Thw purpose of moderators

[scourge99]

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.

[Angel]

What is the responsibility of moderators on this forum? Obviously it is to enforce the rules but is it also to foster productive debate?

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.

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.

I understand that moderators don't have time but it can also be that you don't have enough moderators.

There 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.

I read your procedure and some of the discussions on it. It's too leniant because it gives too many chances and it allows too much time to pass before the issue is resolve. I'll offer my reasons for both points. Supporting your view with logic/evidence should be just as (if not more) important as civility when it comes to a DEBATE. So it should not take having multiple violations to report unsubstantiated claims to address that issue just as it doesn't take multiple violations to address personal attacks and other uncivil postings. I assume that many people join here to have a 'rational' discussion instead of just a civil one.

My point about taking too long to address the violation (or come up with evidence) is that the issue may be complicated or even forgotten about since there are many other people adding posts and bringing up new issues/aspects. The person making an unsupported claim should only be given a day at most to find the evidence and after that they at least have to admit for the time being that that they don't have any evidence and retract their claim. They can even say that they're still looking for evidence but I say 'qualify' because the claim is still unsupported. Another reason a week is too long is because sometimes the unsupported claim can be something as minor as missrepresenting someone's view which wouldn't take a week to figure out.

If someone is making an opinion, then none of my points above here apply. I also liked the part of your procedure when it talks about about the rule not applying if it's a matter of not liking the evidence, although the person not liking the evidence should give a logical or evidenced reason for their disagreement. Then perhaps it can be handled on a case by case basis.

We can always use more moderators that are qualified. Who would you recommend?

Here's my list so far:

Goat
Mithrae
Playhavock
Havoc
Theopoesis
Moses Yoder
Divine Insight
dbohm
His Name is John
Ionian Tradition
Olavisjo
Nickman
myth-one.com
OnceConvinced
Danmark

I'm sure many more people can be added but these are just some of the people who don't cause the moderators much trouble and are here to have a decent and honest discussion or debate. I'd also say you can use some people who are neither theist nor atheist but are agnostic, skeptic, freethinker, etc. Some of those types of people (mostly agnostics) are on my list.

I'm wondering if you can make it to where a person who starts a topic can also moderate their own thread (w/ all other moderators being able to deal with violations, also). I mean I know if I start a thread, I don't want anyone trying to derail it or turning it too personal and making REPEATED unsubstiantiated claims so in a sense I'm already playing a moderator role. I find that some of the things the moderators address I could deal with myself, like in one thread I started someone brought up my education which was CLEARLY irrelevant to the topic. I could've handled that myself with my own moderator comment or warning and I probably would've handled it QUICKER than your moderators who have other things to deal with. The warnings that I post in my thread would only count as strikes in my thread and not strikes on the forum overall unless I mention to the moderator team or you for the strike to count on forum overall. So I can at least ban a repeat offender from my thread unless the person appeals to a real a global moderator or unless I appeal to you that it should count as a real strike on the forum overall. To be a moderator of just a specific thread should come with some qualifications like being the thread starter, being a member for more than a year, being a good standing member, etc.

[scourge99]

Supporting your view with logic/evidence should be just as (if not more) important as civility when it comes to a DEBATE.

I agree. But, it appears that its our job to moderate whether the debate we are having with someone is productive and worthwhile. That is, the mods and the rules are here to keep things civil. The rules and the mods aren't here to try and make your debate productive.

So if someone is repeatedly avoiding difficult questions, creating strawman, misrepresenting your position,etc, you have no recourse to moderator action. You just have to ignore them.

There has been an attempt to enforce some productive debate with the "support your claims" rule, buts its pretty narrow and there are lots of ways around it as someone pointed out.

[Philbert]

Here's an idea I've had for a forum, which might appeal to some, and perhaps address some of these problems.

I came up with this while writing my own forum software. I haven't implemented the idea on a forum of my own however, because as you can see I am the world's worst diplomat, an essential skill for a forum owner.

The idea is...

Find writers whom you think are interesting, and give them their own room on your forum, to manage as they see fit, within some general guidelines set by the forum owner.

(By "room" I mean a collection of threads, such as the Christianity and Apologetics section of this forum for example.)

This would create a collection of mini-forums within the overall forum, each with it's own topic, personality, rules, mod etc.

Readers could pick the environment that suited them best. Some rooms might be tightly controlled by the owner, while others would be looser. If a reader didn't like one mod or policy, they could shift their focus to some other room.

Presumably all the rooms would address the general topic of the forum by focusing on some sub-section of that topic.

As example, there might be a room where Christians could discuss their faith without interruption from atheists, or a room for atheists to discuss their faith without interruption from fundamentalist agnostic fanatics. And of course a room where all parties could meet and duke it out.

The idea is to reward the best posters (however the forum owner defines that) and give them a position of prominence and greater control over their experience. Lesser posters might be thus encouraged to raise their game to reach this more elevated
status.

[otseng]

Supporting your view with logic/evidence should be just as (if not more) important as civility when it comes to a DEBATE.

It is important, but I don't think it should be the moderator's responsibility to always enforce infractions.

Here's my list so far:

Goat
Mithrae
Playhavock
Havoc
Theopoesis
Moses Yoder
Divine Insight
dbohm
His Name is John
Ionian Tradition
Olavisjo
Nickman
myth-one.com
OnceConvinced
Danmark

Not bad of a list. I'll take those into consideration.

I'm wondering if you can make it to where a person who starts a topic can also moderate their own thread (w/ all other moderators being able to deal with violations, also)

I'll ask the other moderators what they think of this.

[McCulloch]

Supporting your view with logic/evidence should be just as (if not more) important as civility when it comes to a DEBATE.

Yes, it is. But it also involves the potential for diving down an endless rabbit hole. Presumably the claims made in support of a claim may require support. So in practice, we only ask that evidence supporting a claim must be provided if some other debater specifically requests it.

So it should not take having multiple violations to report unsubstantiated claims to address that issue just as it doesn't take multiple violations to address personal attacks and other uncivil postings. I assume that many people join here to have a 'rational' discussion instead of just a civil one.

I would hope so. However, the process for requiring support for a claim must be more involved than incivility. I agree that the caliber of our debates would improve if more debaters would challenge the claims made by other debaters. And that unsupported claims be either supported or withdrawn in a timely manner.

[Angel]

I'm wondering if you can make it to where a person who starts a topic can also moderate their own thread (w/ all other moderators being able to deal with violations, also)

I'll ask the other moderators what they think of this.

I would've thought that you did what I proposed when you first started this forum. I couldn't have imagined you being the only one to enforce the rules as the numbers started to grow. As a worse case scenario, if you ended up with no moderators then you would probably have to let the topic starters moderate their own threads out of necessity.

[otseng]

I would've thought that you did what I proposed when you first started this forum. I couldn't have imagined you being the only one to enforce the rules as the numbers started to grow. As a worse case scenario, if you ended up with no moderators then you would probably have to let the topic starters moderate their own threads out of necessity.

Since the founding of the forum, there has been a moderating team.

As for your suggestion of the OP author moderating his thread, the moderating team is not supportive of that idea. It is a conflict of interest to debate and moderate a topic. Even moderators who participate in a thread generally avoid moderating in that thread.

[Philbert]

As for your suggestion of the OP author moderating his thread, the moderating team is not supportive of that idea. It is a conflict of interest to debate and moderate a topic.

This is resolved if the member is given control of a room, ie. sub forum. Here's an example, let's say there is a room on the forum called....

Fundamentalist Agnosticism
Moderated by Philbert

If members don't feel Philbert is modding fairly, they can abandon his room and shift their attention to other rooms. If Philbert's room receives little or no activity it can be moved to the bottom of the forum, or deleted altogether. So, like every other publication in the world, Philbert's room will sink or swim depending on the relationship he forms with his readers and writers.

The point of such an organization is to identity your best members (however that is defined by the forum owner) and reward them to encourage their continued participation. The better members are in effect taken on as partners, given some prominence and control, and made to feel important.

This gives all other members of the forum something to shoot for, a reason to improve the quality of their participation. If a new member wishes to rise in the ranks on the forum, they can do so only by consistently posting interesting posts which impress the forum owner.

Also, lazy posters with little to contribute will find themselves shut out of some rooms. As example, if I ran a room I wouldn't publish those posts that are little more than a previous post quoted in full followed by a little lazy quip.

The forum owner can list the rooms in the order of quality, as defined by the forum owner. The best rooms are listed first, followed by the more modest rooms. If a room owner doesn't want to sink to the bottom of the forum, they have to provide better conversations than at least some of their fellow room owners.

The point of this scheme is to reward quality and discourage junk content. Quality rises to the top, junk sinks to the bottom.

As it stands on most forums, there is really little incentive to post quality content. If I want to post crap all day long, I am free to do so so long as I don't spam or flame. If quality writers are not rewarded and junk posters are not discouraged, guess what happens?

[Philbert]

While I'm ranting...

Another powerful tool is to give the mod of a room the ability to screen posts BEFORE they are published.

The post is emailed to the mod first. The mod reviews the post, and if the post meets some standard the post is added to the thread. If the post is junky, or violates some policy, it is discarded.

The result of such a procedure is that junk posts and policy violations never appear on the forum even for an instant. Thus, the mods no longer need to scold people etc.

If I want my post to appear in a thread, it's up to me the poster to make sure it is worth reading and violates no policy. If I don't do that, then too bad, my post never sees the light of day. My problem, not the mods.

[A Troubled Man]

While I'm ranting...

Another powerful tool is to give the mod of a room the ability to screen posts BEFORE they are published.

The issue here is obvious and that is the fact that screening all the posts made here or any other forum is the amount of time required by people to do that.

When public forums first started to appear, they were in the form of science feeds that had little or no moderation. And, while the odd time things got out of hand with cranks and crackpots losing control of themselves, the discussions were phenomenal, interesting and very, very to the point. There was no thought or worry about hurting someones feelings because those folks were mature adults who understood that words could not hurt them. They just laughed at it all, water off a ducks back, so to speak.