I've been noticing it for a while now. Serious Discussion has taken a turn past a set of standards into the realm of absurd strictness. You can look at the Moldova Elections thread to read my argument as to why I think the thread is a viable one. The moderators do a good job of keeping threads in line, but at times, they overstep. Remember, this is an Internet forum, and while it's good to not have the wild west of yesterday that was SD, nor do we need a Soviet regime ready to convict us on suspicion alone. Just lighten up a little.

I think vrael is just getting a little too trigger happy with his modding powers.

You guys can always PM me you know. Personally I think what I've done has been reasonable, but I'm open for suggestions. As for moldova, I haven't locked it or done anything drastic, I just asked Centreri to put a stronger point of view or argument in his first post. As for possible absurd strictness, I'll admit I was keeping an unusally close eye on the homosexuality topic, but I said that in the beginning of the topic, and I think it was warranted due to the controversy of the topic, as I stated in that post. I did end up deleting a couple flames from that topic in fact. As far as my understanding goes, SD is supposed to be stricter than all the other areas on SEN, but I don't plan on making you guys do freakin research papers or anything, you know? I'm just trying to improve the quality.

And CAFG, if there's anything specific you'd like to point out, I'd like to hear it.

Sorry if you guys think I'm being unreasonable, I'm just trying to do the job of moderator best I can, and as fairly as possible.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Apr 9 2009, 8:15 pm by Vrael.

I think Vrael's doing a great job. There's way to many people throwing out their opinions and arguments as facts without anything to back them up. Requiring citations also means the people doing the debating are doing the research, therefore might actually know what they're talking about. Maybe requiring people to clearly state what the discussion will be about is a little excessive. Generally it isn't rocket science to figure out what the thread is about and discussion will form regardless. Also I'm not sure people should be forced to state their stance on the topic. Maybe they're more interested in what others think or are not really sure where they stand. Just seems it should be more of an optional thing.

But anyways, I'm all for cleaning up SD and think Vraels should keep up the good work.

I'm actually glad to have Vreal on the team -- he deletes most of the shit posts I've seen and knows how to argue. It's not the moderators' fault that the majority of posted topics fail to actually present an arguement...

And, if your going to make a claim such as this, I suggest posting proof >.>

It's a bit ridiculous to expect a citation for everything you say, there are many things that are just common knowledge in our society, and while yes, the statistics may be a bit off, it's not to the point that it's completely wrong.

A particular example is when I was posting in this topic, Vrael began deleting my posts explaining my argument, here's the PM I later sent him:

I think that mainly the "citation needed" needs to be lessened a bit, and perhaps a little more thinking be done instead of being a goober and needing everything cited.

I think that in general Vrael is a fine moderator, but I think he's going a bit over the top in a few bits of his moderation.

I already did. I gave you the title of a thread and where to find it.


Completely the wrong mentality. Not every discussion needs to be an argument. The post prior to yours did a good job offering some alternative spins for topics in SD. I also agree that Vrael is doing a good job, the best we've seen in quite a while, but that doesn't mean I don't think there is room for improvement.

Uh, did you even read my post? I explained logically why homosexuality cannot be hereditary, I never said anything about my church, I am getting sick of you ignoring everything I say just because I have a religion.

The forum is called Serious Discussion not Intelligent Debate.
Serious != Intelligent
Discussion != Debate

It seems unlikely to me that Vrael was using his moderation powers with malicious intent. It seems more plausible to me that Vrael was enforcing the rules as written and that perhaps the rule itself may be at fault here. A problem that Serious Discussion would have in the past was when someone would open a new topic simply posting "I will answer all questions about (insert serious topic)" or "(link to news article), discuss". While the forum may be called "Serious Discussion", that should never be interpreted as meaning that something is acceptable provided it is about a "serious" topic. The purpose of that particular rule is to ensure that topic posts are sufficently developed to provide a solid foundation for discussion. I will discuss a possible rewording or writing of the rule for new topics with members and the other moderators.

In the case of Centreri's topic, I feel that the topic provides a more than sufficent platform for a discussion to take place on. I also feel that it's an overreaction to attack Vrael for his post in that topic. He didn't lock the topic, nor did he even threaten to lock the topic. He just made a request. The rules as written are certainly not written with an aim of locking a topic such as that one. If the rules are written with the intention of getting a topic such as Centreri's locked or moderated, then it is the rules that are at fault, not the enforcer.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Apr 10 2009, 5:13 am by Mini Moose 2707.

Actually the one thing I do like is that people are finally getting the idea that they do actually have to give their own 2 cents about a topic they are starting.

Before things got strict people would just post a link to something and then go "Discuss"(bedazed did this with string theory).
Then when things started getting stricter they found a way to get around this, while still being completely neutral and ignorant of the topic by just saying "Well this says the world is going to end, but I don't know. What do you guys think?!"
The problem was people where just plotting random 'serious' topics that popped into their mind, just to hear other people talk about and somehow feel clever for starting the conversation. Then Vrael came in and said enough with that stupid shit, which makes it all better for me.

I just think Vrael pushes it sometimes like in Centreri's recent case.

Well, the rule is there for a reason, and as I understand it, precisely to eliminate unnecessary ambiguity. Eliminating ambiguity is important when you have a serious discussion with someone; sometimes something as simple as one word with two applicable meanings can take a discussion off on a tangent which becomes completely useless and irrelevant, something which could have been completely avoided if you had been clear in the first place.

Falkoner, in your case however I am completely confident that I took the correct action. If Moose was to dig up the post on that one and tell me I was wrong, I would step down from moderating since I'm not going to take the time to moderate my moderation in accordance with rules that don't comply with the rules I am actually supposed to moderate with. I also did speak with Moose about the particular set of posts you were referring to and I'm pretty sure I'm in the clear with him too.

Sael, in the moldova topic I didn't lock the topic or even move it to Null or anything drastic, I just told Centreri to present a better point of view/argument, whichever he prefered. Perhaps you're right and it's slightly excessive, but there's no harm done from me asking him to make the topic better. That's my intent: to make the topic better, not to argue with you guys or censor anyone from posting or to abuse moderator powers by being trigger happy or anything weird like that. Really I'd be just as happy on SEN not being a moderator, I didn't ask for it or anything, but I figured I would be able to help Moose out when he offered it, since SEN has been a valuable resource to me and it's only fair to give back some.

On a related note: If I am strict in moderating it is because of posts like this.

I'll talk with Moose again about what he wants guys, but until he tells me otherwise or changes the rules, I am going to continue to enforce the rules as I see appropriate, and that includes the "present argument or point of view" whether you guys like it or not.

Serious Discussion got boring a long time ago. Now it's just a waste of time even reading the discussions.

You mean that post? The PM I sent you explained it, is there anything wrong about the PM I sent you?

These are excerpts from the topic in sequential order:




The succeeding post requiring citation was then deleted. I believe you are correct in saying that it was the statement about the gay population increasing exponentially. I had allowed 3 violations of the rule to slip by anyway, and you really tipped the boat by telling me you were doing it intentionally. The PM you sent me was largely irrelevant, (though I am personally glad because I don't want you to think I'm out to get you or anything, and communication is necessaryfor that) because you still failed to provide citations and had exhibited intention on not doing so.

Would a moderator mind locking this topic? We're just talking about shades of gray now, and it doesn't really seem like there's a great deal left to discuss.

*Edit* And I don't want certain members to continue arguing with the mods about certain actions that have taken place in the past.

This.

BTW, I believe every post should have citations, or at least links. I hate reading tons of shit from in a post that can't be cited, is personal opinion and so on.

And on another note, "the human genome project" discovered that homosexuality can occur in males since more "estrogene is in the womb for the second born". So, no, homosexuality will not "deplete."

See how easy it is to quote something? LEARN TO WEAVE QUOTES.

WELL OKAY NOW THAT A(S,T) POINTED OUT HOW ITS DONE I THINK ILL DO IT LOL>

I don't see anything inherently wrong with the rule. However, I think that moderators should be responsible not for strictly enforcing rules, but for judging each individual case and interpreting the rules based on that. Moderators should be people who the administration trusts to do this. Sadly, that seems to be what Vrael has done, and failed at, since my topic definitely didn't explicitly break any rules. So, this model for how moderation works is inapplicable at present time.

Vrael did not strictly enforce the rule. I reiterate that your topic was not locked and there was no hint that it was in danger of being locked for a rule violation. Furthermore, it's apparent that you will not even be held to Vrael's original request at this point. Vrael judged this individual case and interpretted the rules when he said: