What is the responsibility of moderators on this forum? Obviously it is to enforce the rules but is it also to foster productive debate?
For example, there are many behaviors and responses that are not against the rules but would be considered poor debate etiquette. For example,
1) quoting copious amounts of text.
2) not supporting assertions and claims.
3) telling your opponent to go read your other posts / a specific book/ or take a course, if they want an answer.
4) misrepresenting or altering your opponent's position or quote.
I think most of these can be legitimate responses in the proper circumstances so mods would have to look at them on a case by case basis.
But in general, these things aren't against the rules. They are more like examples of poor debate etiquette. Is it considered the responsibility of moderators to intervene/comment when these things occur? It seems like the mods kind of do for some. For example, challenging a claim that is not substantiated.
A good parallel to this is live debates. All debates have a moderator but some are more pro-active than others. For example, in some debates the moderator just keeps track of the time speakers have and cuts them off if necessary. In others, the moderator actively challenges a debater if he believes one side is misunderstanding or seems to be dodging a particular point.
Thw purpose of moderators
Moderator: Moderators
Thw purpose of moderators
Post #1Religion remains the only mode of discourse that encourages grown men and women to pretend to know things they manifestly do not know.
Re: Thw purpose of moderators
Post #2I've been doing this because I simply don't have the time to repeat all my arguments from the beginning for each and every poster who comes along and challenges me.3) telling your opponent to go read your other posts / a specific book/ or take a course, if they want an answer.
Also, I've already made many of my arguments repeatedly in a number of threads, and at some point I'm doing the forum no favor by continually rehashing the same conversations.
Please keep in mind that some members have already read my arguments multiple times, and it's boring for them to read them yet again.
Re: Thw purpose of moderators
Post #3Philbert wrote:I've been doing this because I simply don't have the time to repeat all my arguments from the beginning for each and every poster who comes along and challenges me.3) telling your opponent to go read your other posts / a specific book/ or take a course, if they want an answer.
You don't have the time to post a link to your own writings? Instead you expect others to find your responses out of hundreds?
Also, strange that you don't have the time considering you do have the time to make 500 posts in less than 1 month.
Philbert wrote: Also, I've already made many of my arguments repeatedly in a number of threads, and at some point I'm doing the forum no favor by continually rehashing the same conversations.
In those cases i think a simple link to the post(s) is sufficient.
Really? You are that concerned about the boredom of readers?Philbert wrote: Please keep in mind that some members have already read my arguments multiple times, and it's boring for them to read them yet again.
Religion remains the only mode of discourse that encourages grown men and women to pretend to know things they manifestly do not know.
Re: Thw purpose of moderators
Post #4You seem to be under the impression that it's my obligation to serve you. Sorry dude, not true.You don't have the time to post a link to your own writings? Instead you expect others to find your responses out of hundreds?
I do make a good faith effort to serve those who serve me by filling the threads with thoughtful interesting reading. But I'm not going to type up a 1,000 word review for someone whose post contains nothing but a ten word demand.
Yes, I've already been overly generous with my remarks. If you wish to kick my butt, that would be a reasonable point to make.Also, strange that you don't have the time considering you do have the time to make 500 posts in less than 1 month.
Should it interest someone to read my posts, they are welcome to do so, and any member's posts are very easily found.
But I take no responsibility for serving whiny brats sitting on their lazy fannies making rude demands, whoever they may be.
If you want such a link, go get it yourself, I am not your Mama.In those cases i think a simple link to the post(s) is sufficient.
Actually I am, because if I bore them too much, they stop reading my posts.Really? You are that concerned about the boredom of readers?
Get a life scourge99, and welcome to my ignore list.
- otseng
- Savant
- Posts: 20534
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
- Location: Atlanta, GA
- Has thanked: 197 times
- Been thanked: 337 times
- Contact:
Re: Thw purpose of moderators
Post #5Moderators are only expected to enforce the rules. This alone keeps us busy. It would take up way too much time to also foster productive debate. It should be the forum members' responsibility to foster productive debate.scourge99 wrote: What is the responsibility of moderators on this forum? Obviously it is to enforce the rules but is it also to foster productive debate?
-
- Guru
- Posts: 2301
- Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 10:24 am
Re: Thw purpose of moderators
Post #7That must be a rather lengthy list by now, from so many here who keep telling you the same thing, those whiny brats making rude demands for something valid and credible.Philbert wrote:
But I take no responsibility for serving whiny brats sitting on their lazy fannies making rude demands, whoever they may be.
Get a life scourge99, and welcome to my ignore list.
But then, I must be so very ignorant to not have concluded that trolling these forums repeating the same fallacies over and over, is a life, or at the very least, the pursuit of one.
Re: Thw purpose of moderators
Post #8I only have problems with #2 on your list. Supporting your assertions is part of the rules on this forum (rule#5). I think moderators should be on top of enforcing that rule. The person making the complaint should include specifics. For instance, one member kept misrepresenting my view on a matter, and I even specifically asked that member to show me where my view involved what she was saying. The person could not do it and instead misstated my view again. I reported it but nothing was done. If this forum becomes another YouTube where people can say anything and not have to back it up, then it loses some value in my judgment as any illogical and unevidenced based DEBATE would lose value.scourge99 wrote: What is the responsibility of moderators on this forum? Obviously it is to enforce the rules but is it also to foster productive debate?
For example, there are many behaviors and responses that are not against the rules but would be considered poor debate etiquette. For example,
1) quoting copious amounts of text.
2) not supporting assertions and claims.
3) telling your opponent to go read your other posts / a specific book/ or take a course, if they want an answer.
4) misrepresenting or altering your opponent's position or quote.
I think most of these can be legitimate responses in the proper circumstances so mods would have to look at them on a case by case basis.
But in general, these things aren't against the rules. They are more like examples of poor debate etiquette. Is it considered the responsibility of moderators to intervene/comment when these things occur? It seems like the mods kind of do for some. For example, challenging a claim that is not substantiated.
A good parallel to this is live debates. All debates have a moderator but some are more pro-active than others. For example, in some debates the moderator just keeps track of the time speakers have and cuts them off if necessary. In others, the moderator actively challenges a debater if he believes one side is misunderstanding or seems to be dodging a particular point.
Re: Thw purpose of moderators
Post #9If productive debate involves making sure that when ALL members engage in DEBATE that involves backing up their claims with logic and/or evidence then the moderators should be enforcing that. One reason is because those are part of your rules. If you don't enforce that rule then people won't respect it. If those rules aren't enforce then that usually leads me having to play like a moderator or I end up having to PRESS the person who keeps making REPEATED unsubstantiated claims to retract or support their view.otseng wrote:Moderators are only expected to enforce the rules. This alone keeps us busy. It would take up way too much time to also foster productive debate. It should be the forum members' responsibility to foster productive debate.scourge99 wrote: What is the responsibility of moderators on this forum? Obviously it is to enforce the rules but is it also to foster productive debate?
I understand that moderators don't have time but it can also be that you don't have enough moderators.
Last edited by Angel on Mon Aug 19, 2013 12:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- otseng
- Savant
- Posts: 20534
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
- Location: Atlanta, GA
- Has thanked: 197 times
- Been thanked: 337 times
- Contact:
Re: Thw purpose of moderators
Post #10There is actually a procedure for unsupported claims. It takes multiple violations (admittedly this number is not defined) for a moderator to intervene. We don't have the time to intervene in every unsupported claim.Angel wrote:If productive debate involves making sure that when ALL members engage in DEBATE that they up their claims with logic and/or evidence then the moderators should be enforcing that. One reason is because those are part of your rules. If you don't enforce that rule then people won't respect it. And someone like me, if those rules aren't enforce then that usually leads me to having to play like a moderator or I end up having to PRESS the person who keeps making REPEATED unsubstantiated claims to retract or support their view.otseng wrote:Moderators are only expected to enforce the rules. This alone keeps us busy. It would take up way too much time to also foster productive debate. It should be the forum members' responsibility to foster productive debate.scourge99 wrote: What is the responsibility of moderators on this forum? Obviously it is to enforce the rules but is it also to foster productive debate?
I understand that moderators don't have time but it can also be that you don't have enough moderators.
We can always use more moderators that are qualified. Who would you recommend?