering and insults being exchanged between those for and those against moderation as anything but an argument in favour of it.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 hour ago, Allan F said:

 

Funny that but, IMO, it's pretty hard to view the unnecessary bickering and insults being exchanged between those for and those against moderation as anything but an argument in favour of it.

 

Hi Allan, presumably your recent YES vote was influenced by this. You waited quite a long time to cast your vote.

[Allan F]

4 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Hi Allan, presumably your recent YES vote was influenced by this. You waited quite a long time to cast your vote.

 

Hi David,

That would be a reasonable inference to be drawn.

[PeterSt]

16 hours ago, wgscott said:

Is that before or after you subtract the banned sock puppets?

 

Your avatar socks. So ...

[serendipitydawg]

Surely there are more than 123 members of CA? Assuming there are, those who have voted are a minority (possibly a very small one).

 

Marce really nailed it with this comment, particularly the highlighted bit.

 

"To re iterate, i believe the forum works. There seam to be a few who want not moderation but censorship of any viewpoint or point of discussion that goes against their own. Discussion does need some opposite views on a audio website, otherwise the threads become a stale endless regurgitation of the same views with no conclusions. "

[Allan F]

On 12/29/2018 at 4:04 PM, serendipitydawg said:

"I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be." 
- Isaac Asimov

 

"At the heart of science is an essential balance between two seemingly contradictory attitudes - an openness to new ideas, no matter how bizarre or counter-intuitive they may be, and the most ruthless skeptical scrutiny of all ideas, old and new. That is how deep truths are winnowed from deep nonsense." - Carl Sagan

 

Moderation will inevitably try & remove all the "most ruthless skeptical scrutiny"

 

Somehow, I sincerely doubt that Isaac Asimov was referring to individuals who hijack or derail threads because they object to the OP's premise in soliciting opinions, notwithstanding that they are politely asked not to do so. Nor do I believe that Carl Sagan was suggesting that personal attacks serve as a legitimate form of "the most skeptical ruthless scrutiny of all ideas, old and new".

 

IMO,  your prediction is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the context of the words you quote as they apply to the AS forum.

[Jud]

8 minutes ago, Allan F said:

 

Somehow, I sincerely doubt that Isaac Asimov was referring to individuals hijacking or derailing threads because they object to the OP's premise in soliciting opinions. Nor do I believe that Carl Sagan was suggesting that personal attacks served as a legitimate form of "the most skeptical ruthless scrutiny of all ideas, old and new".

 

IMO,  your conclusion is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the context of the words you quote as they apply to this forum.

 

I don't blame anyone for being concerned that moderators might tend to be harder on viewpoints opposed to their own, because I can't assure anyone that people who aren't even identified yet will be uniformly fair.

 

That's one reason I suggested some form of moderation by the OP.  Anyone who feels moderation in one thread is unfair can choose others or start their own.

[Allan F]

24 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

I don't blame anyone for being concerned that moderators might tend to be harder on viewpoints opposed to their own, because I can't assure anyone that people who aren't even identified yet will be uniformly fair.

 

That's one reason I suggested some form of moderation by the OP.  Anyone who feels moderation in one thread is unfair can choose others or start their own.

 

Surely, it depends on the ground rules for moderation. Because of my distaste for censorship, I believe that less is more when it comes to moderation. IMO, however, moderation to address the abuses I cited in my post can hardly be described as unfair, and should be consistently applied. That would be difficult with OPs.

 

As usual, the devil is in the details.

[Jud]

52 minutes ago, Allan F said:

 

Surely, it depends on the ground rules for moderation. Because of my distaste for censorship, I believe that less is more when it comes to moderation. IMO, however, moderation to address the abuses I cited in my post can hardly be described as unfair, and should be consistently applied. That would be difficult with OPs.

 

As usual, the devil is in the details.

 

Exactly, the details. What are abuses to you may be someone else's ability to have a frank discussion. What is a technical objection to you may be someone else's attack on personal credibility, or vice versa. What is appropriately light moderation to you may be allowing an unprofitable argument to go on unchecked for someone else.

 

If I were confident we could all agree on exactly where and when moderation was required, I'd think site wide moderators might have a better chance of working. But since it is precisely arguments and misbehavior that create a need for moderation, why should we expect uniform happy agreement on when, where and how moderators should act? In my own view it is better to anticipate disagreement and allow users to "vote with their feet" regarding which threads and moderation styles they prefer.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

34 minutes ago, Allan F said:

 

Surely, it depends on the ground rules for moderation. Because of my distaste for censorship, I believe that less is more when it comes to moderation. IMO, however, moderation to address the abuses I cited in my post can hardly be described as unfair, and should be consistently applied. That would be difficult with OPs.

 

As usual, the devil is in the details.

 

I wager it would be hard to find anyone not in favor of free speech and the Winston Churchill quote is apt..."....but if anyone says anything back its an outrage". So now we have a dilemma, I wager very few want their threads constantly derailed, be abused, be subject to snarky remarks for the amusement of a small bunch and in the name of free speech (cue the snarky ones).

 

I think it is evident that the old system doesn't work. As someone put it "it's toxic" and see ya later. As said if moderation is not enhanced I will also go that way.In fact I already did. Its voting with your feet. It has nothing to do with snarky comments about "petulant behaviour" or BS comments about forcing Chris to do anything.

 

So how do you balance and reconcile this? Ideally you get a dozen or more CC's on the job that don't sleep and have no life. Not gonna happen. You get Jud and more like him on the job. Not gonna happen. Consider OP being moderator. Will some be unfair, petty, biased, stifle dissent and opposing views. Yes. Unfortunate,  so don't enter those people's threads again. The offenders will soon declare themselves. Start your own thread or choose ones to your liking. If balanced opposing views is your thing , without snarks, choose OP's with that style (hopefully most will step up to the challenge). If you want a purely subjective or not discussion it will likely be there or start one.

 

 

[Allan F]

1 hour ago, Jud said:

If I were confident we could all agree on exactly where and when moderation was required, I'd think site wide moderators might have a better chance of working. But since it is precisely arguments and misbehavior that create a need for moderation, why should we expect uniform happy agreement on when, where and how moderators should act? In my own view it is better to anticipate disagreement and allow users to "vote with their feet" regarding which threads and moderation styles they prefer.

 

The content of this thread and the history of the forum is more than enough proof that it is completely unrealistic to believe that we could all agree on when moderation is appropriate, and therefore that should not be the goal. OTOH, have you considered the possibility or, IMO, the likelihood that granting the power to moderate to every OP will lead to a lot more moderation than if limited to site wide ones?

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

31 minutes ago, Allan F said:

OTOH, have you considered the possibility or, IMO, the likelihood that granting the power to moderate to every OP will lead to a lot more moderation than if limited to site wide ones?

 

Allan, that's a given. Every poster would be a moderator. I'm not following how that addresses or even if you seek to address what Jud and I have been saying about OP based moderation.

Cheers

David