...supported by Sapientia demanding I have a PhD to post anything and that my knowledge on the subject was not even adequate - who then followed me into another OP and continued the attack. — MikeL

And that's your impartial assessment of how the situation unfolded, is it? Quite preposterous.

Case in point.

Case in point. — MikeL

What? I should not have called attention to the one-sided and misleading nature of your account of the events?

Accordingly, my moderation priorities are directed towards filtering sense from nonsense, and kindness from unkindness, more so than spelling from mis-spelling, philosophy from non-philosophy, educated from ignorant. — unenlightened

I think the site is doing well to find this balance you mention above and no doubt sometimes mistakes are made in ascertaining the correct application of this filter, but I believe each of you are willing to listen and that is the first and most important aspect to moderation and shows a sense of being humble that I respect. This thread is an example of that.

In saying that, each of you have a level of expertise that differentiate and I think that it is important to close those existing gaps by pulling more focus on this expertise. The level of absurd posts in the philosophy of science is an example of where this gap is clear that causes me to avoid it.

It is not poor conduct. If you think you are a wonderful musician but you sound like a damaged trumpet, having experts in the field tell you that you sound like a damaged trumpet may hurt your feelings, but it is probably a reality check that you need.

With regards to the suggestion that we ought to send a message before deletion, I raised it in the moderator forum, and, after consideration of the pros and cons, we took a vote and unanimously voted against it as a general rule of thumb.

The main problems were that it would be less responsive - are we supposed to wait and see? - and pose a risk of causing a greater problem further down the line, due to inaction - the problem can multiply in correspondence with the number of respondents if they're all at risk of having their replies deleted along with the discussion as a whole.

With regards to sending a message after deletion, most of us - myself included - were in agreement that it's not always necessary or warranted, but it's preferable, and is something we ought to do in most cases, and actually do do in many cases. Only one member of staff disagreed, with the reason being that members have recourse to the feedback forum, or can contact us directly, for any such queries or complaints.

having experts in the field tell you that you sound like a damaged trumpet may hurt your feelings, but it is probably a reality check that you need. — TimeLine

Read the OP

Read a book?

The level of absurd posts in the philosophy of science is an example of where this gap is clear that causes me to avoid it. — TimeLine

This says more about you than me, that you choose to vent your opinion in such a "righteous" way instead of putting your money where your mouth is.

Maybe you will be ready to go farther than every detractor has gone before, and prove me wrong by more than general reference to the contemporary state of science.

If you cannot, then do not be surprised if I say that your opinion is not worth... squat.

And that's your impartial assessment of how the situation unfolded, is it? Quite preposterous. — Sapientia

The question you pose is delivered in a passive aggressive way, isn't it?
The "Quite preposterous" is not something that I would expect to read from a member who is a moderator. A moderator could rise above that kind of 'noise' or as I have said before stop putting out "tainted meat".

The question you pose is delivered in a passive aggressive way, isn't it? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

It's a criticism made in the form of a rhetorical question. Does that make it passive-aggressive? I could have been more direct by simply stating my criticism, as I did subsequently. Does that make it aggressive-aggressive? The truth is that I was just being frank, and the way that I chose to do so was a stylistic irrelevance.

The "Quite preposterous" is not something that I would expect to read from a member who is a moderator. A moderator could rise above that kind of 'noise' or as I have said before stop putting out "tainted meat". — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Why would I refrain - or feel that I ought to refrain - from honestly expressing myself in such an inoffensive way? I'll rise above your expectation that I conform with your personal standard where it conflicts with my own. Your standard seems to largely consist in favouritism, and I've clearly fallen out of your favour as of late. I'm sorry that I'm not as saintly as unenlightened or Apathy Kills, but at least I'm true to myself.

I think it's a bit on the lenient side, which is probably for the best. Perhaps there have been cases of over-censorship, I'm not aware of any.

Thank you very much to all the moderators who take the time to keep this place as spam and troll free as it is!

By and large, it is unsurprising that the people who post on the site on average like the way it is run. It's a bit like asking meat eaters if they like meat. 'More meat or less meat, or just the right amount?'

A more interesting question would be, 'what are you trying to do on the site?' — unenlightened

This is indeed an apt analogy. Another question that it suggests would be: "Which fellow participant should we eat next?"

Why would I refrain - or feel that I ought to refrain - from honestly expressing myself in such an inoffensive way? I'll rise above your expectation that I conform with your personal standard where it conflicts with my own. Your standard seems to largely consist in favouritism, and I've clearly fallen out of your favour as of late. I'm sorry that I'm not as saintly as unenlightened or Apathy Kills, but at least I'm true to myself. — Sapientia

Sapientia, rest easy that I have no "expectations" of you. The title of the thread is Moderation Standards, meaning it is about how others view the degree of moderation, not one moderator specifically.

I didn't agree with @SophistiCat and then "run off" and make a poll, but, of course, I didn't tell him to "beat" it either. He's entitled to complain and you're entitled to disagree. Other mods are also free to agree or disagree with either side. It's disappointing that you feel unfairly treated but there is no evidence you were in my view.

Another question that it suggests would be: "Which fellow participant should we eat next?" — Pierre-Normand

Let the TPF Hunger Games begin!

Thank you, Michael.

A more interesting question would be, 'what are you trying to do on the site?' — unenlightened

To communicate with people like yourself, on subjects more-or-less philosophical.

I'm out to make the world substantially better — unenlightened

Yikes! I take back my words :P

The level of absurd posts in the philosophy of science is an example of where this gap is clear that causes me to avoid it. — TimeLine

Yeah, that's basically my concern. @Bitter Crank made light of the way I had put it elsewhere, but I don't think that my stance is ridiculous. If people start to avoid a forum, that's a problem.

Sapientia, rest easy that I have no "expectations" of you. The title of the thread is Moderation Standards, meaning it is about how others view the degree of moderation, not one moderator specifically. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Well, you do by implication, as I am of course a moderator. Unless you've retracted your previous comment. You chose to single me out and make an example of me. All of which I have no problem with. I can handle criticism, and the whole purpose of this discussion is to give feedback about moderation.

This says more about you than me, that you choose to vent your opinion in such a "righteous" way instead of putting your money where your mouth is.

Maybe you will be ready to go farther than every detractor has gone before, and prove me wrong by more than general reference to the contemporary state of science.

If you cannot, then do not be surprised if I say that your opinion is not worth... squat. — Hachem

This is just golden. :D I quite literally could not stop laughing. I love you, man.

The truth is that I was just being frank, and the way that I chose to do so was a stylistic irrelevance. — Sapientia

It was provocative, impolite, and unnecessary.

I am glad I made your day. Your reply is another sample of your worth.

If people start to avoid a forum, that's a problem — SophistiCat

Did you give them a reason to stay with the quality of your posts, or is it so much easier to look for a scapegoat and avoid looking at your own shortcomings?

edit: I have been a member less than 3 weeks. What about you and your Friends?

Okay, so in practice, what would you actually do differently than now? Don't get me wrong these are all nice words and all, but it's at a very general level. What are your actual proposals? — Agustino

My moderating practice has been on display for long enough. I'm really more interested in what other people think they are doing.

The level of absurd posts in the philosophy of science is an example of where this gap is clear that causes me to avoid it.

↪MikeL It is not poor conduct. If you think you are a wonderful musician but you sound like a damaged trumpet, having experts in the field tell you that you sound like a damaged trumpet may hurt your feelings, but it is probably a reality check that you need. — TimeLine

I agree entirely with both points. However, when someone performs open heart surgery on my ego without anaesthetic, I want them to have a very steady hand and know what they are doing; saintliness would be too much to ask, but I'd want them to have their sadism and aggression under close control.

I'm out to make the world substantially better, by promoting communication and mutual understanding.
— unenlightened

How's that going for you? — Hanover

You still here? Not very well I'm afraid. :p

I agree entirely with both points. However, when someone performs open heart surgery on my ego without anaesthetic, I want them to have a very steady hand and know what they are doing; saintliness would be too much to ask, but I'd want them to have their sadism and aggression under close control. — unenlightened

I would prefer a very good diagnosis, and not mere prejudice.

The truth is that I was just being frank, and the way that I chose to do so was a stylistic irrelevance. — Sapientia

Function over form. Here's Martin Luther King's speech in a frank way: racism should end.

Not very inspiring. Form is as important as content in communication.

I was a bit disappointed by how streetlightx, Baden and Thorongil were communicating with each other in the gun control thread and I hold moderators to a higher standard than posters. That was tone too. As a former moderator though I recognise how hard it is to manage tone towards someone you deeply disagree with and believe actually leads to suffering in the world.

Yikes! I take back my words :P — SophistiCat

Always happy to facilitate a little learning.

As a former moderator though I recognise how hard it is to manage tone towards someone you deeply disagree with and believe actually leads to suffering in the world. — Benkei

Amen, brother. Sometimes even we saints find ourselves in a situation where frankness is incompatible with moderation. Bite tongue, deep breath, count to ten, or possibly more.

My moderating practice has been on display for long enough. I'm really more interested in what other people think they are doing. — unenlightened

Well I'm actually not very sure what your moderating practice is. To say it's been on display for long enough is an obfuscation because I clearly am not aware which moderating decisions were yours and which weren't yours, but rather belonged to what other moderators wanted to see.

Any oversight is too much for me. I'm here because a part of me demands it of me, I don't get to keep everything to myself and remain in peace unfortunately. I'm compelled.