Global Warming: Are Sea Levels Rising?

Thank you, Alex. I have unbanned @james_robertson and PMed him to let him know that he has been unbanned and can resume posting.

 

In that spirit, Laird, for the purpose of general discussion about moderation policy (and not about moderation specifics here about which I've had my say already - although I think they validate the concerns of those who've made grievances against an authoritarian style), let me suggest reading these little articles by people who are knowledgeable in the field (and also the comments from forum runners below). From Community Spark: Building Online Communities:
The real purpose of forum moderators revealed
Always avoid repressing your members

 

I'm kind of unsure what you're referring to by "that", Alex. I think you mean we discussed whether to consult with the forum community on moderation principles? Yes, I floated that idea, and nobody got behind it, but I don't remember that we reached any definitive conclusions on it. Happy to be proved wrong if you have quotes to the contrary (and yes, you have my permission to quote anything I've said in those private moderation discussions publicly, so long as you grant me the same privilege - I don't think any of us has said anything that we'd be embarrassed or ashamed to have made public, it was all very civilised).

And yes, several times in our private conversations I wondered whether I was a bad fit for the moderation team, and whether I should stand down, since all I did was advocate for principles that nobody else supported. In hindsight, I kind of think it was so inevitable that we would part ways that I ought not to have joined the team in the first place! Oh well, we live and learn, and hopefully part ways with mutual respect.

I'm not sure what the point of a private conversation would be other than to exchange a perfunctory:

"You agree with this article?"
"Yep".
"Me too! You think the Skeptiko moderation team should take its perspective to heart?"
"Yep!"
"Me too".

Perhaps, though, Ian has some more imaginative ideas for a conversation! I welcome his PM!

 

And this is precisely why relatively precise policy can help. In the "obvious" case, the policy will agree with common sense ("obviousness"). In the "knife edge" case, it will make for a relatively ready, repeatable and predictable decision - saving you decision-making time, which, I gather, is one of your priorities, as well as giving posters foreknowledge as to when and why they will be banned if they do this or that - rather than the current situation, which is that people aren't quite sure what will get them banned, especially in the light of recent temp-bannings by Alex (in particular that of Malf), which have been, to many of us, inexplicably rash and intemperate.

Now you're talking specifics. Nice! Granted, there will always - as with any behavioural code interpreted by humans - be room for judgement, but, despite that, these separate points that you raise could be developed into a coherent and reliable policy, and it needn't be terribly verbose. The point of it would be for people to be able to predict when a moderator will take an action, and why. If (when) deficiencies are found, they could be corrected.

Those (knowing when and why moderation action would be taken) are not so unreasonable a couple of criteria to be provided, surely, and we needn't begrudge forum members and potential forum members that clarity on fear of turning ourselves into artificially intelligent automatons, surely?

 

So many words in my last response! Here's something terser - what I should have said in response to the above:

Either you can provide some sort of balancing function for the specific criteria you list there - in which case, great, we have our moderation policy - or you don't have a single balancing function, and use a different one each time - in which case, your moderation is inconsistent. Doesn't it have to be one or the other?

 

Sure, I've said my piece. Would be very keen for Andrew9 to rejoin this thread and share his expertise.

 

But still, is there anything of a such an intimate or personal nature that it can't be shared with the rest of us?

 

... and not to give a running commentary

"hey guys, we're having a great time in our private conversation"​

as it proceeds.

 

Perhaps the deniers don't want Andrew9's views to be public?

 

Interesting and serious question raised there.

 

Anything you feel more enlightened about? Any shift in your position?

 

You can lead a horse to water...

 

I was late reading much of the above but I can say we seem at least to have a better understanding of each others point of view...

 

Doh! Alex may be right, CO2 may not be the biggest problem:

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-40669449