Hello from San Juan,

Sitting in a talk about the importance of phosphorous to early organic processes.

Haven't had time to catch up with the whole thread and my battery is down to 10%, so I'll type quick.

Yes, part of the purpose of this forum is to keep the political discussion alive with hopefully less animosity than showed up in the Cafe.

The politics forum would be an appropriate place for a thread about religion thread. I'm not sure there is enough religious traffic for a separate religious forum.

Discussion of moderation policy is appropriate for this forum. Sometimes it's hard for that not to devolve into discussion of specific moderator actions. The line is hard to draw. I'm hoping to continue to expand the moderator base under the theory that lots of mods moderate the moderation.

We're still investigating the idea of either some sort of "slashcode" method where the moderators decisions are meta-moderated and in essence everyone becomes a moderator and a meta-moderator. Another option would be rotating "moderators at large" whereby moderators are given privileges for a limited period of time. The former would probably be easier to implement, but either way, there would be more input from everyone into the moderation policy.

Any PHP hackers out there?

--
Eric

---

@SETIEric@qoto.org (Mastodon)

Hello from San Juan,

Sitting in a talk about the importance of phosphorous to early organic processes.

Haven't had time to catch up with the whole thread and my battery is down to 10%, so I'll type quick.

Yes, part of the purpose of this forum is to keep the political discussion alive with hopefully less animosity than showed up in the Cafe.

The politics forum would be an appropriate place for a thread about religion thread. I'm not sure there is enough religious traffic for a separate religious forum.

Discussion of moderation policy is appropriate for this forum. Sometimes it's hard for that not to devolve into discussion of specific moderator actions. The line is hard to draw. I'm hoping to continue to expand the moderator base under the theory that lots of mods moderate the moderation.

We're still investigating the idea of either some sort of "slashcode" method where the moderators decisions are meta-moderated and in essence everyone becomes a moderator and a meta-moderator. Another option would be rotating "moderators at large" whereby moderators are given privileges for a limited period of time. The former would probably be easier to implement, but either way, there would be more input from everyone into the moderation policy.

Any PHP hackers out there?

--
Eric

Wasn't this tried with the + and - buttons? That didn't seem to work too well as some people seemed to form groups and minus a particular persons posts into oblivion. Or am I missing something?

---

BOINC WIKI

At this point I hate no one... I am Human and will be working to do what is right by the rules as I understand. I basically went out on a limb to get discussion going... Currently today no one has been moderated...

I wanted Eric to insure that he saw this... So there will be a discussion in the moderators list about how to improve.

So in Eric's statment, he intends to add a few more moderators to insure that the things are handled as fairly as possible.

Now we have to decide, who will be the first to lay down the sword of anger?

I guess a part of that is "not" doing something that you know will be moderated...

A point of clarification if I may Pappa. When you ask about who will be the first to lay down the sword of anger, do you include Eric in the "who", and do you include yourself, and do you include the moderators as well as members?

The next line quoted that starts "I guess" suggests that you only include members, since Eric, you and other moderators will not get moderated?

Eric called me a "Troll" in the Climate threads, clearly angry with me. One of the moderators continually talks about "the group" which has upset her in the past, and she is clearly still angry with "the group" and is still seeking revenge.

So do you you get away with your anger? Are you pure and as a group, the Administrator and Moderators? You have not caused any bad feeling here with some bad decisions?

How about you lot laying down your swords and moderating, rather than massacring the members?

---

Please consider a Donation to the Seti Project.

Wasn't this tried with the + and - buttons? That didn't seem to work too well as some people seemed to form groups and minus a particular persons posts into oblivion. Or am I missing something?

The idea would be that people get a limited number of "moderation points" to use on posts. There would then be a "meta-moderation" page where people would see a few moderated posts (that they had neither written or moderated) that they could grade as either a good moderation decision or a bad moderation decision. The number of moderation points people get would depend upon how their moderation decisions were graded.

If someone moderated badly, people visiting the "meta-moderation" page would say they disagreed with the moderation. The bad moderator would get fewer moderation points in the future. People who get graded well would get more moderation points. We could even extend it to having posting points such that people who consistently get moderated down would be allowed fewer posts per day.

---

@SETIEric@qoto.org (Mastodon)

...

So in Eric's statment, he intends to add a few more moderators to insure that the things are handled as fairly as possible.

That's the spirit...throw another mod on the fire! :D

---

Reality Internet Personality

I am going to presume you forgot the sarcasm tags allow me...

...

So in Eric's statment, he intends to add a few more moderators to insure that the things are handled as fairly as possible.

[sarcasm]
That's the spirit...throw another mod on the fire! :D
[/sarcasm]

---

Please consider a Donation to the Seti Project.

Wasn't this tried with the + and - buttons? That didn't seem to work too well as some people seemed to form groups and minus a particular persons posts into oblivion. Or am I missing something?

The idea would be that people get a limited number of "moderation points" to use on posts. There would then be a "meta-moderation" page where people would see a few moderated posts (that they had neither written or moderated) that they could grade as either a good moderation decision or a bad moderation decision. The number of moderation points people get would depend upon how their moderation decisions were graded.

If someone moderated badly, people visiting the "meta-moderation" page would say they disagreed with the moderation. The bad moderator would get fewer moderation points in the future. People who get graded well would get more moderation points. We could even extend it to having posting points such that people who consistently get moderated down would be allowed fewer posts per day.

I would think that the right to post would be more closely linked to the number of posts that got moderated rather than the moderation decision.

This could still lead to mob rule - where a particular group decides to get a particular user ousted by moderating all of their posts.

---

BOINC WIKI

At this point I hate no one... I am Human and will be working to do what is right by the rules as I understand. I basically went out on a limb to get discussion going...

The point I was trying to make was not whether "you" hated anyone. It was about whether you as a moderator saw this whole discussion about problems that the members have, rather than the members having problems with the moderators, and that it maybe should be "who amongst the moderators" is going to lay the sword down first.

Pappa, I appreciate what you have done to enable this discussion to take place. It's certainly a move in the right direction.

---

flaming balloons

At this point I hate no one... I am Human and will be working to do what is right by the rules as I understand. I basically went out on a limb to get discussion going...

The point I was trying to make was not whether "you" hated anyone. It was about whether you as a moderator saw this whole discussion about problems that the members have, rather than the members having problems with the moderators, and that it maybe should be "who amongst the moderators" is going to lay the sword down first.

Pappa, I appreciate what you have done to enable this discussion to take place. It's certainly a move in the right direction.

There have already been discussions on the moderators list of appropriate behavior of the moderators. We hope that things will calm down on the boards a bit.

---

BOINC WIKI

"WE" are all members of the Seti Community, How do we make the community better and stronger. Many have tags that say they are devoting thier spare time to that end. So with a problem with communications, there has to be some way to air the problem and work towards correcting it.

That is what I am attempting to get started.

The point I was trying to make was not whether "you" hated anyone. It was about whether you as a moderator saw this whole discussion about problems that the members have, rather than the members having problems with the moderators, and that it maybe should be "who amongst the moderators" is going to lay the sword down first.

Pappa, I appreciate what you have done to enable this discussion to take place. It's certainly a move in the right direction.

---

Please consider a Donation to the Seti Project.

At this point I "Pappa" am locking the thread. Atleast for a bit nothing is going to change from where it is now. If any have issues that the would like to add before the thread is reopened please direct them to setimods at ssl.berkeley.edu That way they get included in the discussion.

Thank YOu
Regards
Pappa

---

Please consider a Donation to the Seti Project.

At the moment there is just about no other way... I have posted into the mod list that at 3:30 PDT I am going to lock the thread and we was going to look at what has been said and decide what should stay... This last bit has been respectfull, Thank You...

I hope that I can grab Eric's attention long enough to be part of that review or when he can look in.

I do know that being muzzled makes it very hard to not appear one sided on that the definition of the "rules" are. Then the rules are interpreted by many people from many countries and applied as they understand them... So a part of this should be "how" we understand the rules (both parties)...

Pappa..I am also aware that you are going out on a limb allowing this discussion. I will understand if you feel the need to delete some of my posts as being too detailed about particular events. However..I don't see any other way of airing my views with out being able to see what both sides are saying.

I know from experience on the mod list that some of the comments made there are unkind and often (to put it mildly) distortions of the truth. I do not wish this discussion to be held there. I have absolutely no faith in what goes on there.

I hope you can forgive me for putting you in this position.

---

Please consider a Donation to the Seti Project.