up vote 6 down vote favorite

I have a negative comment to make about a candidate. Where is the appropriate place to post this today? Where does it go? Not a week ago. I checked the meta and the main a week ago, and I didn't see his name on the nominations list.

share
4  
I have been blocked from chat for saying this. There is no place to express it. – Ron Maimon Dec 4 '12 at 16:27
4  
Ron, would you like people to have somewhere to post negative rants about you? Think about how much you would like that. – Rory Alsop Dec 4 '12 at 16:55
13  
@RoryAlsop: I doubt Ron cares if people say negative things about him. He's more interested in getting at the truth than in being civil. You may not like his mode of expression, but you can at least admit that it's absurd that he's been booted or had his comments neutered in both places he spoke up. There should be a space for reasonable criticism. If Ron's allegations about Lequella are true, then users have a right to know. – user1504 Dec 4 '12 at 17:00
2  
Observing what happens here, it seems that the right of a user to speak up CAN INDEED disappear shokingly fast on SE. This seems to be a hint that what Ron says and fears is not off the mark ... – Dilaton Dec 4 '12 at 17:06
4  
So, help me understand this - you think that you have a right to be uncivil whenever you want? Despite rules saying specifically: Civility is required at all times; rudeness will not be tolerated. Be nice. Treat others with the same respect you’d want them to treat you. We’re all here to learn together. Be tolerant of others who may not know everything you know. Bring your sense of humor. - - - now aside from the obviously incorrect spelling of 'humour' that excerpt from the faq gives you your rules should you wish to take part here. And mods try to uphold those rules! – Rory Alsop Dec 4 '12 at 17:20
4  
So being nice is required behaviour! – Rory Alsop Dec 4 '12 at 17:20
7  
There seems to be some conflation here between the ideas of "constructive, objective discussion" and "subjective personal attacks". It seems perfectly reasonable to me to remove the latter. – Beofett Dec 4 '12 at 17:21
11  
@Dilaton: as I pointed out in that other thread you started, it's allowable to criticize moderator candidates during an election, but personal attacks are never allowed. That's not a "right" that "disappears" - if you want a place where personal attacks are allowed or encouraged, there are plenty of other places on The Internet that foster such an attitude. As usual, I'm a little saddened that folks who should be able to ignore personalities and focus on the technical aspects of a problem are instead devoting themselves to fostering groundless drama. – Shog9♦ Dec 4 '12 at 17:36
3  
@RoryAlsop: If your comment was addressed at me: No, I don't think there's a right to incivility at will. In fact, I said nothing to suggest this. (Frankly, I think Ron's rhetoric is not helping his case.) I am saying two things: 1) There should be a forum which lasts for the duration of the election, in which reasonable criticisms can be made. There was such a space during the nomination phase, but it is closed now. (ctd) – user1504 Dec 4 '12 at 18:11
4  
2) Ron's complaint may be too vividly expressed, but he has an important point. A bad moderator can screw things up. If there's a chance LeQuella could have a negative impact on the site, this should be discussed. Conversely, if Ron's accusations are groundless, then LeQuella should have somewhere to respond. – user1504 Dec 4 '12 at 18:15
3  
Voters don't generally discuss their choices at the actual polling place, at least not where I vote. Just sayin'. You really should have done your homework and made up your mind by then. – Robert Harvey Dec 4 '12 at 18:15
3  
@RobertHarvey: Sure. The voting page is probably not a good place for the comment threads I'm suggesting. But voters do discuss their choices online. Maybe we could have a meta-post for this? – user1504 Dec 4 '12 at 18:17
4  
@user1504 "He's more interested in getting at the truth than in being civil. ...it's absurd that he's been booted or had his comments neutered in both places he spoke up". I believe Rory's point is that, no, it is not absurd that someone who doesn't care about being civil winds up getting uncivil comments censored. – Beofett Dec 4 '12 at 18:17
1  
@Beofett: It is absurd. One needs to get at truth without civility mucking up the search. – Ron Maimon Dec 4 '12 at 20:26
1  
I for one think that Ron's paranoia against Larian is totally groundless. I like Larian's comment about this being an SCA meeting instead of a rational discussion because of the drama was right on the mark. Some people just wnat to stir it up. Rabble rousers are fine, but unmitigated @$$holes need to learn some social ettiquete. – Brightblades Dec 6 '12 at 14:42

4 Answers

up vote 13 down vote

I guess if you wanted to create a place for negative comments, you would have to also create a place for positive comments.

Anyone can run for this - I even considered it. You do not need to be a specialist in your field to be a moderator. You simply need to:

  • be able to listen
  • support the wider community (not necessarily a vocal individual)
  • take actions when they are required
  • carry out janitorial tasks
  • and generally help the community get along.

You say he considers you a crackpot. You consider him an authoritarian. Both these views could be true (or maybe not - I don't know). Does this mean you should create a post attacking that individual? I don't think so!

You will get to ask questions during the Town Hall tonight (or whenever it is in your timezone) but again - be polite while asking!

share
up vote 12 down vote

There are several ways to express your opinion of a specific candidate. The first one you missed, it happens during the nomination period where every Physics user can comment on the nomination.

The second major opportunity to critically examine the candidates is during the townhall meeting, which takes place in a few hours. Of course not everyone can attend, but if you have a specific question you want to ask the candidates, just post it in Physics chat and request that someone else asks your question.

But you're after something else, you're not critically examining the history of a candidate on this site and asking them for their opinion on subject important to this site. You're trying to shout your opinion about this candidate at every opportunity you get, in chat on meta and even on the main site. Just because you're the loudest one right now doesn't mean your opinion deserves special consideration.

On the accusations of censorship, as already mentioned by SE employees, you're free to express your opinion as long as you don't resort to personal attacks and insults. You can criticize the actions and statements of a candidate as much as you want, but you don't get to just insult them. You're just plain wrong when you say that "being a dick" is required to have an honest discussion, you can be blunt and direct without ever insulting anyone.

If you are concerned about a specific candidate, ask targeted questions about your concerns at the town hall, or if you can't attend ask someone else to do that for you. Make it about actual concerns, not about your own opinion of the candidate.

share
up vote 8 down vote

I agree with Ron's point of view and I'm a bit troubled by this whole election process. There are finally enough decent candidates that I hope it will turn out well, but a few days ago I would not have liked to see any set of two new moderators chosen from what was available.

I have serious concerns about the future of the site if our new moderators turn out to be people with little knowledge of physics, reputation or time spent in the community.

And if someone with 40,000 reputation (earned by being a valuable contributing member to the site) has criticisms of a candidate, I think it would be smart to listen to him.

share
up vote 6 down vote

There is an election oriented chat tonight (Tuesday) at 8pm EST.

A summary of the questions and answers will be posted to Meta following the conclusion of the event.

Note that the summary is limited to the questions directed at the candidates and direct answers by the candidates, since collecting those is the entire purpose of the event. For more info, see: 2012 Moderator Election: Town Hall Chat

share
7  
@RonMaimon: Just a note, I checked the history. You were chat-banned because a few normal users (non-moderators) flagged a certain message of yours, and it was deleted due to the flag pileup. Moderators cannot create 30minute chat suspensions, the minimum is an hour. – Manishearth♦ Dec 4 '12 at 16:34
9  
The chat event in question is more of a question session - it's not really a place to campaign for-or-against a candidate (unless it's done through constructive interrogation). It is a great place to bring up valid concerns about what policies a particular candidate might consider enforcing on the site, but it won't be the time to billboard who people should or should not vote for. – Grace Note♦ Dec 4 '12 at 17:05
4  
@Manishearth: I got it--- it was a "herd block". These herd blocks are happening now because there are a lot of political folks from other parts of the network flagging my stuff automatically as I criticise. This is turning into a very Soviet election--- I am not allowed to say why Larian LeQuella is a horrible choice, that his is censorious, ignorant of science, and lacks good judgement or even the basic knowledge required for the job. – Ron Maimon Dec 4 '12 at 19:23

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged