Dear Sciforums members!

In this thread we will discus future of SciForums.

For the start I’ll present you a Policy draft and draft of rules that will be implemented in SciForums.

We will discus this together. I expect that you provide pro et contra for both and your own suggestions how SciForums could be improved, which course should be taken, etc.
Most of all I want serious discussion in this thread.

Any attempt of trolling and meaningless posting won’t be tolerated.

In case that occurs, I’ll issue (in order):

1. Warning with deletion
2. Infraction
3. Three day ban

We’ll start with SciForums Policy and SciForums Rules drafts:

SciForums Policy

1. Sciforums is an Internet community that, foremost and among other things, values
intelligent discussion, scientific method, critical thinking and sound
reasoning.

2. Sciforums unites members from all countries of the world for the
common goal to discuss, among other things, all things science in a
pleasant, non-threatening environment, where each and every member is
valued according to his or her contribution to the community.

3. Sciforums is dedicated to enriching each and every member with
scientific and other knowledge.

4. A member of the community:
4.1. acts in accordance with this policy;
4.2. supports actions taken by the administrators and moderators if
those actions are in accordance with this policy;
4.3. is responsible for his or her actions and has no right for moderator assistance
if the problem in question is fully or partially caused by the member.


5. Sciforums is run and managed by a team of administrators and
moderators who:
5.1. act in accordance with this policy;
5.2. take into consideration the common interests of the community;
5.3. respect human rights;
5.4. take action to enforce and promote this policy among the members
of the community.


SciForums Rules (Guide Lines):

1. Existing Forum Guidelines (Rules) will be placed in each forum in a form of announcement to ensure civilized discussion.

2. Every moderator could add appendix or separate thread with own rules for particular forum (he/she moderates).
Appendix or separate forum rules shouldn’t be in inconsistency with General Guidelines (Rules) and/or SciForums Policy.

3. ‘Rokkon’ Rules (*) - Every SciForums member has the right to set up own rules for particular thread he/she created in particular forum.
That will enable that members could also steer discussion and ensure that their threads won’t be overwhelmed with off topic content.
‘Rokkon” Rules shouldn’t be in inconsistency with General Guidelines (Rules), Rules that have been set by moderator of that particular forum and/or SciForums Policy.




Be sure that your responds and posts are not consisted of only: “Bullshit”, “That won’t work.”, “I don’t like this”, etc; without providing any arguments. Otherwise, your posts will be considered as trolling and deleted and you’ll be warned.

I don’t expect that you answer right away. Take as much time as you need for preparing answers and arguments.

If you don’t want to discus seriously, then it’s better to stay away from this thread.
Discussion here won’t be funny.


I'm looking forward to your inputs!

_______________

(*) - Named by member Rokkon who posted experimental thread in General Philosophy (28 December 2006) with his own rules:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=61514&highlight=Rokkon

I see an abuse here:

members should be valued equally not some more than others as you suggest here:

"Sciforums unites members from all countries of the world for the
common goal to discuss, among other things, all things science in a
pleasant, non-threatening environment, where each and every member is
valued according to his or her contribution to the community."

'Valued according to their contribution'. Who determines the value of that cointribution?

One of the main problems here is mods favouring some and victimising others due to differences of opinion.

I see an abuse here

4. A member of the community:
4.1. acts in accordance with this policy;
4.2. supports actions taken by the administrators and moderators if
those actions are in accordance with this policy;
4.3. is responsible for his or her actions and has no right for moderator assistance if the problem in question is fully or partially caused by the member.

Who decides if the poster is responsible?

If an agressive flame war starts with two members , one of whom the moderator favours or shares their view point, does that mod then deem the other poster to have 'brought' it upon themesleves if the opposing poster personally insults them?

This clause sounds like a way out of resolving problems when a psoter comes under attack.

Again, one of the main problems on this baord is mods exercising double standards, playing favourites and victimising certain members. I see these two policy clauses as supporting that 'abuse' of power rather than addressing and resolving it.

These board policies seem to be entirely about keeping the community under control BUT all the complaints have been about moderators NOT members.

SO

where are your policies that recognise and take steps to address that problem?

Note: may I suggest a code of conduct is written up for moderators to abide by.

1) Moderators must ensure the board rules are followed by members while remaining neutral when dealing with issues that call for moderator intervention.

ie. Note the rule breach, note the penalty.
Keep all personal opinions out of it. REMAIN neutral.

Only when posting on behalf of yourself (not with mod hat on) can you freely express your views (within rules) as do other members of the board.

When expressing views as a 'member' your posts MUST be moderated with the same degree of vigilance as any other non mod. Abuse of board rules may result in you losing moderator status.

Moderators will only be appointed to post, if they have shown as members that they themselves have always respected other members views and demonstrate the qualities of self restraint and sound judgement.

etc.

I see an abuse here:

members should be valued equally not some more than others as you suggest here:

"Sciforums unites members from all countries of the world for the
common goal to discuss, among other things, all things science in a
pleasant, non-threatening environment, where each and every member is
valued according to his or her contribution to the community."

'Valued according to their contribution'. Who determines the value of that cointribution?

One of the main problems here is mods favouring some and victimising others due to differences of opinion.

The community itself.
Valued according to contribution means that we'll probably have awards and other things.

Equal value is utopism. Some are better to the community, some are less desired.
Just compare, for example, Hercules Rockefeller with Sandy or duendy, or IAC.

These board policies seem to be entirely about keeping the community under control BUT all the complaints have been about moderators NOT members.
Hint: moderators are members too.
I suggested we make separate guidelines for moderators a few days ago,
but we still haven't got a draft.

The community itself.

HAHAHAHAHAHA
man, don't get me started.
judging by some of the poll results i've seen i wouldn't trust 80% of these people to cross the street.

which brings us right back to CFs post and the matter of favorites.
there are only a select few that can be trusted in any situation, be it mods, presidents, teachers, cops, or posters.

The "Rokkon" rules sound reasonable. This is somehting that I have tried to do in a couple of threads---clearly defining the parameters of the debate is always a good idea, especially when one wants to debate controversial things.

I would also add a caveat that once a thread in one of the science forums has been sufficiently shown to be wrong, it should be moved into the Cesspool or Pseudoscience forum. I think this is a responsible thing to do, so that SciForums isn't seen to endorse bad science.

I would also add a caveat that once a thread in one of the science forums has been sufficiently shown to be wrong, it should be moved into the Cesspool or Pseudoscience forum. I think this is a responsible thing to do, so that SciForums isn't seen to endorse bad science.
Shown to be wrong in the thread itself? Then keep it, nothing wrong with that.

The community itself.
Valued according to contribution means that we'll probably have awards and other things.

Equal value is utopism. Some are better to the community, some are less desired.
Just compare, for example, Hercules Rockefeller with Sandy or duendy, or IAC.

Mods should not be in a position to JUDGE members this is what creates division. If posters break the rules, address it but the favouritism has to stop. Communities need difference. YOUR opinion is Herc is better. Your opinion is not requested, you are here to enforce board rules NOT epxress an opinion. THAT expression of opinion re members by mods is the PROBLEM.

I would also add a caveat that once a thread in one of the science forums has been sufficiently shown to be wrong, it should be moved into the Cesspool or Pseudoscience forum. I think this is a responsible thing to do, so that SciForums isn't seen to endorse bad science.

I disagree.

Who is in a position to say that it is wrong?

Sciforums is supposed to encourage scientific discussion. Not decide what is right or wrong science (bad terminology, I know, but it's late and I'm tired and cranky).

Why do you keep bugging me about mods?
I made it clear that it is the community that decides who has more or less value for the community.

Why do you keep bugging me about mods?
I made it clear that it is the community that decides who has more or less value for the community.

Excuse me?

ARE you Plazma?

NO, this is not personal to you. I replied to Plasma's post, YOU replied to me, thus I then replied to you.

THE problems of this board at present ARE moderators. ALL the complaint theads are about moderators.

If mods get their house in order the rest will follow and that starts with NOT playing favourites, not making it personal and NOT victimising those whose opinions you do not value or support.

THE community should also NOT decide who has more value. Cliques form, members with marginal views are alientated and side lined. THIS is not the way a democracy operates. YOU cannot give permission for minority views to be IGNORED and abused.

Mods job is ensuring rules are abided by NOT encouraging victimisation and segregation.

This idea re 'value' is appalling.


Presently religious and pseudoscience are subject to victimsiation YET there are two threads here for them, so they are clearly invited to be part of this forum SO why then are their views belittled by mods? Belittlement by members is to be moderated by you not supported by you!

the complaints aren't only against the mods.

the complaints aren't only against the mods.

My posts are addressed to Plazma, this is not a chat thread.

If you have other complaints, address them to Plazma.

THE community should also NOT decide who has more value. Cliques form, members with marginal views are alientated and side lined. THIS is not the way a democracy operates. YOU cannot give permission for minority views to be IGNORED and abused.
Of course it should if we want this to be a reasonable place that prefers a scientific method above others.
And Sciforums is not a democracy, never was.

p.s. Writing in bold and red doesn't make you more correct. ;)

You both have a point. 5.1. act in accordance with this policy; applies to moderators.

Maybe it should be made or worded to ensure that moderators are also moderated and that members with complaints have a recourse for their complaint. The rules should apply to moderators as well as members. If a moderator breaks the rules in another forum (not one in which they moderate) they should be treated the same as members since they are members outside of the particular forum they moderate. If they break the rules in their own forums, then the administration should apply the rules to deal with their infraction(s).

:shrug:

Just a suggestion.

Of course it should if we want this to be a reasonable place that prefers a scientific method above others.
And Sciforums is not a democracy, never was.

p.s. Writing in bold and red doesn't make you more correct. ;)


THIS is a discussion BOARD for scientific and NONE scientific discussion.

BOLD and COLOUR is for 'emphasis' NOT as demonstration of fact- pity I had to spell a simple thing such as that out to you.

VALUE IS NOT this boards PURPOSE and those of you who are trying to make it a resource are creating the problem. THERE are much better sites that satisfy that purpose, those with articles that are peer reviewed etc. THIS IS A DISCUSSION BOARD.


YOU are part of the problem. Every response from you thus far has contained a patronising element and air of superiority. YOU are not superior to anyone.

I will start an article board and make anyone interested in posting scientific articles an author so they can post freely and moderate their own articles comments. I will promote it accordingly. THIS will satisfy a need for that type of posting.


Meanwhile, this is a discussion baord and I am against any modertator/member allocation of 'value' to other members. Members will not join this boar knowing they face JUDGEMENT.

My posts are addressed to Plazma, this is not a chat thread.

If you have other complaints, address them to Plazma.
kiss my fucking ass you snotty little bitch.

We will discuss this together. I expect that you provide pro et contra for both and your own suggestions how SciForums could be improved, which course should be taken, etc. Most of all I want serious discussion in this thread.

Any attempt of trolling and meaningless posting won’t be tolerated.
In order to ensure proper usage of the forums you must define this at the very start of joining. It mustn't be left up to speculation but instead clearly given boundries of what is trolling and what is not. For example if a member like IAC continues posting his arguments about Earth's age in threads other than his own, this in itself is not trolling IMO but merely presenting his theory.

Also note that presentation of ANY theory should not be considered trolling, much like Singularities Moon conspiracy theories. Therefore we must define this first before other rules are established.

1. Sciforums is an Internet community that, foremost and among other things, values intelligent discussion, scientific method, critical thinking and sound reasoning.

Agreed, but how precisely does this relate to the policy. This is merely a statement of fact, it holds no real sway over conversation within the forum. If you wish to use it as a guide however then it's a good finger to point the way...

2. Sciforums unites members from all countries of the world for the common goal to discuss, among other things, all things science in a pleasant, non-threatening environment, where each and every member is valued according to his or her contribution to the community.

Would make more sense to say "SciForums strives to unitie humanity for the common goals we each have of discussion & debate, in an environment free of harassment by our peers."

3. Sciforums is dedicated to enriching each and every member with scientific and other knowledge.

Agreed

3. [I]‘Rokkon’ Rules (*) - Every SciForums member has the right to set up own rules for particular thread he/she created in particular forum.

As long as it doesn't violate the primary rules :)

Be sure that your responses and posts are not consisted of pnly: “Bullshit”, “That won’t work.”, “I don’t like this”, etc; without providing any arguments. Otherwise, your posts will be considered as trolling and deleted and you’ll be warned.

I concur

I think it's important to address those topics which might otherwise be called into question. For example, is sex and anything similar a RISKY thing to discuss on the forum... many sites threaten a ban if you even begin a thread on this topic. While it's clear SciForums isn't banning people for talking about sex I think that might be more valuable to state in the policy itself. You should also make clear what James R is always saying, "please do not incite violence", etc. Let people know they can discuss things in a scientific way, but if the content of the thread is unscientific then it will simply be removed.

I'll give some examples, say I began a thread in the religion forum, I titled it "Are Christians Trash?". It's clear this has no real scientific basis, it's a personal statement designed to incite feelings of hate, etc. If it were instead titled "Are Christians Judgemental?"; Well that's abit more like it.. this question doesn't incite hate, it's more or less directed without violant intent. Of course the real problem with that thread would likely be "All people are different and from differing economic backgrounds, etc. Thus this has no real meaning in today's society." But ehh.. It'll die fast if nobody's interested.

So yea, I think you can allow topics that are unusual and bizarre as long as they won't incite violence or be unscientific in their wording. A good example again would be "Is Rape Fun?" now that by itself might seem a little unsettling, even sick.. that's why it would be important to make clear you CAN ask it, but in a scientific manner... like say "Is Rape Fun For The Rapiest?"

or something along those lines... maybe "Does A Rapiest Find It Fun?" They poster should present a scientific viewpoint immediately for this kind of tense topic, one that presents some facts, etc.. Then it can be carried over into a conversation that may be of benefit over-all.

Those are extreme examples, I merely try making a point. James R made a good thread about "Attitudes Towards Rape" awhile back.. this was admirable in that he was willing to even ask it, perhaps I've rubbed off on the guy abit :C~ Now if he'd called that thread "Rape Is Fun" or "Rape Is Evil" or "Rape Is Horrible & They Should Die".... well... it's clear these aren't scientific in their nature, they're only to incite violence, or to present unscientific arguments.

Science is god, and thus it can define for us parameters for discussion. Anything can be scientific if asked correctly, and thus it's important to make that clear. If you have a question, one you are really interested in discussing, it should be phrased in a scientific manner with links to source material. That's the ideal post.

:Z

I disagree.

Who is in a position to say that it is wrong?

Sciforums is supposed to encourage scientific discussion. Not decide what is right or wrong science (bad terminology, I know, but it's late and I'm tired and cranky).

Hmm. You're obviously not a scientist, because you seem to be ignorant of how science actually works.

The point is, something that has been shown to be wrong scietifically is not science---intelligent design, Afrocentrism, cold fusion. The spectific thread I'm talking about has been claiming for six years that high energy collisions at FermiLab will inevitably cause the Earth to turn into a supernova. Since roughly four million events a day are logged there, which means that there have been rouhly a billion events since this guy started posting his nonsense.

His arguments are fundamentally flawed, and shown to be wrong. You would give him the same forum as someone with an honest question, or a good idea? Please.

This has really umm, interesting posts :shrug:

Hmm. You're obviously not a scientist.

Not everyone here is a scientist. It is a discussion board. There are no entry requirements. The problem seems to be that 'quality' of poster will (or already IS) be an issue of membership and posting rights and entitlements to moderator intervention. That is not 'just'.

Membership would be reduced to less than 100 if you want contributions from qualified and peer respected scientists only.

Sci's ruling body is alienating it's MAJORITY poster with this 'value poster' system it wants to encourage. As the reality is most posters do not contribute MUCH in terms of scientific value. BUT they contribute HUGELY in terms of discussion. THUS they should be valued equally.

You both have a point. 5.1. act in accordance with this policy; applies to moderators.

Maybe it should be made or worded to ensure that moderators are also moderated and that members with complaints have a recourse for their complaint. The rules should apply to moderators as well as members. If a moderator breaks the rules in another forum (not one in which they moderate) they should be treated the same as members since they are members outside of the particular forum they moderate. If they break the rules in their own forums, then the administration should apply the rules to deal with their infraction(s).

:shrug:

Just a suggestion.

Well, that's already implied in the current text, BUT I will suggest a more explicit version, where it is stated that moderators are members (that is already clear, but for some, it seems, it's a challange) and that moderators are moderated by the admin, and all complains have to be made to admin.

Please give me 24h, have to learn for an exam now.

Not everyone here is a scientist. It is a discussion board. There are no entry requirements. The problem seems to be that 'quality' of poster will (or already IS) be an issue of membership and posting rights and entitlements to moderator intervention. That is not 'just'.

Membership would be reduced to less than 100 if you want contributions from qualified and peer respected scientists only.

Sci's ruling body is alienating it's MAJORITY poster with this 'value poster' system it wants to encourage. As the reality is most posters do not contribute MUCH in terms of scientific value. BUT they contribute HUGELY in terms of discussion. THUS they should be valued equally.

Sciforums unites members from all countries of the world for the
common goal to discuss, among other things, all things science in a
pleasant, non-threatening environment, where each and every member is
valued according to his or her contribution to the community.

Sciforums is an Internet community that, foremost and among other things, values
intelligent discussion, scientific method, critical thinking and sound
reasoning.

Are you against intelligent discussion, scientific method, critical thinking and sound
reasoning, TOR?

Not everyone here is a scientist. It is a discusion board. There are no entry requirements. The problem seems to be that 'quality' of poster will (or already IS) be an issue of membership and posting rights and entitlements to moderator intervention. That is not 'just'.

Membership would be reduced to less than 100 if you want contributions for qualified and peer respected scientists only.

Sci's ruling body is alienating it's MAJORITY poster with this 'value poster' system it wants to encourage. As the reality is most posters do not contribute MUCH in terms fo scientific value. BUT they contribute HUGELY in terms of discussion. THUS they should be valued equally.

Hi Fossil---

I'm not advocating that we have some filtering system that prevents people from making posts. In this respect, I think I am misunderstood. I just suggested that if something is SHOWN to be wrong or inaccurate, and its wrongness and inaccurateness is fundamental in nature, then it has no business being in the science fora.

What if I proposed that there was no link between HIV and AIDS? What if I made postings and spread propoganda along these lines? Should my posts be tolerated in the Biology forum? Surely your answer is no, as there is a WELL established link between the two diseases. Just ask the millions of people who die in Africa every year.

The quesiton is---why should bad physics be any less offensive than this?

I'm not advocating that we have some filtering system that prevents people from making posts. In this respect, I think I am misunderstood. I just suggested that if something is SHOWN to be wrong or inaccurate, and its wrongness and inaccurateness is fundamental in nature, then it has no business being in the science fora.

What if I proposed that there was no link between HIV and AIDS? What if I made postings and spread propoganda along these lines? Should my posts be tolerated in the Biology forum? Surely your answer is no, as there is a WELL established link between the two diseases. Just ask the millions of people who die in Africa every year.

I still dont understand what the problem is. If its been shown to be wrong in the thread, why throw it out? Surely its better to keep it there so that others who come along with similar questions doubts can see the reasoning?

The problem might be when another thread is made for the same thing, as it happens frequently.
Just how many moon landing conspiracy threads do we have in our archives?
No less than 15 I think.

I still dont understand what the problem is. If its been shown to be wrong in the thread, why throw it out? Surely its better to keep it there so that others who come along with similar questions doubts can see the reasoning?

Do you have any problems with MetaKron's posts on AIDS denial, or MattMarr's Illuminati posts, or IAC's posts on creationism ending up in pseudoscience?

Your ambiguous full of holes attempt at a contractual document
Are you that inane? It's a policy not a contract, there's a fundamental difference. I don't want to even imagine what your water tight contracts have been.

I still dont understand what the problem is. If its been shown to be wrong in the thread, why throw it out? Surely its better to keep it there so that others who come along with similar questions doubts can see the reasoning?

exactly. That is the POINT of a discussion forum.

In any forum there will be wrong , right and grey points of view. YOU can't delete all grey and wrong points of view otherwise there is NO platform for what is right to expose itself!

In any forum there will be wrong , right and grey points of view. YOU can't delete all grey and wrong points of view otherwise there is NO platform for what is right to expose itself!

And there are sections called "Pseudoscience" and "Cesspool" for such posts. If the scientific content of a post is shown to be wrong or nonexistant, it has no business in a science forum. Posts regularly get shuffled in other fora, why is it so abhorrent to suggest that the same standard be held in the science fora?

Meanwhile Avatar
A document where agreement from two parties is required is a CONTRACT.
I'm glad you continue to show your lack of legal education.
There are no two parties in this document which is a policy.
The one and only party is the community of sciforums which is made of all the memebers.
A constitution is not a contract, a law is not a contract, a policy is not a contract.

I presume he will get the equivalent of an infraction or a ban from moderating for a week?
A warning with deletion at best, but it's totally worth it.
Besides your "without provocation" is laughable.

And there are sections called "Pseudoscience" and "Cesspool" for such posts. If the scientific content of a post is shown to be wrong or nonexistant, it has no business in a science forum. Posts regularly get shuffled in other fora, why is it so abhorrent to suggest that the same standard be held in the science fora?

Science is not exclusively right it is subject to change. So does that mean if I get hot of the press NEW science , mods are going to cesspool it until such a time as they catch up with the advancements in science?

THE FACT is the moderators ARE NOT TOP scientists, they are not in a postition to RULE over what is good/bad science, what they can do though is contribute as members to refute the posts as they see fit within respectable boundaries.

I'm glad you continue to show your lack of legal education.
There are no two parties in this document which is a policy.
The one and only party is the community of sciforums which is made of all the memebers.
A constitution is not a contract, a law is not a contract, a policy is not a contract.


A warning with deletion at best, but it's totally worth it.
Besides your "without provocation" is laughable.

the two parties are


the board/mods agree to
the community agrees to


perhaps a re-read is in order on your behalf









4.[/B] A member of the community:
[B]4.1. acts in accordance with this policy;
4.2. supports actions taken by the administrators and moderators if
those actions are in accordance with this policy;
4.3. is responsible for his or her actions and has no right for moderator assistance
if the problem in question is fully or partially caused by the member.


5. Sciforums is run and managed by a team of administrators and
moderators who:
5.1. act in accordance with this policy;
5.2. take into consideration the common interests of the community;
5.3. respect human rights;
5.4. take action to enforce and promote this policy among the members
of the community.[/I]



There is a clear differentiation here Avatar...TWO sets of rules for TWO sets of people.

Meanwhile if you think you have been provoked by me to flame me, report those posts. Do not insult on this thread.

Moderators are members the same as governors are citizens.
I'm not going to discuss legal theory with you here, so I just appeal to my authority and leave you be in your ignorance.

Be seeing you. :cool:

Your response to my comment about your insults to me and how you expect you will be treated by admin:



A warning with deletion at best, but it's totally worth it.
.


So you advertise you abuse of the rules, yet your moderator status remains in tact? Interesting

Moderators are members the same as governors are citizens.
I'm not going to discuss legal theory with you here, so I just appeal to my authority and leave you be in your ignorance.

Be seeing you. :cool:

If that was true you would not have had 4. and 5. as seperate issues. YOU have clearly differentiated between the two and rightly so. There is a difference between the two you have demonstrated that.

I insult you and I get an infraction/ban.
You insult me, you post is deleted.
We are hardly being treated the same.

Meanwhile your continual insults to me demonstrate you have NO self control or discipline. Do you consider lack of self control to be a quality a moderator should have?

Science is not exclusively right it is subject to change. So does that mean if I get hot of the press NEW science , mods are going to cesspool it until such a time as they catch up with the advancements in science?

Do you really think that the Physics forum is full of new ideas? The moderators in the Physics forum (where I have all of my experience) are very slow to Cesspool threads. I have no complaints about this.

But you seem to think that "science" should be some democratic system where we listen to everybody and accept their opinions, and have no ability to pass a `right' or `wrong' scentence on their ideas. This notion is patently wrong. Just because you don't understand why an idea is right or wrong, doesn't mean that I can't decide. If I present an argument which shows, logically, that an idea is wrong, the burden of proof is on the original poster to show where my logic is mistaken. If he cannot, and if no one else can, then I am right and he is wrong. In this sense, science is not a democracy.

THE FACT is the moderators ARE NOT TOP scientists, they are not in a postition to RULE over what is good/bad science, what they can do though is contribute as members to refute the posts as they see fit within respectable boundaries.

Do you know this? James R and Pete are both professional scientists, as are people like spuriousmonkey. I imagine that there are others, too.

And you never answered my question---it wasn't rhetorical. I'll cut and paste it to save you the trouble of scrolling up:

What if I proposed that there was no link between HIV and AIDS? What if I made postings and spread propoganda along these lines? Should my posts be tolerated in the Biology forum? Surely your answer is no, as there is a WELL established link between the two diseases. Just ask the millions of people who die in Africa every year.

The quesiton is---why should bad physics be any less offensive than this?

If that was true you would not have had 4. and 5. as seperate issues. YOU have clearly differentiated between the two and rightly so. There is a difference between the two you have demonstrated that.

Ok.. come on. Be reasonable. Members are members and moderators/admins are members. We set up the rules for the members.. hence, they apply to EVERYONE. However, we need something that explains what the moderators do and what is expected of them. Whether you like it or not, moderators have more power than the regular members. Hence, they need a set of rules that apply to them.

Do you know this? James R and Pete are both professional scientists, as are people like spuriousmonkey. I imagine that there are others, too.

I'm a mathematician in training. Does this count?

If that was true you would not have had 4. and 5. as seperate issues. YOU have clearly differentiated between the two and rightly so. There is a difference between the two you have demonstrated that.



Moderators have more responsibilities and functions than regular members, therefore they need a separate section, the same as human rights and the regulation of parliamentary powers is not done in one chapter in the Latvian constitution.

I write legal acts and contracts as my bread and butter, TOR, I doubt your are more competent in this.

Meanwhile your continual insults to me demonstrate you have NO self control or discipline. Do you consider lack of self control to be a quality a moderator should have?
No, I just have fun. It's healthy for ones nervous system, you know.
I'd suggest you have some fun too, but it appears you are already having it by questioning mods for no good reason.

Ok.. come on. Be reasonable. Members are members and moderators/admins are members. We set up the rules for the members.. hence, they apply to EVERYONE. However, we need something that explains what the moderators do and what is expected of them. Whether you like it or not, moderators have more power than the regular members. Hence, they need a set of rules that apply to them.

Exactly, thank you for agreeing with me. TWO sets of rules for TWO sets of people. Thus a contract between two groups.

Exactly, thank you for agreeing with me. TWO sets of rules for TWO sets of people. Thus a contract between two groups.

I don't think I was agreeing with you. What I am saying is that Rule set A applies to regular members and moderators/admins. Rule set B applies only to moderators.. but basically all rule set B says is that rule set A applies to moderators and that the moderators have the power to enforce them. The way I see them is that it's really just one set of rules for everyone.

Exactly, thank you for agreeing with me. TWO sets of rules for TWO sets of people. Thus a contract between two groups.

Your logic is so pervertly wrong from a legal standpoint that my head hurts.
I'm not going to waste my time explaining that to you,
but I will answer a personal enquiry from Plazma Inferno or any other mod when I have more time.

Ciao.

Personal attacks aside I think the important thing about SciForums, and indeed those posting on it is that we discuss things in a scientific-lite. That of course means not arguing over every little thing someone says, which in all honesty can take on very different meaning later on down the line... You're each digging to deep into comments which mean very little in the end.

As for name-calling, I consider language to be art, and therefore names being thrown back or forth mean very little, it's merely a method of expressing yourselves... now I would prefer you did this without swearing but ehh..

You both sound real mad, it's scary :(

On a positive note:

One of the improvements I applaud was moving free thoughts to no mans land.

It was not a very good advert for the board having it as pick of the day!

On a positive note:

One of the improvements I applaud was moving free thoughts to no mans land.

It was not a very good advert for the board having it as pick of the day!

well some of us have enough stress in our life we just like to joke around and shoot the shit...

Ok, so back to science.

Creative (and anyone else who is interestd)---answer this quesiton please.

What if I proposed that there was no link between HIV and AIDS? What if I made postings and spread propoganda along these lines? Should my posts be tolerated in the Biology forum? Surely your answer is no, as there is a WELL established link between the two diseases. Just ask the millions of people who die in Africa every year.

The quesiton is---why should bad physics be any less offensive than this?

They should only be tolerated provided you give some evidence which contradicts the current paradigm.

Yes Ben they should be tolerated and responded to accordingly. This is a discussion board not a pure science peer reviewed board.

Yes Ben they should be tolerated and responded to accordingly. This is a discussion board not a pure science peer reviewed board.

And what do you mean responded to?

Plasma---

Maybe you could ask Spidergoat how much of a pain in the ass it was to take the time to read the discussion and follow it and delete the off-topic posts? I could imagine some of the more active fora having trouble keeping up with the posting rate.

Creative back to the point---

All points of view, even in an objective matter such as science, should be given equal weight?

Fair enough. Some mods moderate on emotion a little too much, this is never good.

Ganging up on posters and mob mentality is another point that should specifically made. When the Administrator deems a poster unfit he bans them so why should a group of member be able to follow a poster around and trash their threads?

Well anyway, i guess this kind of addresses this:

2. Sciforums unites members from all countries of the world for the
common goal to discuss, among other things, all things science in a
pleasant, non-threatening environment, where each and every member is
valued according to his or her contribution to the community.

When the Administrator deems a poster unfit he bans them so why should a group of member be able to follow a poster around and trash their threads?

Why shouldn't they be able to do this? If someone posts bad science, for example, I will follow them even to other websites and list what's wrong with their ideas. There may be some differences between something which is subjective, like politics or religion, and something that it objective, like science.

Since SciForums attempts to cover everything, no one set of rules is going to work for every forum.

Plasma---

Maybe you could ask Spidergoat how much of a pain in the ass it was to take the time to read the discussion and follow it and delete the off-topic posts? I could imagine some of the more active fora having trouble keeping up with the posting rate.

It's a big pain, which is why I encourage members to abide by the rules that by joining this forum we agreed to follow.

That is a valid concern. I'm mostly just responding to complaints that others have made. Some degree of off-topic posting isn't a bad thing.

Creative Fossil there is no Plazma’s rules on SciForums.
But, if you refer to this thread, then I clearly stated what I will do if off topic occurs.

That mean I will warn you and leopold and I’ll delete your off topic posts. Be very, very careful not to stumble on 2.


Second thing: No need to be hostile with moderators. In this thread we all discuss as members. For commonly good.

Your posts should be addressed to each member who participates in this thread, not only to me. That means that you disrespect other members and their suggestions.

Moderators are also members, but there should be a distinction between moderators and members, not discrimination or abuse, just distinction. Like on every forum.
You have members who participate in discussions, moderators who also participate in discussions and also steer that discussions in right direction. At the end there are administrators to participate in discussion (optional), steer discussion (optional) and monitor all members, including moderators.
We could have opposed views, but we are not enemies.

But, further in my responds.


I see an abuse here:

members should be valued equally not some more than others as you suggest here:

"Sciforums unites members from all countries of the world for the
common goal to discuss, among other things, all things science in a
pleasant, non-threatening environment, where each and every member is
valued according to his or her contribution to the community."

'Valued according to their contribution'. Who determines the value of that cointribution?

One of the main problems here is mods favouring some and victimising others due to differences of opinion.
You recieved that answer. Community should recognize the contribution, and that isn't so hard.

1) What action will be taken against mods who breach this policy?
Same action as will be taken against any other member. But, could you give an example of what breach? Of which part of policy? We still discuss policy here. Policy isn't finished yet. That's why I opened this thread.

I see an abuse here

4. A member of the community:
4.1. acts in accordance with this policy;
4.2. supports actions taken by the administrators and moderators if
those actions are in accordance with this policy;
4.3. is responsible for his or her actions and has no right for moderator assistance if the problem in question is fully or partially caused by the member.

Who decides if the poster is responsible?

If an agressive flame war starts with two members , one of whom the moderator favours or shares their view point, does that mod then deem the other poster to have 'brought' it upon themesleves if the opposing poster personally insults them?

This clause sounds like a way out of resolving problems when a psoter comes under attack.

Again, one of the main problems on this baord is mods exercising double standards, playing favourites and victimising certain members. I see these two policy clauses as supporting that 'abuse' of power rather than addressing and resolving it.

These board policies seem to be entirely about keeping the community under control BUT all the complaints have been about moderators NOT members.

SO

where are your policies that recognise and take steps to address that problem?
This part is important when someone in thread said to you (for example): "You piece of shit... Why don't you just go and kill yourself?" (I can say what I want to, even if I'm not serious, blah, blah... Sorry for digression!)
That means that member who said that will recieve an infraction and if he decides to make a complaint to mod who gave the infraction or to other mod or administrator, he/she has no right to asisstance or reversal of infraction, because it's it's obvious insulting.

Note: may I suggest a code of conduct is written up for moderators to abide by.

1) Moderators must ensure the board rules are followed by members while remaining neutral when dealing with issues that call for moderator intervention.

ie. Note the rule breach, note the penalty.
Keep all personal opinions out of it. REMAIN neutral.

Only when posting on behalf of yourself (not with mod hat on) can you freely express your views (within rules) as do other members of the board.

When expressing views as a 'member' your posts MUST be moderated with the same degree of vigilance as any other non mod. Abuse of board rules may result in you losing moderator status.

Moderators will only be appointed to post, if they have shown as members that they themselves have always respected other members views and demonstrate the qualities of self restraint and sound judgement.

etc.
This part about neutrality is ok. I like it.

Regarding your concern about bringing the scientific spirit in SciForums.
SciForums is scientific forum. But, there will always be place for off topic and casual discussion, as so far, but in propriate forums.
So don't worry, you won't be left without place to rant and talk nonsense.

Anyway, one suggestion: Don't write in red, bold and in bigger size. I think we all see your point very well.

Thanks for input.


You both have a point. 5.1. act in accordance with this policy; applies to moderators.

Maybe it should be made or worded to ensure that moderators are also moderated and that members with complaints have a recourse for their complaint. The rules should apply to moderators as well as members. If a moderator breaks the rules in another forum (not one in which they moderate) they should be treated the same as members since they are members outside of the particular forum they moderate. If they break the rules in their own forums, then the administration should apply the rules to deal with their infraction(s).

:shrug:

Just a suggestion.

This is how things should go for now. Moderators follow the same rules as members, not only in other forums, but in their own also.

Thanks.


Ben and DarksidezZ thank you for your suggestions.

I hope that other members will take part in discussion.

Creative Fossil there is no Plazma’s rules on SciForums.
But, if you refer to this thread, then I clearly stated what I will do if off topic occurs.

That mean I will warn you and leopold and I’ll delete your off topic posts. Be very, very careful not to stumble on 2.

.

warn me for what? I never breached any rules. I called no names and i insulted no one. If I did show me the post you refer to.




Second thing: No need to be hostile with moderators. In this thread we all discuss as members. For commonly good.

Your posts should be addressed to each member who participates in this thread, not only to me. That means that you disrespect other members and their suggestions.

.

I have not been hostile to moderators in this thread, if I have show me the post. Avatar was hostile and rude and patronising while quoting rules.

Meanwhile where in the rules does it say members HAVE to respond TO EVERY members post in the thread? You accuse me of disrespect? There are hundreds of members here whose posts are NEVER responded to. Posters have a right to respond to whomever they desire. BUT clearly thats a NEW rule you just created to apply to me.



.

Your reaction here demonstrates the problem. You have blatantly ignored the poor conduct or your moderator and accused me unjustly of being hostile as well as associating me with leo's flaming when I blatantly asked him over and over to post to me in pm and keep the insults off the thread.

You wouldn't know that of course because someone deleted my reasonable responses. How very convenient. Fortunately Ben kept an active track and can verify I tried my damndest to keep Leo from flaming and never once retaliated in kind.

It is very sad, you invited comment and your respond defensively rather than constructively.

There in the problem lies, the board is moderated and ran by persons who cannot be impartial.

I have tired to bring the problems as I see them to the foreground , you choose to ignore them, that's your choice. You have no hope in hell of resolving anything while you wear rosy tinted glasses with regard those moderators who do an appalling job.

They make a mockery of the board. You are too emotional to see what is under your nose. It is sad, the board will continue along its current path.

That's it from me, really no point saying anything to someone with blinkers on.

On a positive note:

One of the improvements I applaud was moving free thoughts to no mans land.

It was not a very good advert for the board having it as pick of the day!

While I am opposed to removing Free Thoughts from SF (been discussed), I have a few suggestions for it:

1) Move it further down the list (well, that's already been done)
2) Rename Free Thoughts to "Off Topic" or something similar (like Misc.)
3) Make Free Thoughts a private subforum, visible only to registered users. However, Invert has pointed out (when I suggest the same thing be done with the cesspool) this will make it impossible to do a google search for buried threads of interest. I'm hoping to find a work around to this.

Another thing the forum allows the use of bold and colour, I have never noted YOU ever restrict use to any other member. Yet more evdience of member victimisation. If colour and bolding is not desired DO NOT INCLUDE it as a feature of your board!

While I am opposed to removing Free Thoughts from SF (been discussed), I have a few suggestions for it:

1) Move it further down the list (well, that's already been done)
.

Absane I thanked you for moving it to the back of beyond. No one is suggesting it is removed. The action has already been taken as per 1)

Absane I thanked you for moving it to the back of beyond. No one is suggesting it is removed. The action has already been taken as per 1)

I don't have the power to move anything around. It was Plazma that moved FT. It was a weird move at first, but it was a good one.

But it has been suggested that FT be removed from SF in the past. It's been discussed a few times in the moderator forum. Thankfully (and rightfully) it has not been removed. All forums need an off-topic area.

ah, nevermind me.
i'm just a banned user that came back as a sock puppet, essentially saying fuck you to you and your rules.

edit:
and got away with it i might add.

i'll bet you 10 million dollars creative fossil was going on and on about how someone breeched the rules.

warn me for what? I never breached any rules. I called no names and i insulted no one. If I did show me the post you refer to.
Post numero uno. These are rules set for this thread. Very clearly.

Any attempt of trolling and meaningless posting won’t be tolerated.

In case that occurs, I’ll issue (in order):

1. Warning with deletion
2. Infraction
3. Three day ban

I deleted off topic posts, not only yours. According to Rule 1. of this thread. Simple.

I have not been hostile to moderators in this thread, if I have show me the post. Avatar was hostile and rude and patronising while quoting rules.

I don't see Avatar said anything rude. Regarding hostility, moderators were the primary subject of your posts. But, you didn't provide any argument and that is the problem.

Your reaction here demonstrates the problem. You have blatantly ignored the poor conduct or your moderator and accused me unjustly of being hostile as well as associating me with leo's flaming when I blatantly asked him over and over to post to me in pm and keep the insults off the thread.

You wouldn't know that of course because someone deleted my reasonable responses. How very convenient. Fortunately Ben kept an active track and can verify I tried my damndest to keep Leo from flaming and never once retaliated in kind.

It is very sad, you invited comment and your respond defensively rather than constructively.

There in the problem lies, the board is moderated and ran by persons who cannot be impartial.

I have tired to bring the problems as I see them to the foreground , you choose to ignore them, that's your choice. You have no hope in hell of resolving anything while you wear rosy tinted galsses with regard those moderators who do an appalling job.

They make a mockery of the board. You are too emotional to see what is under your nose. It is sad, the board will continue along its current path.

That's it from me, really no point saying anything to someone with blinkers on.
I deleted your 'constructive' posts. I explained it above.

My reaction? You placed only . and quoted it? Hm? Could you please edit and insert what I said?

Anyway, I have a question for all participants in discussion.

Are the moderators only problem on SciForums?

Let's start from this question if that will be easier for you to avoid the off topic.

(I have to go now, but I'll be on this again tomorrow)

While I am opposed to removing Free Thoughts from SF (been discussed), I have a few suggestions for it:

1) Move it further down the list (well, that's already been done)
2) Rename Free Thoughts to "Off Topic" or something similar (like Misc.)
3) Make Free Thoughts a private subforum, visible only to registered users. However, Invert has pointed out (when I suggest the same thing be done with the cesspool) this will make it impossible to do a google search for buried threads of interest. I'm hoping to find a work around to this.
2) and 3) definitely should be discussed.

Of course Mods aren't the only problem, they are the ONLY problem I cited. I cited it as they are the source of most the complaints threads. I never intiated those threads of which there are dozens. SO really, you denying there is a problem?

I spent this entire thread pointing out the problem, you still deny it exists. You refuse to address it.

YOU cannot see how immature and offensive moderator Avatar was being. You just can't see it depsite the red bold font! I have to laugh at this point as you claim the colour wasn't needed.

.

You know Plazma I WAS trying to be helpful, all you see is an attack on mods. Did it ever occur to you, some of those criticisms are justified?

I also DID point out there are many great mods on this board, NOT all of them are crap. But some blatantly are.

Funnily some of your own mods acknowledge that so why can't you!

As you have not received infractions for calling me a bitch and a slut and making numerous sexual suggestions I presume it is now ok for me to call you a sexless little prick.

You see Plazma, this is what happens when you play favourites.

I played by the rules and it got me nowhere.[/U] Your buddy is still insulting me and has not been infracted for his previous digressions. Do feel free to ban me.
Check post #20. Then speak.
Also, I swear I'll ban you if don't stop with whole this drama.
Don't forget that you're actually banned member. I let you post, because I've banned account, not a person.
Don't let me change my mind.
Post suggestions, arguments and improvements.

If you cannot, then go to sleep and get back tomorrow.


Note: the full unedited version of this thread will be copied to sciforums WIKIPEDIA as no doubt it will shortly disappear from here. Have a nice day :)

I am familiar by now with the way things are twisted after mods get on a thread, so I saved every bit. YOU will be accountable and your hypocrisy will be seen.
You clearly disobeys the rules I've set for this thread. I said there won't be off topic and I keep maintain that.

Feel free to post this whenever you want, I still have my superhero costume in my closet.

Also, I swear I'll ban you if don't stop with whole this drama.

Maybe if you give them one more ultimatum they'll shut the hell up.

On another note:

Why don't you make it a policy to have a thread for the infractions and bannings you mete out? For example, if a member gets an infraction, the moderator can post a link to the offending post or posts, and briefly explain why the infraction or banning was issued. This will prevent a thousand "We heart Dr. Lou natic" threads from springing up, and at least let other members know the hard and fast boundaries that the moderators are enforcing.

This could also serve as a discussion forum to hopefully resolve disputes between members.

Feel free to post this whenever you want, I still have my superhero costume in my closet.


Ban me bat man.

You are abusing the wrong person. I am not your enemy. Your own moderators are. You are being led like a sheep by a few bad eggs.

How stupid do you think we, the mods and admins, are?
You clearly have an axe to grind with the mod team, so you have chosen to get back to us by (poorly) trying to make us fight and divide among each another, so, when the dust settles, you're on the moral high ground.

Sorry, dramming sociopath queen, won't happen.

Maybe if you give them one more ultimatum they'll shut the hell up.

On another note:

Why don't you make it a policy to have a thread for the infractions and bannings you mete out? For example, if a member gets an infraction, the moderator can post a link to the offending post or posts, and briefly explain why the infraction or banning was issued. This will prevent a thousand "We heart Dr. Lou natic" threads from springing up, and at least let other members know the hard and fast boundaries that the moderators are enforcing.

This could also serve as a discussion forum to hopefully resolve disputes between members.

Good idea. However, we would have to post the offending message again, giving it more viewing and generally causing the opposite effect to the one intended.

Maybe if you give them one more ultimatum they'll shut the hell up.

On another note:

Why don't you make it a policy to have a thread for the infractions and bannings you mete out? For example, if a member gets an infraction, the moderator can post a link to the offending post or posts, and briefly explain why the infraction or banning was issued. This will prevent a thousand "We heart Dr. Lou natic" threads from springing up, and at least let other members know the hard and fast boundaries that the moderators are enforcing.

This could also serve as a discussion forum to hopefully resolve disputes between members.

That's a good idea and I like it if it can be done automatically and doesn't cost too much time to implement. We don't have anything to hide.

Good idea. However, we would have to post the offending message again, giving it more viewing and generally causing the opposite effect to the one intended.

Maybe if it's just a link to a particular post it's not really the same as posting the offending message again.
Only those that are interested in seeing our actions will see the posts.

Good grief!

How about, to address the issue of mods and their behaviour and to ensure they abide by the rules that govern the members, we place a clause explicitly stating that moderators are also to abide by the rules that govern all members.

And while we are at it, maybe we should also address what is to happen to moderators who breach such rules that would normally result in a ban for members. And we also need to address how members are able to complain about certain moderators they feel have wronged them (to make sure there aren't about 10 threads created for each complaint).

SciForums Policy

[I]1. Sciforums is an Internet community that, foremost and among other things, values
intelligent discussion, scientific method, critical thinking and sound
reasoning.


I see some interpretational problems here.

Firstly, the policy here is vague: what are the "other things" that are valued?
Are the stated values of greater import than those 'other' values?

Secondly, what exactly is derived from these stated values? Does this mean that threads and/or posts that are devoid of intelligent content, ignorant of scientific methodology, lacking in critical thought or reason will be disallowed??

And therefore Thirdly, who will determine whether or not posted content qualifies as sharing in those values?

I see some interpretational problems here.

Firstly, the policy here is vague: what are the "other things" that are valued?
Are the stated values of greater import than those 'other' values?

Secondly, what exactly is derived from these stated values? Does this mean that threads and/or posts that are devoid of intelligent content, ignorant of scientific methodology, lacking in critical thought or reason will be disallowed??

And therefore Thirdly, who will determine whether or not posted content qualifies as sharing in those values?

Hi,
“foremost and among other things” means that intelligent discussion, scientific method, critical thinking and sound reasoning are not the only things valued at Sciforums, but these are given a special importance and priority over others.

I made this an open clause because nobody can name and pinpoint down all values, it's too immaterial. Law scientists and scholars tried it in the 19th century and failed miserably. So I made it an open clause left for the particular case to identify what is a Sciforums value or isn't.

There is no sanction in this clause, so nothing is disallowed by it. It just shows on what we concentrate on and guides and advises all members on how to act.
It also can be used as a reference when a particular action is taken by the administration or moderators, for example, like moving Free Thoughts lower, because foremost we value intelligent discussion, scientific method, critical thinking and sound reasoning, properties which Free thoughts don't meet. Same with We&P.

Avatar,

Thanks for the speedy reply.

Indeed, it would be a monumentous task to elucidate the particular values to be considered prime.

My major concern was, as you have gathered, that of priority.

I mean, not that I'm the first person to jump to the defense of the holy-rollers that haunt the Religion forum, but if we stuck to an exclusive interpretation of the listed values, almost all of those folk would be banned from posting.

No, they won't. And I can assure you that the moderator and admin team recognizes the importance of the Religios forum at Sciforums.

Let me further explain on your concern. The priority means just that, a priority, it doesn't exclude other things and it is among other things.
A priority means that we won't have this site renamed to religiousforums or politicsforums, a priority means that we won't judge members based on their political party or religion, just that we will listen more to arguments which are made logically and reasonably.

As I said earlier, there is no sanction in that clause and it prohibits nothing.

Yes, I understood that.

I was simply saying that, under a strict interpretation, the vast majority of those posters would be unable to continue to participate..

Why wouldn't they? If there is no sanction, there is no action taken against such posters, therefore they enjoy the same freedoms as every other member.
It doesn't imply enforcing any restrictions.

You can not interpret more from a norm more than is included in the wording of the text. Interpret more and it is a creation of a new norm.

Good idea. However, we would have to post the offending message again, giving it more viewing and generally causing the opposite effect to the one intended.

Maybe just the flavor of the offending message, then?

We're beating a dead horse here but...


Under a strict interpretation (meaning, the least possible interpretation...) coupled with an exclusive prioritization (which, admittedly, you did deny) of the stated values, theistic-based discussion would necessarily be eliminated.

Since you've made it clear that the stated values do not exclude others, it goes without saying that anything goes..

Fair enough.

Although, I think the Administration is setting itself up for problems by supporting an 'anything goes' policy.....

I was simply saying that, under a strict interpretation, the vast majority of those posters would be unable to continue to participate..

I think he is saying that a belief in religion is, by definition, irrational. Appologists of any ilk are irrational, Christians and Muslims and Hindus need not be.

Anything goes that is in the common interests of the community. Good enough, wouldn't you say? :)

If we made a policy that has no implications and no particular vision, it would be a toothless, bland text worth nothing, stating nothing and meaning nothing.

Apart from that I just ask the members to trust us and sincerely hope that reason shall prevail. Because any norm can be interpreted radically, but they are not in civilized societies.

p.s. It is still a draft and, considering the input of all members in this thread, I will revise it this weekend or earlier.

I think he is saying that a belief in religion is, by definition, irrational.
...

That is correct.

However, this doesn't mean that we cannot have intelligent discussion of a religious and/or theistic nature. It simply means that the discussion must adhere to certain constraints; sound reasoning, critical thought and an understanding of the scientific method being a few of them.

Anything goes that is in the common interests of the community. Good enough, wouldn't you say? :)

Perhaps, but that opens up another huge can o' worms.
Do we then succumb to 'mob rule'?
Who is the arbiter of 'common interest' of the community?



If we made a policy that has no implications and no particular vision, it would be a toothless, bland text worth nothing, stating nothing and meaning nothing.

True enough.

Perhaps, but that opens up another huge can o' worms.
Do we then succumb to 'mob rule'?
Who is the arbiter of 'common interest' of the community?
No, I foresaw this problem, please see clause 5 and 5.2.
Take into consideration means that moderators have to listen and consider the voice of the community, but they don’t have to necessarily abide it.
The main decision maker is the admin and mod team, who have to consult the community before making any such decision.
Their duty is to stand guard and protect the vision that is enclosed in the policy.
If an unruly mob tries to ruin this place, mods have to protect it.
And that links back to clause 4.2.

I think it would help if you made parallels with a constitution and the rights the executive power usually has been given in order to protect it.

...
Their duty is to stand guard and protect the vision that is enclosed in the policy.
...

The problem being, as we've previously discussed, that vision is vaguely defined, at best.


I think it would help if you made parallels with a constitution and the rights the executive power usually has been given in order to protect it.

To be fair, I'm sure I would be unable to write up a constitution.

I'm more of a 'potential problem finder'. :-)

Part of my daytime job is to proof-read and critique legal documents...

Thanks, and I appreaciate your critique.
The problem being, as we've previously discussed, that vision is vaguely defined, at best.
Yes. And that is because our community is so diverse and unpredictable and vast that it is hard if not impossible to write something that would suit all reasonable minds and still mean a damn.
It would be easier to write for a particular nation or culture, but here we have members from the USA to Germany, to Russia, to Australia.

If you have any ideas on how to improve the current text I'm eager to hear.
Saying that it needs to be more concrete won't help, because there is an invisible, immaterial border that says if we go over it, we will needlessly restrict ourselves,
but laws and policies should serve the people, not the other way around.

I do not understand :L James R says a few things, 1 of them is "please do not incite violence" to which I think it should become a rule. Anyone inciting it should be given an infraction... also umm maybe he's got a few more things he says, I don't know. Oh wait here's one Posting Violent, Abusive or Pornographic Content, ok... no porn or violent abusive content :L Also flaming is wrong he says, so make flaming bad and infraction worthy.

I prefer out of all the things suggested the no inciting of violence be kept, I'm real sleepy so am gonna go now :(

Well, the thing is that infractions are given willy-nilly sometimes, and a clear standard doesn't seem to be applied. This is ok, because intent is much more important than content, most of the time. Applying a hard line standard to all posts wouldn't be fun.

Applying a hard line standard to all posts wouldn't be fun.

I should clarify---posts should always be taken in context. It doesn't make sense to hack someone for flaming a thread that no one is taking seriously. Those who intentionally use these tactics in threads for some other reason, however, SHOULD be penalized.

Avatar, you are an arrogant vain tiny little prick.
Plazma you are a weak leader with no balls.

Note: I do assume it is now OK to insult members being as Plazma and leo were permitted to call me a bitch on this thread and Avatr has called me numerous things?

Oh silly me, it's only OK for the chosen few. One Ban (not that it'll stop me returning....yawn zzzzzzzzz) coming up.

That my friends is the reason YOU are the ones destroying the board.
You are hypocrites and your ego's are not proportionate with your responsibilities.

You are fucking unpaid mods for fucks sake. Get a job!

Loving the colour dudes! :)


_______________________________


*** Administrator's Notice ***

Creative Fossil has been permanently banned from the SciForums.

Reason: Sockpuppet of banned member

*Additional note: Theoryofrelativity has been allowed to continue posting after her permanent ban under the new name Creative Fossil.
I stated then that I've banned account not a person and that banned member could post trying to avoid things that led to her previous ban.

Obviously there wasn't will for improving.

This time I've banned person as well.

Well, the thing is that infractions are given willy-nilly sometimes, and a clear standard doesn't seem to be applied. This is ok, because intent is much more important than content, most of the time. Applying a hard line standard to all posts wouldn't be fun.
I think a lot of it is according to whom you are addressing. Some of us have a pretty thick skin and hit the 'report' button rarely, if at all. Some seem to read every post with their pointer hovering over the button. They raise such a stink if the moderators don't take action, the moderators will issue an infraction every now and then just to try to pacify them.

I personally have only ever reported one post, and it was not directed at me.
I also have only ever recieved one infraction and can't complain about it. Instead of hitting the 'report' button concerning a post I felt very insulting, I decided to insult back. I tried to be sneaky and used the words 'nonentity' and 'it' so the insult would not be 'personel', but forgot I was using the 'quote post' function. Duh! :o

Administrator's Notice:

Off topic warning for shorty37 and Roman!

Back on the topic!

Is there a rule that you can't start a thread on the same subject twice? There should be.

Is there a rule that you can't start a thread on the same subject twice? There should be.

What do you mean?

Is there a rule that you can't start a thread on the same subject twice? There should be.
Well, forum would be really deficient in content if we allow only one thread per subject.

But if several threads on same subjects are opened in the same time, there is possibility that they will be merged into one.

Anyway members, especially the new members, are encouraged to first use 'Search' option and then to create thread.

What do you mean?

I mean.... Poll: Global Flood Model
Poll: Global Flood Model
Great Explanation of Global Flood Model
A plethora of problems for the Young Earth Hypothesis
Poll: Old or Young Earth?
: Do you believe IAC's GFM?
Revised Global Flood Model Poll
What Do You Know about the GFM?

Not everyone here is a scientist. It is a discussion board.My view on this subject is that since our name is SCI Forums, our obviously implied mission is to be an oasis where the principles of scientific discourse are respected. This absolutely does not require that every member be a practicing or student scientist. It merely requires that in an increasingly irrational world (at least from my American perspective), we will always rule for reason over emotion, and uphold some fundamental rules such as the scientific method, peer review and Occam's Razor.Membership would be reduced to less than 100 if you want contributions from qualified and peer respected scientists only.I think I speak for the moderators when I say that was not our intention. I speak for myself but hopefully for other moderators when I say that I would like to discourage an outright invasion by the forces of darkness. Doubts about the validity of the scientific method, probability analysis of Occam's Razor, the influence of politics in peer review... more-or-less scholarly discussions of this type are valuable in a forum where most of the members are not trained scientists because they demonstrate the robustness of science, and they have their place in subforums like Philosophy and General Science. What I do not condone is trolls stalking threads in the Geology or Biology subforums and inserting off-the-wall posts in a mock-authorative voice, making implicit assumptions that things like Past-Life Regression or Evolution Denial are taken seriously by the scientific community.

My personal crusade is simply to attract people who are looking for a place like this. If, by Googling a scientific topic, an inqusitive person stumbles into SciForums, I want him to stay, and not run away making crazy-finger-rotations around his ear because the second post he read was by an anti-scientist.THE FACT is the moderators ARE NOT TOP scientists, they are not in a postition to RULE over what is good/bad science.You don't have to be a "top scientist" to be able to spot bad science.One of the improvements I applaud was moving free thoughts to no mans land. It was not a very good advert for the board having it as pick of the day!My thoughts exactly. Someone comes to SCI Forums looking for scientific discussions, and the lead thread is a poll about which pants leg you put on first. (Apologies to Darky.)Does this mean that threads and/or posts that are devoid of intelligent content, ignorant of scientific methodology, lacking in critical thought or reason will be disallowed?Personally I want the emphasis to be on things scientific, but in order to serve the community of people we might attract, we also have to provide a chat room, advice column, and after-hours club for them. I would just like to see a good balance. The Arts and History subforums, for example, are the homes of many informative yet entertaining discussions. Even discussions questioning science itself must be hosted, as I said above. But they should be honestly identified, not tossed in subversively to derail the science discussions.I think he is saying that a belief in religion is, by definition, irrational.Of course. Faith and reason are to a large extent opposites. Scientists believe things that have withstood exhaustive testing without being proven untrue, but will cheerfully, even enthusiastically, abandon their beliefs if that proof occurs. Religionists believe things that they hope are true, basically things that cannot be proven or disproven. Conflicts occur at the shifting boundary, when science develops ways to test religious hypotheses that were never testable before.However, this doesn't mean that we cannot have intelligent discussion of a religious and/or theistic nature. It simply means that the discussion must adhere to certain constraints; sound reasoning, critical thought and an understanding of the scientific method being a few of them.Personally I see that type of scholarship as the essence of the Comparative Religion subforum: religion as philosophy. However, since science and religion do not need to conflict (prominent scientists include devout members of most of the major faiths), I think my "chat room" thesis urges us to provide a place for our members to hold discussions of an entirely religious nature, and that is the Religion subforum, where Occam may not be held in high regard. I simply urge us to keep science in our mission. In the occasional instance when science and religion conflict--such as deciding which side gets to slap their forehead in frustration over the other without an Infraction, or which threads must endure editorial and administrative incursions by the other side--I hope we will rule in favor of science.

what should be done about this?
http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=67691
in the OP it stated
Non-Americans, please fuck off. This thread isn't for you.
14 posts later this post is made:
Muhahahah im not american and i posted!
not only is the poster non american it's also off topic.

must posts be reported before action is taken?

maybe that's one of the mod/ poster problems, posters expect off topic and/ or bad posts to mysteriously disappear when in fact they first must be reported.

what should be done about this?
http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=67691
in the OP it stated

14 posts later this post is made:

not only is the poster non american it's also off topic.

must posts be reported before action is taken?

maybe that's one of the mod/ poster problems, posters expect off topic and/ or bad posts to mysteriously disappear when in fact they first must be reported.

Since it is response to the OP it is very much on topic IMO. OTOH, it is a trolling post.

interesting bit of logic there sam.
so a post is on topic if it's a response to the OP? :confused:
what if you make the following post in the thread we are discussing:
there is dirt under my fingernails, i think i'll scrub them
according to your logic the above post isn't off topic because it's in response to the OP. correct?

interesting bit of logic there sam.
so a post is on topic if it's a response to the OP? :confused:
what if you make the following post in the thread we are discussing:

according to your logic the above post isn't off topic because it's in response to the OP. correct?

What question in the OP is it responding to, specifically?

i am under the impression that you believe a post is on topic if it's in response to the original post.
i believe what you actually mean is in response to the issues raised by the original post.

i am under the impression that you believe a post is on topic if it's in response to the original post.
i believe what you actually mean is in response to the issues raised by the original post.

Good then we understand each other.

so, how is the post i mentioned in post 107 not off topic?

it addresses none of the issues raised.

so, how is the post i mentioned in post 107 not off topic?

it addresses none of the issues raised.

Like I said its a trolling post, however it is responding to Roman's Americans only invitation.

i would like to know what others think about your logic.

i consider the post clearly off topic.

what about a post that's made in response to the very presence of the OP?

Depends on the intent of the post. I'm not a censor, but a moderator; its my job to facilitate discussion by guidance not by imposition.

it has no intent. it was spawned by the presence of the OP.
if the OP wasn't there neither would the post in question.
its only intent is to exist.

it has no intent. it was spawned by the presence of the OP.
if the OP wasn't there neither would the post in question.
its only intent is to exist.

That was my opinion.:shrug:

i smell baron max.
anyway that's what i'm asking you! what is your opinion of a post with the qualities i outlined in post 117?

Guys you're dispersing this thread too much. There are more important things to discus. Please.

This is a bit tounge in cheek, but I suggested it in another of the locked thread.

Why don't we have like a monthly competition, based solely on wit, sarcasm and intelligence, and allow the winner to troll whatever threads he wishes, whether there be alpha rules or rokkon rules, or whatever. So every month, we would have a few people give their best responses to a wide open post, and let the members vote. The winner would be allowed to float from forum to forum and troll at will, within the confines of good taste.

And no person can be the troll more than once in a six month period.

It has no intent. it was spawned by the presence of the OP. If the OP wasn't there neither would the post in question. Its only intent is to exist.Guys you're dispersing this thread too much. There are more important things to discuss. Please.Permit my humble attempt to make peace and relate this issue to the discussion of the SciForums policy...

My personal opinion is that we should not over-moderate, and therefore we should err in favor of free speech. This is an international community and we don't all come from the same context. In just the past two days I've seen more than one example of one person not realizing that another person was simply making a humorous but on-topic comment about another person's post. People don't recognize the legislative and cultural environment in each other's countries and don't realize that something that is open to reasonable debate in one may be a universal custom in another and a prohibited activity somewhere else. These and many other types of misunderstanding can lead to expressions of disbelief, shock, moral outrage, "how can you stand to live there," "how can you call yourself rational," etc. Sometimes in coarser and more impetuous language, not everyone is an incredibly suave and polished 63-year-old public speaker like me.

Even in my own country, some kids call me an "old fart" and mean it affectionately, others mean it as an insult.

It's not easy to accurately identify the intent of a post that seems at first blush to be precocious, trolling or off topic. As I said earlier, my practice is to be harsh with posts that interrupt a scientific discussion with anti-scientific crap. Those are the ones that will frustrate existing members and scare away new ones. With everything else I would allow a little leeway until the offender starts to establish a behavior pattern.

This is not truly a library or classroom, and let's not forget that a huge percentage of our members--perhaps a majority--are just incredibly young. I suggest that they should be allowed to chew gum, tell jokes, complain about the air conditioning, and call each other dweebs. And the next time you see some punk call me "old and stuck up," please remind him that I said this. :)

I'm a new moderator so I don't know how the others feel about all this.

Permit my humble attempt to make peace and relate this issue to the discussion of the SciForums policy...

My personal opinion is that we should not over-moderate, and therefore we should err in favor of free speech. This is an international community and we don't all come from the same context. In just the past two days I've seen more than one example of one person not realizing that another person was simply making a humorous but on-topic comment about another person's post. People don't recognize the legislative and cultural environment in each other's countries and don't realize that something that is open to reasonable debate in one may be a universal custom in another and a prohibited activity somewhere else. These and many other types of misunderstanding can lead to expressions of disbelief, shock, moral outrage, "how can you stand to live there," "how can you call yourself rational," etc. Sometimes in coarser and more impetuous language, not everyone is an incredibly suave and polished 63-year-old public speaker like me.

Even in my own country, some kids call me an "old fart" and mean it affectionately, others mean it as an insult.

It's not easy to accurately identify the intent of a post that seems at first blush to be precocious, trolling or off topic. As I said earlier, my practice is to be harsh with posts that interrupt a scientific discussion with anti-scientific crap. Those are the ones that will frustrate existing members and scare away new ones. With everything else I would allow a little leeway until the offender starts to establish a behavior pattern.

This is not truly a library or classroom, and let's not forget that a huge percentage of our members--perhaps a majority--are just incredibly young. I suggest that they should be allowed to chew gum, tell jokes, complain about the air conditioning, and call each other dweebs. And the next time you see some punk call me "old and stuck up," please remind him that I said this. :)

I'm a new moderator so I don't know how the others feel about all this.

You say it so much better Fraggle; I agree with everything you said.:p

I think that one of the only things that moving "Free Thoughts" down the SciForums hierarchy has accomplished is that the science forums that are near the top are now filling up with all of the posts that WOULD have gone in to Free Thoughts.

Is this a good thing?

I think that one of the only things that moving "Free Thoughts" down the SciForums hierarchy has accomplished is that the science forums that are near the top are now filling up with all of the posts that WOULD have gone in to Free Thoughts. Is this a good thing?I think so. It puts them in a new context and context is everything. It causes everyone, at least unconsciously, to relate the post to a scholarly topic. It also puts them in the bailiwick of moderators who have license to be a little sterner than the poor folks who have to deal with Free Thoughts. All in all I think it will help us maintain balance, so we retain our identity as a forum with a scientific slant, without suppressing casual banter.

It causes everyone, at least unconsciously, to relate the post to a scholarly topic.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=67688
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=67733
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=67721


A sampling of some of the posts. Scholarly?

Do let me know if you come across any such in Science and Society or Biology and Genetics.

Absolutely. The point is, people who have some meaningless post to make will just plop it in the first place they find that kind of fits the bill. General Science? Sure! The Free Thoughts forum being at the top at least acted as a filter.

Maybe this is all just temporary.

Absolutely. The point is, people who have some meaningless post to make will just plop it in the first place they find that kind of fits the bill. General Science? Sure! The Free Thoughts forum being at the top at least acted as a filter.

Maybe this is all just temporary.

Perhaps it will take some time for people to discover that the Free thoughts forum has not been deleted, only moved?:p

I think the Cesspool needs to be moved to the top.

im a creature of habit and routine. this new layout makes me sad.

You know what else might be cool? Why not open an "Infractions and Bannings" forum, next to the Cesspool. This will be for people to start threads and bitch about the infractions they receive, as opposed to sticking their threads somewhere else. They can also lament the loss of rascists like Dr. Lou natic, psychopaths like Singularity, and nutjobs like IAC.

You know what else might be cool? Why not open an "Infractions and Bannings" forum, next to the Cesspool. This will be for people to start threads and bitch about the infractions they receive, as opposed to sticking their threads somewhere else. They can also lament the loss of rascists like Dr. Lou natic, psychopaths like Singularity, and nutjobs like IAC.

Thats what site feedback and open government are for; also about the members.

I don't know---I wouldn't classify people bitching about their infractions as "Site Feedback". But you're probably right.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=67721
A sampling of some of the posts. Scholarly?
what is wrong with this thread?
other than it being a public poll?

The word 'policy' is defined as a line of argument rationalizing the course of action or a plan of action adopted by an individual or social group.

Therefore, the title should be changed to "Sciforums Guidelines" as policies are meant to be adhered, as defined.

Guideline: A rule or principle that provides guidance to appropriate behavior.

The thread is, obviously, bullshit. And bullshit threads like this used to be in free thoughts, now they're in some science forum. I was just wondering if this is REALLY what the moderators wanted---clearly there are no auspices of intelligent conversation in the original post itslelf...note the `U' instead of `You' in the title.

Fraggle said that the intention of moving the fora around was to foster some more intelligent conversation, and I showed three instances where this was cleary NOT the case.

The thread is, obviously, bullshit.
personally i feel it raises a valid question and has potential for debate.
it also has a very real possibility of turning into a sexist, bigoted debate.
the only reason i haven't voted in the poll is because it's public.
clearly there are no auspices of intelligent conversation in the original post itslelf...note the `U' instead of `You' in the title.
good point.
maybe the thread starter can be issued a warning about that.

Fraggle said that the intention of moving the fora around was to foster some more intelligent conversation, and I showed three instances where this was cleary NOT the case.
what if the thread i questioned was started by, say, pete?

moderators,
what is the purpose of public polls?
can they be eliminated?

This long and dry thread is finally winding down, thank God; so, with your indulgence, allow me to insert one final suggestion to your tired attempts at generating a new metamorphosis: don't overlook what works for Sciforums: its buoyancy, its horseplay, its flexibility, its devilish charm. And then there are its more serious qualities, as observed idiosyncratically across board in various individual forms and colors: its self-assertiveness, its introspection, its cynicism, its criticism, its provocativeness.

But this time around the only thing seemly wanting is the exercise of a more conscientious responsibility—another thing that is misunderstood because it is an idiosyncratic quality that is also individually varied and colored.

personally i feel it raises a valid question and has potential for debate.
it also has a very real possibility of turning into a sexist, bigoted debate.
the only reason i haven't voted in the poll is because it's public.

The poll is bullshit just from the way it was framed. It comes from someone who is the author of many bullshit polls.

Maybe you could ban one line replies.

Maybe you could ban one line replies.Sometimes one-line replies are jam packed with significance. I wouldn't discourage them. Personally, I prefer the clever acute punch over the long and winding road.

bullshit threads like this used to be in free thoughts, now they're in some science forum. I was just wondering if this is REALLY what the moderators wanted

That gave me an idea. Would you approve of handing out an infraction to the OP for "off-topic posting" when threads "like that" are created?

This is not to discourage the creation of threads, but to discourage creating threads where they don't belong. Obviously the moderator can move the thread to FT or the cesspool, but moving the thread isn't as effective as slapping the OP on the wrist and saying "no, don't post that here."

No I don't agree; someone may post a thread in a particular subforum for many reasons; in fact I doubt anyone does it merely to irritate the mods.

No I don't agree; someone may post a thread in a particular subforum for many reasons; in fact I doubt anyone does it merely to irritate the mods.

It don't think I was implying that they make threads like that to annoy the mods. My point is that threads are created to discuss a specific topic. Asking us a question that relates to human science isn't the same as asking a question whose purpose is understand the psychology of the question and its answer. The OP of the thread in question (something about trusting men/women) posed no question that deals with the psychology of trust. He was just asking who we trust more. That's more of an about members/free thoughts type thread. Sure, the purpose of him posting in that section might have been to gather information on the psychology of trust, but he didn't ask. Hell, I could argue that his thread belongs in the Ethics forum.

And without direction, that thread could (and maybe it is already) go all over the place...

That gave me an idea. Would you approve of handing out an infraction to the OP for "off-topic posting" when threads "like that" are created?

This is not to discourage the creation of threads, but to discourage creating threads where they don't belong.
bad idea.
where would you place a bioengineering for human health thread?
it could go in several different forums.

i also agree with sam, threads are rarely misplaced to annoy the mods.

bad idea.
where would you place a bioengineering for human health thread?

Human science (assuming it's not directionless).

it could go in several different forums.

True, but it would be a thread with a specific direction (at least, I hope). The thread about who you trust more doesn't have a specific direction. It's more like a random survey, isn't it?

i also agree with sam, threads are rarely misplaced to annoy the mods.

Again, I didn't say otherwise.
Edit: oh, you two are talking about Ben's comment. He is just pointing out that as time goes on, topics and threads are going allover the place and we are missing the point of what each subforum is for.

The thread about who you trust more doesn't have a specific direction. It's more like a random survey, isn't it?

well yes, it's like a survey.
i believe it's a question that everybody has asked at one time or another.
i also find it odd that the last time i checked no females voted in the poll.

like i said earlier, the only thing i see wrong with the poll is that it's a public poll.
i seldom vote in a public poll, i can probably count them on one hand.

3. ‘Rokkon’ Rules (*) - Every SciForums member has the right to set up own rules for particular thread he/she created in particular forum.
That will enable that members could also steer discussion and ensure that their threads won’t be overwhelmed with off topic content.
‘Rokkon” Rules shouldn’t be in inconsistency with General Guidelines (Rules), Rules that have been set by moderator of that particular forum and/or SciForums Policy.

I'm just pointing out that I don'