In light of issues we experienced yesterday, the head mods (me, Raymond Eckhart, Amelia Jordan, and Julie Mellor-Trupp), feel it is important to explain the moderator position, address expectations, and provide some reasoning for how this forum is moderated. First, the moderators in all of our forums are volunteers. We don’t have a formal training program. The head mods select and ask members to become mods based on how they conduct themselves in the forum after they join. We watch what they post, we pay attention to their comments, and we especially look for how they uphold the rules and principles that have been set forth as important to this community. All of the mods are individuals and we each have a unique moderation style. We also have our own ‘hot button’ issues and may need to be moderated ourselves once in a great while. We believe that we have the best and most dedicated group of mods on the internet, but we are still human. All that being said, we will always back moderator decisions in the forum and members must comply. If at any time you disagree with moderation, have a question for the mods, need mod help, or want to challenge a post, rule, or comment, please go to the pinned thread at the top of the page to address it, but ALWAYS respect the in the thread and do NOT mock or question them there. We have suggested a rule change to address this behavior (see link). Another suggested rule change is that any name calling (i.e. idiot, dumbass, troll, shill, etc) will result in an immediate 24hr ban and a mod will PM the offender to discuss the rules and, if needed, strategies for making sure that it doesn’t happen again. You can comment on suggested rule changes here: https://facebook/groups/SkeptiForum/permalink/1448718062046673/ We have enough members in this forum who are productive and willing to follow the rules that we can afford to lose a few if necessary. We are great at nearly 2,500 members, but some of our best threads were generated when we had fewer than 500. Second, our expectations are clearly outlined in our Rules and Principles: wiki.skeptiforum.org/wiki/Facebook_Rules_%26_Principles Our mission is stated in the New Member Guide and is very clear as well: >>The mission of the Skepti-Forum project (skeptiforum.org) is to offer a variety of forums for rational, respectful, and evidence-based exploration of important current issues related to science and technology, especially for those subjects surrounded by confusion, misinformation, and misconception. We promote the tools of skeptical inquiry and scientific reasoning to nurture an open atmosphere for exchanging ideas, sharing disagreement, and asking questions. We also believe that both experts and non-experts can contribute tools, resources, and ideas for thinking about science and scientific claims. Our goals: 1. To create easily-accessible communities across social media platforms where the public can ask questions about scientific issues. 2. To provide resources for science communicators engaging the public on social networks. 3. To challenge less-effective science communication strategies while offering evidence-based alternatives. 4. To demonstrate to the public the application of critical thinking strategies on public scientific issues.>And yes there is a reason why people holding a minority opinion are given a longer leash and passive-aggressive tactics are not moderated as quickly, or as heavily, as actively aggressive tactics. Its easy to feel comfortable in a group when you know you are in the majority. So easy, in fact, that a lot of people make a lot of pointless, snarky comments just trying to show how smart they are. (Heres a hint. That backfires.) Its much harder to hold your own and follow the conversation when you feel like you are being ganged up on. If the goal is to educate people and change minds, then what we know from cognitive psychology is that people dont learn or change their minds when they feel defensive. So, we try to keep that to a minimum. That means that people in the minority are given a wider berth. Here is a thread if anyone would like to discuss whether those assumptions are correct. https://facebook/groups/GMOSF/permalink/360913287381261/ Its also an attempt to keep the number of excuses and complaints that GMO critics, who get banned or quit, have to spread around other forums. Speaking of excuses, the reason that we dont jump on passive-aggressive tactics is that they are hard to prove intent. So we call someone out for starting a conversation and then not answering questions in real time as the group asks them. Then guess what the reply is: Geez guys, Im sorry, but I was at the emergency room with my 4 year old who has spina bifida and fell out of the tree house. Not everyones life revolves around Facebook. So we dont know if that is true or not, but we just look like a bunch of dickheads. So, yes, we moderate for passive-aggressive behavior, but there has to be a pattern.
Posted on: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 01:31:18 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015