全 61 件のコメント

[–]derivative_of_life 92 ポイント93 ポイント  (8子コメント)

Oh boy, here we go. I'll see you guys on /r/SubredditDrama.

[–]CarbonRodOfPhysics[S,M] 48 ポイント49 ポイント  (2子コメント)

I know I started this, but I really do want it to end civilly and productively. I think the solution I proposed is fair. I don't need to tear down u/quaz4r. I just want to know that if I put my time and effort into this sub that I won't have my work shit-canned someday and find myself de-modded because I got on the wrong side of an issue.

[–]derivative_of_life 23 ポイント24 ポイント  (1子コメント)

No, your post seems perfectly reasonable to me given that I know absolutely nothing about the issue. It's still probably gonna cause a bunch of drama, though.

[–]cl3ft 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'd like to think /r/physics could have a flame war with explosions and lasers too.

[–]Ultrashitpost 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (1子コメント)

worse, this thread has been linked on /r/drama

we're all going to die, now.

[–]dukwonParticle physics 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (1子コメント)

It's probably not dramatic enough for SRD... yet

[–]Sysiphuslove 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

It has to stop sometime. Half the site is unusable (or at least wildly annoying).

[–]WodashitParticle physics[M] 118 ポイント119 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I personally agree with this message.

EDIT : Hijacking my top comment just to give some insight on why this is here

Because top mod and the way the moderation works. The top mod is all powerful and can remove all the people registered as mod after them but not the opposite, this is why you have a certain gradation in mods as you go from top of the list to the bottom, in practice this doesn't exist because we all have equal permissions and keep in contact (Some exceptions exist to that for bots and /u/iorgfeflkd which I hereby salute for his dedication, this one is for you)

Now, let's say that everyone has perfectly good intentions : we talk in private, we make a case, we agree/disagree and this is good and we can move on.

Let's say that you have suspicions that one of the party involved, that has more power, for some reasons give you ground to doubt them : If you do it in private, the interested party can ban you and silence you from the community before you could make your case, your only valid move is to go public and make a case with the community to avoid such a situation.

If you want, in this particular case, that's the only valid thing to do to avoid having a possibility of invisible censorship and that the community needs to be aware of this.

One of the thing that I want to stress here is that /u/CarbonRodOfPhysics is one of the main reason why the content of /r/Physics improved, for a long time he was the cornerstone architect of the very system that maintained the high quality submissions and comments.

Haven't you noticed that the quality from the sub went down recently? We went on strike silently, as a protest, to show what the subs becomes without active moderation.

We are not perfect, I am not perfect /u/CarbonRodOfPhysics is not perfect, but he has always proven that he placed the good of the community above all and always seeked for agreement and counsel with all of us before taking any action, and this post doens't make exception to these rules.

I hope this clarifies the situation and help people understand why such action was taken.

[–]quaz4rCondensed Matter Theory 31 ポイント32 ポイント  (10子コメント)

To clear the record, I seem to have received no PMs from any of the mods about this, I have no intention of removing any of the mods, and I have a very hands-off/"poll our subscribers about what rules they want first" policy when it comes to moderating (I admittedly miss zephir) that is orthogonal to how they wanted to run the sub so I stepped out of those tasks, esp after the automod was set up. Other than polling users after a switch of moderation, this is the only post I've ever stickied. My single ban, my only ever, was temporary ban on a user that was being aggressive-- there were plenty that were objecting in the thread, so I reject the notion that I am "silencing my critics".

*I can't really defend myself when the argument is already 50 comments deep and lacking my perspective by the time I'm aware of its existence, and I won't try to do so anymore. I will reiterate that I didn't receive any messages from anyone while the post was stickied (which politely requested the other mods might tolerate it for three days, and if there were objections I would have been willing to work it out). I think it is wrong to make a post like this to get the readers on "your side" before even messaging me. You've painted some image of me that I don't think is accurate.

[–]noottAstrophysics 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I fail to see any problem here. They've presented no evidence of wrongdoing... It sounds like they just want the top mod spot like in /r/atheism a couple years ago.

[–]zabblleon 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I think another poll of users considering this proposal would be appropriate.

[–]CarbonRodOfPhysics[S] 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (6子コメント)

Thanks for showing up. No, I didn't PM you about this post. You haven't PM'd any of us about your posts either, right?

I'm sorry for the drama. I'm sorry that we left things badly when you left. I'd really like to relax and just get back to devoting my time to r/physics. But I can't work thinking that you're going to cut my legs out from under me. Maybe you don't understand why I should feel this way. Let me give you a brief example.

When politics does show up in the sub, I feel a duty to serve all sides. It's the community's right, as I see it. I'll enter a thread, lay down a civility notice, and then keep the "DIE YOU <racial slur> comments out of the thread. Sometimes it's not so clear. Sometimes it's 'Let me recite these facts and well-reasoned arguments so that YOU CAN DIE YOU <racial slur>!' Sometimes it's not that clear. It's a slippery slope. At some point I have to make a judgement call. I can't have the threat of you de-modding me for your perceptions of my politics and biases, especially when we aren't in communication.

If you were more congenial, more willing to check yourself based on others' input, I wouldn't feel threatened. But that's not what you demonstrate when you plant a political call-to-action, sticky it for a week, and ban someone who mouthed off to you. Please, I promise to invite you back. I want to work with you. I want your voice in the mix. I just can't do it with a proverbial sword over my head.

[–]quaz4rCondensed Matter Theory 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (5子コメント)

I'm not going to unmod anyone. I think my temp ban of one user was reasonable--people have been banned for far less in this sub (and even in this thread for their opinions on your post (!!), which I find to be hypocritical on your part). I don't understand where any of this fear is coming from.

[–]CarbonRodOfPhysics[S] 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

The problem is that you're using mod powers to push your agenda and I don't feel that I can moderate you. It's not fair to the sincere members of the sub that disagree with you.

Of course you should be able to post your political appeals like anybody else. But I often remove posts that contain inflammatory rhetoric and ask the OPs to re-word them. Could I have done that with your post? All my experience in dealing with you says "no."

[–]WodashitParticle physics[M] 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Because you don't communicate and take actions on behalf of us all without concertation.

If this is the definition you have of democracy I fail to see where it fits.

Many of us have devoted time to this sub and taken action to make this place a neutral forum for discussion for people focussed on physics.

The only contribution you gave were rushed, one sided and looking for an "ideal", failing to see other people's concern, as your sticky proves it.

Of course the user was rude, you broke the very core rules that we established in the sub and he was vocal about it, you didn't like it so you removed him. We removed people because they were being agressive without cause, you can't blame people on being angry because a neutral forum become politicized because one person decides to do so.

Don't act like you are the victim, this is the direct consequences of your actions and your behaviour over the years. But as usual you'll dismiss it and assume that you are the beholder of the only truth.

I, as all the other mods that I talk with regularly, never assumed that we were right and we always listened to all arguments and trying to bring the peace. I clearly remember a time when I was arguing with you and you didn't even read my argument because you were in disagreement with part of my statement, this is not how dealing with people should be, this is not how science should be conducted either.

Modding doesn't mean that you have the privilege of getting YOUR forum, it stands for keeping the peace and trying to be as objective as you could.

If you had come to us and talked with us, this wouldn't be here, this wouldn't have happened, again this was brought by your actions.

[–]CarbonRodOfPhysics[S] -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

I don't understand where any of this fear is coming from.

I literally just explained it, last two paragraphs of my reply to you.

[–]pei_cube 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I understand you have a fear about this but the way you are going about this seems flawed.

You present weak evidence they will unmod Anyone for any reason, you provide one example of a regular user even being banned which seems reasonable to a lot of people here politics aside.

You keep bringing up an ultimatum sounding statement along the lines of "I would love to keep donating my time but..."

And in your explanation you literally use slippery slope when trying to explain your logic which looks like a slippery slope fallacy of they banned one user In a political thread here....what if they unmods me for politics.

I'm by trying to say your point isn't valid wanting more communication but with minimal evidence of any wrong doings other than not being as active as other mods and emotional sounding arguments it just sounds like you want something and this is an excuse to get it.

The way I see it is you start an internal discussion after this and figure it out maybe you convince herwith week evidence or something somehow, but more realistically it seems to be your two differing views on how to mod the sub so ask community, maybe try both methods for a week.

Maybe try to find a hybrid solution?

[–]CaptClarenceOveur -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Sorry mate, but you're coming off like a whiny baby. Don't you think you should do the mature thing and just leave if you dont like the way things are handled here? Isn't that what all redditors should do and all they can do? This shitposting does nothing but flush your dignity down the toilet.

[–]Xxslash 74 ポイント75 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Im just curious why this could not be handled in private?

[–]TsaraNoga_Chemical physics 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (1子コメント)

This seems like an immature way of handling the issue, further compounded by the ad-hominem argument. How is this anything more than an attempted power-grab via popularity contest by /u/CarbonRodOfPhysics?

[–]Esparno 23 ポイント24 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I'm not sure I follow the logic in this post. You've given us no statistically significant evidence of moderator abuse, you should know that one piece of evidence isn't enough.

Besides, what purpose does the top mod removing himself have if it just goes to the next person in line?

I'm not well-versed in how the reddit moderator system works. Is there some sort of group hierarchy, or does it just go with whoever is the next in line? Otherwise you're just replacing a stable, if somewhat absent, person with an unknown.

Additionally, if the top mod removing himself spreads the authority out that might turn out fine. But since there's no possible way a group of people all have the same standards when it comes to vetting a new mod it could allow power moderators (mod 100's of subs, unhealthily make it their life's work) to join and push their agendas.

[–]Enderthe3rd 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Statistically significant evidence of moderator abuse

That's a term for analyzing quantitative data. This is a fundamentally qualitative subject.

[–]CondMatTheorist 39 ポイント40 ポイント  (15子コメント)

I didn't follow the stickied thread, except to read it when initially posted. However, your links hardly combine to make a compelling case:

You don't moderate, except to sticky your posts and silence your critics.

One stickied post, and one suspended user who, let's be real, doesn't do himself any favors in his defense ("go protest and kill and riot like the rest of your politically like minded morons" ... Woof. If he was behaving like that before the suspension, is that not suspension worthy?)

There's no such thing as "political neutrality." If this sub refuses to address issues at the intersection of Physics and Politics, it is making a political choice. One that, in some situations, could be unforgivable (since we're all playing slippery slope here, is it going to be okay to comment here on Donald Trump's ban of Jewish Physics?) and that would, and should!, alienate a different segment of "sincere subscribers."

We've hardly seen your account over the years. When you do show up, it's to push your own agenda by stickying and mod-flairing your appeals.

Just this recent one, unless there's something I'm missing? The only other thing in the list that's mod-flaired is facilitating an in person meet-up at an APS meeting (which is the kind of thing that builds community on a subreddit, and that good mods should want to facilitate...), so unless by "agenda" you literally mean "schedule" I'm not sure what agenda is being pushed in that list.

So, it's not like I even disagree with the request, I just don't see what the hell the big deal is and why you couldn't have handled this in a private communication with /u/quaz4r. This just looks really self-serving on your part.

[–]CarbonRodOfPhysics[S,M] 14 ポイント15 ポイント  (14子コメント)

One stickied post,

While it did interfere with the bot that keeps the usual stickies operating smoothly, and did make more work for us, that's not the point. The point is that u/quaz4r won't communicate, won't work with me, won't work with the mod team, won't even give us a heads up, and then acts to undercut us.

There's no such thing as "political neutrality." If this sub refuses to address issues at the intersection of Physics and ...

Again, you're focusing on the wrong thing. If you look through my history you'll find my emphatic defense of the appropriateness of politics in this sub, and my commitment to defend political discussion in the future. I want a calm, even, and fair discussion, u/quaz4r's posts don't support that style. If she would be willing to work with us, we could get a lot more done, actually present balanced rhetoric that could have a chance of winning support instead of just stirring up the passions of the polarized bases.

This just looks really self-serving on your part.

Of course it's self-serving. I want something. I want to keep donating my time to r/physics. But I can't do that knowing that there is a random top mod who could fire me at any for crossing her.

[–]CondMatTheorist 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (10子コメント)

Okay. But then why didn't you just say those things? That seems pretty reasonable.

All I did was respond to what you posted; if I missed the point, there's some shared responsibility here in communicating the point clearly. It looks like you were making a public list of perceived offenses, and that you greatly overstated them, which is, um, bad. If they aren't the point, it seems silly to bring them up.

I can't do that knowing that there is a random top mod who could fire me at any for crossing her.

Maybe, except is there any precedent for this? I don't know what the one user who got suspended was suspended for, but they got pretty abusive in their response to the suspension. If anyone talked to their boss like that, they would get fired; it's pretty far past the point of "criticism."

Which, again, whatever. My point is still: why couldn't you have handled this privately? The only point of making it public is to try and drum up public support for your side, which you initially did with some pretty misleading statements.

[–]CarbonRodOfPhysics[S,M] 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (9子コメント)

But then why didn't you just say those things?

Sorry, I thought I did. I guess you're saying that the banned user's comments are too distracting... In which case, yes, that's my fault.

why couldn't you have handled this privately?

Because I really didn't know what would've happened, her unilateral retaliation was very possible, still is. I wanted to make my case before I was de-modded.

[–]CondMatTheorist 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (8子コメント)

From OP:

You don't moderate, except to sticky your posts and silence your critics. You don't participate in mod discussions (you were invited but chose to absent yourself). We've hardly seen your account over the years. When you do show up, it's to push your own agenda by stickying and mod-flairing your appeals.

You write it like objective evidence that /u/quaz4r is acting as some sort of tyrant. One of the above sentences is a useful statement of fact (failure to participate in mod discussions, although this is also the only one without a supporting link for me to confirm this for myself, understandably though), the others are not - when I clicked the links to confirm the evidence, I found that they don't smell like you imply they do. This isn't a distraction, this is your presented reasoning.

What you actually have is a subjective experience of discomfort about the power dynamic in the current moderation structure. Which I still believe is something that could be handled privately. You say the rest of the mods communicate; if there was unilateral retaliation against you, you could make your case here after the fact, or the other mods would make your case (and sticky it!) for you if there was any consensus that she behaved improperly.

I think the outcome you're looking for makes plenty of sense, I just find it hard to believe on your words and actions that you honestly "regret the spectacle" present here.

[–]WodashitParticle physics[M] 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (5子コメント)

We tried, we failed to have communication with /u/quaz4r if you take actions such as the ones she took over the time she was a mod, never consorting with us all, the you are pretty much acting as a tyran.

There is a consensus, he told us what he was going to do I agreed others did but they will talk in due time, don't make it look like this was just "OP" power hungry.

[–]Quas4r 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (2子コメント)

You misspelled his username and tagged me instead. I was very confused for a moment...

[–]WodashitParticle physics 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Hahaha, was also confused for a second, sorry for this!

Well even if it's an odd time to come around /r/Physics I hope you'll enjoy your stay!

[–]CondMatTheorist 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

don't make it look like this was just "OP" power hungry.

I'm not trying to make it look like anything. I'm trying to figure out what the hell's going on on a sub I generally enjoy, but part of that is saying what this looks like to me, someone without any access to mod communications. This is how I think it looks.

he told us what he was going to do I agreed others did but they will talk in due time

Cool! Why couldn't this have all been coordinated before hand, with all of the relevant information being presented to us at once for us to consider? The failure to do so is what makes for obnoxious subreddit drama.

[–]WodashitParticle physics[M] 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Because he didn't want to quote us and let us decide what we wanted to do on our own.

[–]CarbonRodOfPhysics[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I just find it hard to believe on your words and actions that you honestly "regret the spectacle" present here.

Fuckin ouch!

[–]Sakagami0 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Not sure how old you are or how much you deal with politics day to day, but this is not the "honest" way to do it. Nor is the notion of a democracy necessary modding on a subreddit.

Judging your words you sound dedicated. But also, you sound like you just want more power because someone disturbs your vision of the subreddit.

[–]Shastamasta 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

This is essentially a call-out/witch-hunt thread in my opinion, but your case is extremely weak. I do not see mod abuse here given what little evidence you supplied. Discussing this in private would have been a better course of action as others have said. This has been a good community overall aside from this thread.

[–]Esparno 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

But I can't do that knowing that there is a random top mod who could fire me at any for crossing her.

But that's how reddit works. Each sub is a dictatorship. Subject to hostile takeovers and everything.

I don't like it this way, but I am powerless to change it.

[–]CarbonRodOfPhysics[S,M] 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Each sub is a dictatorship.

No. Each sub has the potential to be a dictatorship. FTFY

We don't have 500 mods. We have nine. All the other mods are on really good terms. It's nice roundtable. I know that if I fuck up, they'll tell me and give me a chance to fix it. Recent actions show me that I can't trust our current top mod.

[–]BAN_ANIME 29 ポイント30 ポイント  (1子コメント)

This is not scientific content.

[–]CarbonRodOfPhysics[S,M] 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I agree, and I regret the spectacle. It does however pertain directly to the future of this sub.

[–]idiotsecant 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

So it sounds to me like the top mod stickied a post and banned a user. Is this somehow keeping you from moderating? I don't understand why anyone is making drama on this.

[–]JolteonLescott 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's all just a popularity contest

[–]myotherpasswordCosmology 13 ポイント14 ポイント  (0子コメント)

That's fair. Being a mod really does imply that you are doing your part and at least clearing out the spam and whatnot.

[–]JolteonLescott 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Inanimate eh? I'll show you inanimate!

[–]papajohn56 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

When people try to make the argument that scientists would be better at running a country, I'll show them this thread

[–]Proteus_Marius 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

You certainly describe a social media failure mode, but most of us are in no position to offer informed comments.

Good luck with your project, though.

[–]G-E-B 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Given the timing, this does not come off as a genuine, good-faith grievance about how /u/quaz4r moderates. You may have real concerns about their activities (and lack thereof) in this subreddit, but this post strongly appears to be just as politically motivated as the one they made a few days ago, if only more circumspect. If you decided to make this post because you are strongly opposed to anything even tangentially political slipping into the subreddit, I suggest you make that argument openly. That's the only good-faith motivation that strikes me as plausible right now.

Importantly, you only have one example of them "silencing their critics" (a charge that ought to be taken very seriously), but the banned user was exhibiting behavior that could have been reasonably described as trolling. It is significant that another user who was expressing nearly identical opinions does not appear to have been banned.

At another time this would have seemed like a very reasonable request to make, but as it is I can't help but suspect that you are doing this either because you disagree with the /u/quaz4r's political views or because you saw an opportunity to increase your power in the subreddit. If you decided to make this post because you are strongly opposed to anything even tangentially political slipping into the subreddit, I suggest you make that argument openly.

[–]hachacha 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Also we should replace Feynman with Bohm as the subreddit mascot

[–]MidnightWindiaHigh school 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I think we should (If we have the manpower or the time) change the Reddit... mascot thingy with different scientists once a week or something because this sub really does need some decoration.

[–]GelfandFominMathematics -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I approve of this message