Question about overmoderation

[crosscountry]

Since all of the overmoderation threads are locked :


If a thread exists that breaks no rules, and a moderator locks it, is that within his right?

I'm just wondering how much the mods stick to the rules and how much they make their own rules.

My observation is that moderation of this board is much more subjective than we are told. When things become subjective, there is greater potential for abuse.

[Van Rijn]

Since all of the overmoderation threads are locked :


If a thread exists that breaks no rules, and a moderator locks it, is that within his right?

Like what? Please don't tell me you're talking about your thread today where you brought up an extremely political subject and then said you'd report others if they made political comments on it.

[Swift]

My observation is that moderation of this board is much more subjective than we are told. When things become subjective, there is greater potential for abuse.

I personally have written in the many overmoderation threads that a lot of moderation is subjective. I believe my favorite way of saying that is that the only way to make our rules not subject to interpretation is to make them about 757 pages long. Thus the set of laws of even the smallest country.

So you have been told this.

With regard to interpretation - Rule zero

0. The Spirit of the Law.

The purpose of all of these rules is to ensure that this forum remains a law-abiding, civil, and congenial place to engage in discussion. That a post complies with that spirit is a greater consideration than whether it can be defended as being within the rules.

With regard to the thread that I suspect you don't like the closure of - Rule 12

12. Politics & Religion

Due to the contentious nature of these subjects, forum participants are strongly advised to avoid discussing religious and political issues. Please don't begin or contribute to a topic that's merely going to incite or fuel a flame war.

With regard to closing threads - Rule 17

17. Moderator Actions

If there is a rule violation, then a moderator will take action. This may include: the deletion of a word or phrase (if it breaks the rules), the removal of an entire post (if it is beyond redemption, or if it's a spam, etc.), the merging of a new thread with an existing one on the same topic, the closing of a thread if it wanders too far off-topic or gets too heated, a gentle warning to a user or users, a not-so-gentle-warning, and as a last resort, the banning of a user.

And before you complain that the "closing of the thread" only mentions "... gets too heated", I made a decision to close the thread BEFORE it got too heated on a topic that frankly you should have known better than to even start a thread on BAUT. You are talking about what is probably the single most debated topic in US politics in the last 3 years. I am not going to wait until people are fighting about it and I have to infract and suspend people.

Prevention is a much better treatment than amputation.

[antoniseb]

... If a thread exists that breaks no rules, and a moderator locks it, is that within his right?

I'm just wondering how much the mods stick to the rules and how much they make their own rules. ...

Moderators have the ability to lock any thread, and to unlock any thread. They have an obligation to use their subjective reasoning to prevent certain kinds of situations from escalating. The rules they follow are very subjective, and driven by eventual outcome, not by some giant handbook describing every possible situation and the prescribed response (i.e. objective).

If a thread is locked, and you have something new and different to add to it, simply make your case. It might be that what got it locked was that someone felt a cooling-off period was needed, or perhaps someone posted something offensive to members and got suspended, and the thread was locked to prevent piling-on while the poster was away. We don't have a calendar of threads that need to be unlocked. We wait for input that someone wants them unlocked.

Post Edit: Oooh, THAT thread. Why don't you discuss that over at Salon.com, or Reddit or something.

[BigDon]

I like the fact that this place isn't a zoo and that you actually have to think before you post.

I've become a much better writer because of it. That and meeting Gillian here.

[pzkpfw]

For board that is primarily about mainstream science, especially astronomy, there sure is a lot of angst generated from threads in the section named "General Interest | Off-Topic Babbling".

[Gillianren]

I've become a much better writer because of it. That and meeting Gillian here.

Aw . . . .

[pzkpfw]

Seriously: BigDon writing, Gillianren as editor: that's a money making book or two.

[slang]

As long as he doesn't mention San Francisco.

[whimsyfree]

Like what? Please don't tell me you're talking about your thread today where you brought up an extremely political subject and then said you'd report others if they made political comments on it.

While I still don't know what the moderators understand by the word "political", the OP's thread looked like a deliberate provocation rather than a good-faith attempt to start a discussion.

I think the rule against political comments is unnecessary. Instead there should be a rule that only astronomical discussion is allowed. I estimate that this would reduce board traffic by 72% (N=25). An added benefit is that discussion about astronomy would be much easier to find.

[Van Rijn]

While I still don't know what the moderators understand by the word "political", the OP's thread looked like a deliberate provocation rather than a good-faith attempt to start a discussion.

I don't know if it was a deliberate provocation, but I do think he was missing the significance of posting in a discussion thread.

I think the rule against political comments is unnecessary. Instead there should be a rule that only astronomical discussion is allowed. I estimate that this would reduce board traffic by 72% (N=25). An added benefit is that discussion about astronomy would be much easier to find.

And I'd probably stop visiting the board if that was done. While I very much like astronomy, I wouldn't be terribly interested if the board just discussed astronomy.

[antoniseb]

As long as he doesn't mention San Francisco.

Or worse yet, Niagara Falls.

[Strange]

I personally have written in the many overmoderation threads that a lot of moderation is subjective.

Presumably in response to people complaining that the points-based system makes moderation too rigid and why oh why can't moderators show some judgement and ...

[Swift]

I think the rule against political comments is unnecessary. Instead there should be a rule that only astronomical discussion is allowed. I estimate that this would reduce board traffic by 72% (N=25). An added benefit is that discussion about astronomy would be much easier to find.

And I'd probably stop visiting the board if that was done. While I very much like astronomy, I wouldn't be terribly interested if the board just discussed astronomy.

As I would I. I would almost certainly stop being a moderator and my use of the board would probably drop by about 72%.

[Swift]

Originally Posted by Swift
I personally have written in the many overmoderation threads that a lot of moderation is subjective.

Presumably in response to people complaining that the points-based system makes moderation too rigid and why oh why can't moderators show some judgement and ...

Exactly the opposite (I almost think you are being tongue-in-check, but I'm not sure, so I'm giving a serious answer).

It was in response to complaints like crosscountry's, that moderation is subjective. It is an acknowledgement that is it subjective, done by flawed, subjective human beings.

I am annoyed that someone would claim that not only do we not acknowledge this, but that we have hidden this from the membership.

[Strange]

Exactly the opposite (I almost think you are being tongue-in-check, but I'm not sure, so I'm giving a serious answer).

Partly. There do seem to be a similar number of complaints from both side: too subjective! too rule-bound! Which probably means it is about right.

[korjik]

one of the links is ww.foxnews.com/politics/ and you wonder why your thread was locked?

Considering that decision may determine who is the next President of the USA and you wonder why the thread was locked?

[ToSeek]

While I still don't know what the moderators understand by the word "political", the OP's thread looked like a deliberate provocation rather than a good-faith attempt to start a discussion.

I think the rule against political comments is unnecessary. Instead there should be a rule that only astronomical discussion is allowed. I estimate that this would reduce board traffic by 72% (N=25). An added benefit is that discussion about astronomy would be much easier to find.

When Phil started the forum, it was astronomy-only. He started up the OTB subforum with some reluctance in response to popular demand.

[AstroRockHunter]

I completely agree with Swift's reasoning, stated in the last post to Crosscountry's thread, for closing said thread.

This is not a demonstration of "over moderation" or "subjective application of the rules". I feel that it is a reasoned response to a topic that is purely political and completely against the stated rules prohibiting political discussions.

While I have disagreed with some moderation in the past, I never attributed said moderation to whim, malice or despotism. Our moderators do a very good job and I, for one, am glad we have the high quality moderation that we do.

[Jim]

When Phil started the forum, it was astronomy-only. He started up the OTB subforum with some reluctance in response to popular demand.

BABB had an unofficial companion thread, Intelligent Child, where everything could be discussed. Most BABBlers were also Children. I think that played into the "popular demand," but I don't recall if that came before or after IC's demise.

[Gillianren]

As I would I. I would almost certainly stop being a moderator and my use of the board would probably drop by about 72%.

I might leave altogether. I'll admit this would hardly be the cause of great wailing and gnashing of teeth to some, but I suspect there are a lot of us who are more here for the community than the science. Heck, I don't even read several of the science sections at all.

No thread that started the way that one did was not going to be a lightning rod. It was almost like a pure experiment--"who doesn't know not to play with fire?"

[Ara Pacis]

I don't think the board is over-moderated. Doesn't mean I always agree with their decisions. When I don't I usually let them know how strongly I disagree, but not in public.

If I want to discuss politics, I go elsewhere. Of course, since politics is a science to me (I've got the degree to prove it), it's hard to find anywhere on the net where it can be discussed in what I consider an appropriate manner.

[Buttercup]

I read a lot of the science; however, considering how many folks here are professionals and/or more knowledgeable than I (or I've no questions about it, or questions have been answered in the recent past elsewhere), I stick to mainly socializing.

Ara Pacis: "If I want to discuss politics, I go elsewhere."

My general policy is to avoid political discussions...even with my husband.

[Solfe]

<tongue>I find Facebook is a great place to discuss politics, especially with your in-laws.</cheek>

While BAUT is more limited in audience than FB, it is a sanity saver not to have to read what the denizens of the internets invent.

[Ara Pacis]

Ara Pacis: "If I want to discuss politics, I go elsewhere."

My general policy is to avoid political discussions...even with my husband.

True. I generally avoid husbands.

[djellison]

I think the rule against political comments is unnecessary.

I'd stop visiting.

[Van Rijn]

When Phil started the forum, it was astronomy-only. He started up the OTB subforum with some reluctance in response to popular demand.

When I started on the forum (2004) most of my interest was in ATM, moon hoax and the like. A good bit of that got into astronomy, but a lot of it wasn't. And there were the OTB discussions that now are in SMAL, which often get into subjects folks like us tend to like as well: Science fiction, for example.

I'm bringing this up because it's not an astronomy/OTB split on this board, and hasn't been for as long as I've been on the board.

[Moose]

When I started on the forum (2004) most of my interest was in ATM, moon hoax and the like. A good bit of that got into astronomy, but a lot of it wasn't. And there were the OTB discussions that now are in SMAL, which often get into subjects folks like us tend to like as well: Science fiction, for example.

The old "we've just watched Enterprise and..." threads were a big highlight for me, as were the Serenity threads.