What does Mod+ mean?

Actually, officially, it isn't. This is what it is:

WHAT IS
mod-plus-original.jpg


Now that we've been at the Skeptiko forum thing for a while we've noticed there are some discussion that need special moderation. People who accept that scientific materialism isn't a workable idea generally will be a good fit for these threads as the discussions generally explore what lies beyond the assumption that "consciousness is an illusion created by biological robots" (for more on this see: http://www.skeptiko.com/229-5-things-about-skeptiko/).

If you're not a good fit for these threads we may ask you to move over to The Believer Versus Skeptic Debates forum where we hash out debates about science and spirituality from a prove-it-all-from-the-ground-up perspective. If you're generally skeptical of the material presented in the Skeptiko podcast you're probably a good fit for this forum.
Last edited: Nov 15, 2013

http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/forum-rules-please-read-before-posting.4/

The second paragraph implies that Skeptics should stick to the CD forum. Which makes having other sub-forum threads MOD+ or not MOD+ redundant and meaningless, and just creates confusion. (Or maybe what's written up there intends something else I can't clearly see, but if so it's badly written.)


I think the explanation fits rather perfectly with how I interpreted it from the beginning, don't you think?
 
Actually, officially, it isn't. This is what it is:

WHAT IS
mod-plus-original.jpg


Now that we've been at the Skeptiko forum thing for a while we've noticed there are some discussion that need special moderation. People who accept that scientific materialism isn't a workable idea generally will be a good fit for these threads as the discussions generally explore what lies beyond the assumption that "consciousness is an illusion created by biological robots" (for more on this see: http://www.skeptiko.com/229-5-things-about-skeptiko/).

If you're not a good fit for these threads we may ask you to move over to The Believer Versus Skeptic Debates forum where we hash out debates about science and spirituality from a prove-it-all-from-the-ground-up perspective. If you're generally skeptical of the material presented in the Skeptiko podcast you're probably a good fit for this forum.
Last edited: Nov 15, 2013

http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/forum-rules-please-read-before-posting.4/

The second paragraph implies that Skeptics should stick to the CD forum. Which makes having other sub-forum threads MOD+ or not MOD+ redundant and meaningless, and just creates confusion. (Or maybe what's written up there intends something else I can't clearly see, but if so it's badly written.)
Yeah, this doesn't really explain why the mod+ label would be used. It tells you that some people are supposed to stay away altogether from the various consciousness forums and Alex's podcast threads. But it doesn't explain what you're supposed to do with the mod+ label in threads which don't have anything to do with consciousness, or why you would have a mod+ designation in those parts of the forum where "biological robot" discussions are already disallowed.

To be honest, I don't think it is anything more than a "keep out" sign. That's why these attempts to look for some sort of explanation for its presence are useless. When Jim Smith puts it on an ID thread, it means "keep out, Paul". I'm not sure why malf, steve001, and Paul are trying to figure out how to make it so that they can participate in mod+ threads. Why bother?

Linda
 
To be honest, I don't think it is anything more than a "keep out" sign. That's why these attempts to look for some sort of explanation for its presence are useless. When Jim Smith puts it on an ID thread, it means "keep out, Paul". I'm not sure why malf, steve001, and Paul are trying to figure out how to make it so that they can participate in mod+ threads. Why bother?
I'm not necessarily trying to figure out how to participate. I'm complaining primarily because

Mod+ = keep out X, Y, and Z

is a ridiculous default. Put those damn threads in C&S or EC&S, where we are already banned.

I don't know why this is turning into such a big deal. Do thread starters simply not have the balls to state the reasons for Mod+ tag?

~~ Paul
 
I'm not necessarily trying to figure out how to participate. I'm complaining primarily because

Mod+ = keep out X, Y, and Z

is a ridiculous default. Put those damn threads in C&S or EC&S, where we are already banned.

I don't know why this is turning into such a big deal. Do thread starters simply not have the balls to state the reasons for Mod+ tag?

~~ Paul
The reason people are using mod+ is because they don't want you derailing their threads in "other". I thought being confined to CD meant you were confined to CD, but you have been using "other" as a loophole to sneak "stuck on stupid" out of it's corner where it belongs.
 
I'm not necessarily trying to figure out how to participate. I'm complaining primarily because

Mod+ = keep out X, Y, and Z

is a ridiculous default. Put those damn threads in C&S or EC&S, where we are already banned.

I don't know why this is turning into such a big deal. Do thread starters simply not have the balls to state the reasons for Mod+ tag?

~~ Paul
Yes, it's ridiculous. Did you expect something different?

Linda
 
. When Jim Smith puts it on an ID thread, it means "keep out, Paul". I'm not sure why malf, steve001, and Paul are trying to figure out how to make it so that they can participate in mod+ threads. Why bother?

Linda
I'm not.
 
Ah, apologies, then to Steve, malf and Paul. You just wanted it to make sense.

I've sent you a PM with my advice.

Linda
 
Banning you would make much more sense, but Alex likes to keep you around to point at.

Oh that would be so sooooooo good ! Some of my happiest moments have been on discovering Linda's bannings. Pure joy
 
  • Like
Reactions: K9!
We'll we have some clear guidance now:
Thanks for asking. This board welcomes both skeptics and proponents, but in some cases, proponents wish to have discussions without the skeptical input. I won't go into why and judging from your posts so far you can probably figure that out for yourself. MOD+ designates a thread as skeptic-free. There are a certain number of people who this applies to and I know who they are.

There is a subforum called Critical Discussions where the skeptics can post anything they like and you cannot have a MOD+ thread there. That's also our busiest subforum.

The Mod+ tag has nothing to do with the content of any post, just who you are.
 
We'll we have some clear guidance now:


The Mod+ tag has nothing to do with the content of any post, just who you are.
That's correct. It's too difficult to judge by individual posts, so your entire posting history is taken into account. Once you've established who you are and how you treat controversial subjects the MOD+ may apply to you based on whether the community considers you dogmatic in your positions or not.
 
If certain people can only post in the critical discussions section, then what is the point of mod+, if mod+ is just to keep those same people out of threads in other parts of the forum? I'm confused...
 
If certain people can only post in the critical discussions section, then what is the point of mod+, if mod+ is just to keep those same people out of threads in other parts of the forum? I'm confused...

They do post in other forums, but critical discussions is specifically theirs. MOD+ is so that people have the option of now allowing them on certain threads.
 
That's correct. It's too difficult to judge by individual posts, so your entire posting history is taken into account. Once you've established who you are and how you treat controversial subjects the MOD+ may apply to you based on whether the community considers you dogmatic in your positions or not.

If it was about who is dogmatic in their approach it would be a different list.

It would actually probably be beneficial to have a serious discussion about what it really means to be dogmatic in one's position. I suspect that most of us are more dogmatic than we think ourselves to be, and that most others are less dogmatic than we think them to be.

To really do the discussion right, it would have to not take the actual positions into account. Dogmatism is about how one arrives at a position, not the actual position itself.
 
If it was about who is dogmatic in their approach it would be a different list.

It would actually probably be beneficial to have a serious discussion about what it really means to be dogmatic in one's position. I suspect that most of us are more dogmatic than we think ourselves to be, and that most others are less dogmatic than we think them to be.

To really do the discussion right, it would have to not take the actual positions into account. Dogmatism is about how one arrives at a position, not the actual position itself.
You are missing the point. The point is to use a derogatory term, not discuss whether the term is applied appropriately. Discussing whether the term is applied appropriately is something CDers would do. Craig is not a CDer.

Linda
 
Back
Top