Freethought & Rationalism Archive

RufusAtticus · 04-20-2003, 09:16 PM

Simple logic:

You don't test how boards treat posters by using an obvious troll.

Stormy · 04-20-2003, 09:19 PM

So are you saying this was some sort of a stunt to test the boards?

Stormy · 04-20-2003, 09:21 PM

Badfish: I can't get on CF again. Can you?

RufusAtticus · 04-20-2003, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Stormy
So are you saying this was some sort of a stunt to test the boards?

Yes. it appears to have been a stunt to test which board has better moderation.

Apparently it showed either that IIDB pays attention better or that it cares less for trolls.

wildernesse · 04-20-2003, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Shabby Chick from CF Outcast Part II agree, Seebs! I don't understand (or maybe I do) how they cannot see how one-sided the moderating often is. Personally, I think it would be a good idea to have non-theist mods in the forums that allow non-theist posts. But hey, I guess I'm a little biased, huh?

Currently, IIDB does not allow theists of any stripe to participate as moderators while it allows theists to post. Do you think that the moderation on IIDB is one-sided because theists post and are not allowed to be represented as moderators? Do you think that your "good idea" cuts both ways, and that it would be an equally good idea to have theist mods on a non-theist board (within limits, of course, in both situations)? Or do you simply support non-theists mods on CF because you feel that non-theists are more fair/intelligent/superior so they would obviously be better mods?

Would you seriously support a theistic moderator for say, Political Discussions, on IIDB (if in a position to support, ofc)? Why or why not? If no, would you support a non-theist mod for CF's News and Current Events forum? If yes, what's the difference?

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, in my book.

--tibac

seebs · 04-20-2003, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by wildernesse

I also have seen a warning that it is not to be mentioned that they were the same, and that posters should not refer to them as the same person. Posters should refer to Outspoken as Outspoken, and not as "louis"--as Sauron was doing, I believe.

It came in handy when outspoken referred to me as "Girl". I reported it with the message that if it was disrespectful to refer to outspoken other than his user name, it was equally disrespecful to refer to me as something other than my user name. His post was edited by a mod.

I think that the use of sockpuppets by moderators is ridiculous. People in power, as a general rule, should operate transparently in order to be accountable for their actions and ensure fair treatment. I think this is true of governing bodies period, whether it's legislators or internet moderators.

--tibac

Well, I have to say, given the warnings, I agree - and I do agree with your later statement about sockpuppets and transparency. Unfortunately, CF is down again (?) right now, so I can't start working on my article about why transparency is important.

Badfish · 04-20-2003, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Stormy
Badfish: I can't get on CF again. Can you?

No it looks like it is down right now, all I get is some "Apache software was installed", I wonder whats up with that.

The DNS should be well saturated throughout the web by now.

Stormy · 04-20-2003, 09:53 PM

I do not see why moderators would need to have two names.

RufusAtticus · 04-20-2003, 09:55 PM

Neither do we.

Badfish · 04-20-2003, 09:58 PM

Quote:

I think that the use of sockpuppets by moderators is ridiculous. People in power, as a general rule, should operate transparently in order to be accountable for their actions and ensure fair treatment.

They use alternate names (sock puppets, hehe that's funny word), so they can participate in heated debate without compromising their staff name.

When I was on staff there, we were encouraged to create sock puppets for this reason.

I don't think there is anything wrong with it really, as long as the person in question never uses a sock puppet to leverage a debate in favor of, or to uphold a position or view of the staff member in question using the sock puppet.

I have a sock puppet over there, but people figured it out pretty quickly, even when people knew I occasionally used it to express my disconcertment, but I don't use it anymore, so now I only use Badfish everywhere I go, except on those boards that demand you use your real name and do not allow usernames.

But the problem is, who is who? But as long as the alternate name is not abusing anything, well, heck I don't know. Deep down I now feel that it is kinda dishonest and really there is no need for a regular member. I am not sure about how honest or kosher it is for a staff member to use an alternate name.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-20-2003, 09:16 PM	#121
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	Simple logic: You don't test how boards treat posters by using an obvious troll.

04-20-2003, 09:19 PM	#122
Stormy Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: ST. LOUIS Posts: 292	So are you saying this was some sort of a stunt to test the boards?

04-20-2003, 09:21 PM	#123
Stormy Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: ST. LOUIS Posts: 292	Badfish: I can't get on CF again. Can you?

04-20-2003, 09:53 PM	#128
Stormy Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: ST. LOUIS Posts: 292	I do not see why moderators would need to have two names.

04-20-2003, 09:55 PM	#129
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	Neither do we.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.