I've noticed that quite a few users have been complaining about being given infractions, so I've made this little poll to gauge public opinion about the issue.

`
The gentleman from the Soviet Socialist Republik of New York abstains...

Either I am just too tepid to punish, or too insignificant to notice, but as I have yet to receive more than one such "black mark" - which I can't even recall if I deserved or not, as I forgot what it was for - I cannot opine with much knowledge of the subject at hand.

I reiterate, however, my opinion that the moderation here is whim-based.
LoL

There are many moderators each moderating in his or her own style within the Sciforums guidelines. Because whim-based moderation is not within those guidelines, I think that may be the style of some particular moderator(s), or maybe you're just seeing things. :p

I'm trying to get an infraction every day, but they all fear my revenge. Or they don't care. Or they are biased. Or they love me. Or they are under the influence of the albanian illuminati. Probably forgot half the reasons.

Because whim-based moderation is not within those guidelines, I think that may be the style of some particular moderator(s), or maybe you're just seeing things. :p
"Nudge nudge, wink wink, know what I mean, know what I mean, say no more, say no more! A nod's as good as a wink to a blind bat!"
:D

"Nudge nudge, wink wink, know what I mean, know what I mean, say no more, say no more! A nod's as good as a wink to a blind bat!"
:D

Oh, say no more, we will dispatch our gay/pedophile/s&m prostitute monk your way right away!
Sci mod team - always pleased to serve the unspoken needs of our members.

It seems like you only get infractions if you are an absolute dick.

It seems like you only get infractions if you are an absolute dick.

that would explain me getting 7 infractions in 1 day then.

peace.

Infractions are like the flu. They go away...

Strangely, many members get along just fine without ever receiving an infraction. Then there are some who get a whole string of infractions in a row - often in the same thread.

I don't suppose this might be connected to member's behaviour at all. No, far more likely it is just that moderators don't like certain members.

Or perhaps the moderators happen to be hostile to opinions and ideologies which aren't mainstream?

I don't suppose this might be connected to member's behaviour at all. No, far more likely it is just that moderators don't like certain members.

Or perhaps the moderators happen to be hostile to opinions and ideologies which aren't mainstream?


No, I believe that most (if not all) of the moderators are simply people who are rather like myself – normal people who are sick and tired of having to deal with the endless nutball fruitcake weirdos, the creationist trolls and the vile right-wing neocons. We all know who they are. Just permanently ban them, I say. This will be a much nicer place as a result.

You all should be thankful. Before infractions, people would just get banned. Now we have some feedback, it gives people a chance to correct themselves if they want to.

Hercules, I am a conservative. Should I be banned?

Or perhaps the moderators happen to be hostile to opinions and ideologies which aren't mainstream?

By far the majority of infractions are for personal attacks, or for posting generally offensive material. Posts that attract infractions seldom express "opinions" other than how another poster is a moron, or a dickhead or whatever. They are seldom more eloquent than stringing together a set of obscenities directed at another poster.

Then there are the racists, the misogynists, the nutters, the pornographers, the promoters of violence, the attention whores etc. etc. Maybe these are the people whose non-mainstream "ideologies" you are thinking of. I make no apologies in moderating them. Sciforums is supposed to be an "intelligent community". As such, I see no reason to make it a safe haven for the mentally challenged.

Hercules, I am a conservative. Should I be banned?

Yes. Or humiliated.

Strangely, many members get along just fine without ever receiving an infraction. Then there are some who get a whole string of infractions in a row - often in the same thread.

I got an infraction once for calling zanket (the GR rapist) a jackass. But it was totally worth it.

normal people who are sick and tired of having to deal with the endless nutball fruitcake weirdos, the creationist trolls and the vile right-wing neocons.

Yes, and it would be so nice to talk with a bunch of people who are as enlightened as I am, and who have all of the same opinions as me, and see the world exactly as I see it.

I can't remember how many times I have called someone a homo on this forum.

You called string a homo. That was a low point.

Homo sapiens?

You called string a homo. That was a low point.

Oh, I consider that moment to be the highlight of my life.

No.2 is living in the USA.

And no.3 is clicking on porn links.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!homosaur!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!

I can't remember how many times I have called someone a homo on this forum.

thats because you are a cunt. *waits for PM*

honestly,its refreshing to be on a site where i am allowed to fucking swear,its makes me feel like a big moist teased cunt in summer.

stop complaining...grow a pair.

I got an infraction for calling someone a mother fucker in response to his far worse remark about my posts.

i just got anouther infraction for saying women should close there legs if they dont wanna get pregnant.

haha you go james.

peace.

I got an infraction for calling someone a mother fucker in response to his far worse remark about my posts.

This is maybe the biggest problem that I have with the system. It seems that if someone bitches enough, the moderators will hand out infractions. I don't know what the system is, but your situation doesn't sound different from some that Ive heard.

Maybe one of the moderators can enlighten me... Is there a system to take the comments in the context of the other comments in the thread? If, for example, I make a personal attack on someone, but only after a long buildup (incited by both sides), is there infractions all around? Or just for me because the other guy bitched too much.

This is maybe the biggest problem that I have with the system. It seems that if someone bitches enough, the moderators will hand out infractions. I don't know what the system is, but your situation doesn't sound different from some that Ive heard.

Maybe one of the moderators can enlighten me... Is there a system to take the comments in the context of the other comments in the thread? If, for example, I make a personal attack on someone, but only after a long buildup (incited by both sides), is there infractions all around? Or just for me because the other guy bitched too much.

As for me, if someone is offended enough by an expletive that they report it, I just delete it, I don't give infractions for it, unless the person overrides the deletion by repeating the expletive ( I usually inform the person concerned).

I rarely consider "bitching' a reason for an infraction, only my own sense of what is happening in the thread (serious or joking, baiting, flaming, etc)

i just got anouther infraction for saying women should close there legs if they dont wanna get pregnant.

haha you go james.

peace.
You're a marked man.

You're an "Enemy of the State".
;)


This is maybe the biggest problem that I have with the system. It seems that if someone bitches enough, the moderators will hand out infractions. I don't know what the system is, but your situation doesn't sound different from some that Ive heard.

Maybe one of the moderators can enlighten me... Is there a system to take the comments in the context of the other comments in the thread? If, for example, I make a personal attack on someone, but only after a long buildup (incited by both sides), is there infractions all around? Or just for me because the other guy bitched too much.
I keep telling you, the "system" is whimsy.

i just got anouther infraction for saying women should close there legs if they dont wanna get pregnant.

haha you go james.

peace.

That is indeed the most effective way of contraception besides taking the entire womb out.

Yes they are too infraction happy.
Just recently I was given an infraction simply for quoting a post by sandy and then editting it to include a pornographic image and making it seem like sandy was a racist who masturbates while beating her black maid, and I also made it seem like she wanted to give a blubbering rim job to the black lady in the pornographic image.
That was seriously all I did and I recieved an infraction, so you be the judge.

Yes they are too infraction happy.
Just recently I was given an infraction simply for quoting a post by sandy and then editting it to include a pornographic image and making it seem like sandy was a racist who masturbates while beating her black maid, and I also made it seem like she wanted to give a blubbering rim job to the black lady in the pornographic image.
That was seriously all I did and I recieved an infraction, so you be the judge.

I guess it was justified if sandy was permabanned.

Moderators are far to lenient, i reckon if you get 10 infraction points you
should forfeit a digit before the slate is cleaned :)

I got my only infraction for saying shut the fuck up.

infractions no-longer autoban members. an infraction now is really just a way of letting newcomers know whether or not to take someone seriously. ie, if they have several infractions for racism then any remarks they make regarding race can usually be discarded. they make it easier for members than for mods.

James R:

By far the majority of infractions are for personal attacks


Something which I personally disagree with. Not only do moderators tend to be inconsistent when handing out such infractions (we've discussed that issue in the past), but it is also an exercise in futility. It merely encourages posters to become more creative and 'subtle' when engaging in ad hominems.
Instead of calling their opponent a dickhead, they will insinuate that he apparently has trouble which literature comprehension. What exactly is the difference between those statements, once one strips away the condescension of the second?

The 'intellects' of sciforums are often guilty of this (eg. Bells, James, spurious, Geoff, etc). Frankly, I don't care one way or another, as such insults are probably well deserved (except when directed against me, of course...). But I don't agree with the way infractions seem to be prejudiced against the 'less eloquent'. If infractions aren't handed out in a consistent and fair manner, why bother having them at all?


, or for posting generally offensive material.


Offensive? So if I offer an opinion which the mainstream considers offensive, I am deserving of an infraction? Why is it so heinous to offend others? If one posts on a public forum, shouldn't they expect to be offended occasionally?

Some of the most intelligent and intriguing posters on this forum are downright offensive at times (Dr Lou, Satyr), as they offer opinions which conflict with accepted social standards. They also rightfully belittle the village idiots.

sciforums in one of the few places where individuals can come and entertain ideologies/beliefs which would be censored or condemned in 'real life'. Over-moderation threatens to take this away.


Sciforums is supposed to be an "intelligent community". As such, I see no reason to make it a safe haven for the mentally challenged.


And what magical arbitrary measuring stick do you use to measure whether a statement is absurd, or sound? Perhaps a statement which you presume to be fallacious, or outright madness, is actually quite sensible. But your clouded mind, and inherent biases, refuse you from seeing so. If a topic doesn't merit a response, then forum members won't reply.

Of course, you might say that "We run the forum, what we say goes, so just deal with it."

I agree 100%. If I ever feel that the moderation is too overbearing here, I will leave.
But as it stands, things aren't too bad. But I wanted to voice my concern about overmoderation. I used to post at IIDB (Internet Infidels), a forum populated by perhaps the most intelligent atheists I have ever met. It was the reason I was absent from sciforums from approx. a year. Sadly, the moderation really became extreme. Calling a spade a spade (aka. a troll a troll) became an automatic banning offense! Let's hope that such madness seeps into sciforums.

You could consider me a 'Libertarian' when it comes to moderation. ;)

That is indeed the most effective way of contraception besides taking the entire womb out.

that will be 2 million infraction points for you!


peace.

Yes they are too infraction happy.
Just recently I was given an infraction simply for quoting a post by sandy and then editting it to include a pornographic image and making it seem like sandy was a racist who masturbates while beating her black maid, and I also made it seem like she wanted to give a blubbering rim job to the black lady in the pornographic image.
That was seriously all I did and I recieved an infraction, so you be the judge.

your a funny guy.


peace.

infractions no-longer autoban members. an infraction now is really just a way of letting newcomers know whether or not to take someone seriously. ie, if they have several infractions for racism then any remarks they make regarding race can usually be discarded. they make it easier for members than for mods.

Do the regular member actually see the infractions?

mountainhare:

Something which I personally disagree with. Not only do moderators tend to be inconsistent when handing out such infractions (we've discussed that issue in the past), but it is also an exercise in futility. It merely encourages posters to become more creative and 'subtle' when engaging in ad hominems.
Instead of calling their opponent a dickhead, they will insinuate that he apparently has trouble which literature comprehension. What exactly is the difference between those statements, once one strips away the condescension of the second?

The difference is that one kind of statement attacks a person's knowledge or argument. The other attacks the person him or herself.

By the way, I think any infraction which causes a poster to think when they are posting can only be a positive influence.

Offensive? So if I offer an opinion which the mainstream considers offensive, I am deserving of an infraction? Why is it so heinous to offend others? If one posts on a public forum, shouldn't they expect to be offended occasionally?

It's always a judgment call. That's why we have human moderators and not automatic moderation.

Some of the most intelligent and intriguing posters on this forum are downright offensive at times (Dr Lou, Satyr), as they offer opinions which conflict with accepted social standards. They also rightfully belittle the village idiots.

When was the last time Dr Lou contributed anything useful to any discussion? See if you can find some examples - seriously.

Satyr, too, mostly restricts himself to insulting people he considers to be less intelligent than himself - which is everybody. I've seen the occasional thoughtful contribution from him, but most of the time it is just ridicule and put-downs. Now, many of those are in effect invited by the targets. And that is perhaps why Satyr gets away with them.

I actually find it disappointing that some of the most intelligent posters on sciforums never bother to take the time and effort to contribute anything of lasting value. Instead, they use their intellect solely to amuse themselves. Now I understand it - sciforums is recreation for everybody here. But isn't it kind of a waste to spend a lot of time here and never leave anything of any consequence? I mean, if you're going to be here anyway, you might as well spend at least a little time on intelligent commentary or education.

sciforums in one of the few places where individuals can come and entertain ideologies/beliefs which would be censored or condemned in 'real life'. Over-moderation threatens to take this away.

sciforums has never been a "free for all". I have explained my position on this many times. I see no reason why sciforums should be a haven for racists, sexists, religious fanatics, conspiracy mongers, anti-scientists and the like. The very name of the forum ought to give some flavor of what it is about.

And what magical arbitrary measuring stick do you use to measure whether a statement is absurd, or sound? Perhaps a statement which you presume to be fallacious, or outright madness, is actually quite sensible. But your clouded mind, and inherent biases, refuse you from seeing so.

Evidence is always good. And that is not an "arbitrary" measuring stick. That is what good science is based on.

If a topic doesn't merit a response, then forum members won't reply.

That is quite obviously untrue. Just look around.

But as it stands, things aren't too bad. But I wanted to voice my concern about overmoderation. I used to post at IIDB (Internet Infidels), a forum populated by perhaps the most intelligent atheists I have ever met. It was the reason I was absent from sciforums from approx. a year. Sadly, the moderation really became extreme. Calling a spade a spade (aka. a troll a troll) became an automatic banning offense! Let's hope that such madness seeps into sciforums.

Personally, I think that sciforums is very liberal in many ways. Compare it to many dedicated "hard-science" forums, for example. Compare it to dedicated religious forums.

My personal opinion: moderation should be exactly what it says: moderate.

I object to publicly being called "offensive".

Also...."long lasting" constributions?

If you look back on my posts you will find many contributions and during my previuos incarnation even more serious ones.
But long lasting?

I wouldn't care one way or another.

Isn't satire and comedy a contribution?
Saying anything serious towards minds like IceAgeCivilizations and lightgigantic would be an exercise in futility.
Why not just debate the Earth's shape?

That is indeed the most effective way of contraception besides taking the entire womb out.

Men should keep their dick in their pants if they don't want to pay child support or the child dumped on them for raising.
Touche, assholes.

Why not just debate the Earth's shape?

The Earth is flat.

There, I have said it.

Satyr,
Why not just debate the Earth's shape?
Well, if you call it big and round, fat people might take offense.

I think the moderators are too happy, period.

I'll talk to my Tourism Officer, Oli and arrange a visit to East Korea.

Our water now has 37% less soluble wastes!

Round?
ROUND?!!!!!
THE EARTH is...ROUND?!!!!!

If you follow the correct epistemology, given by the right teachers you will discover the ontology of the Earth being flat.

It's a matter of correctness.

I think the moderators are too happy, period.



Oh? You really want to go there my little strudel?

Our water now has 37% less soluble wastes!
Chunky but refreshing with a twist of lemon!

Round?
ROUND?!!!!!
:eek:

*Packs away rollerblades*..

Hi, my name's Tiassa. I'm an Infraction Addict. As you will note, I cannot stop giving out infraction points for stupid reasons. Like the time the one dude told the handicapped guy to just get over it, his only handicap was laziness. I can't believe I cited the dude for that. It was a low point for me.

But now, thanks to good friends, and my sponsor here, Nan, the little goatfish on my left shoulder, I've found my way to Infractions Anonymous in hope of starting anew.

God bless us all.

Men should keep their dick in their pants if they don't want to pay child support or the child dumped on them for raising.
Touche, assholes.

This approach totally ignores millions of years of evolution. Man evolved to NOT keep his dick in their pants.

Man evolved to NOT keep his dick in their pants.

Excellent point, sir. Especially as it brings me back to wondering why the hell it is that in "clothing-optional" (e.g. "nudist") communities, the laws must be passed that allow this behavior. It seems to me that, according to nature, the deviation is to wear clothes.

Hence, let's strike a compromise: men should walk around with at least their lower portion naked, and women who lie about their birth control measures (e.g. "I'm on the pill", or whatever, when it isn't true) should be prosecuted.

Er ... something.

(Not to be the party-douche, but is there a topic going on here?)