Member Selective Banning from Posting in Threads

It has been my experience that there are a limited (but to many) members here that do nothing but deliberately attempt to start flame wars or drag threads off topic and trash threads that others might otherwise be interested in discussing.

Just as we now have the "Ignore" option, it seems it would be advantageous to this forum to allow thread starters the ability to block undesireable harrassment by chronic offenders of the purpose of this forum which is to discuss actual issues.

Keep in mind this works two ways. You don't want to hear from me you can block me from posting in your threads as well.

I like this idea.

Unless I am mistaken on how the "Ignore" works others can see BS being posted but you can't. There are situations where nobody should be subjected to the distraction of deliberate destructive behavior and that should be at the descretion of the thread starter.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Mind you that this has been brought on by MacM deciding he'd rather not have to support what he says. In particular:
MacM posted a link to a paper on ether theory (basically treats space/gravity as a fluid).
The issue was raised that it didn't address compressibility of the proposed ether.
MacM didn't address the point and continually evaded, finally saying:

Yet the very paper he was trying to support said:

After I pointed this out, he claimed Yuriy and I were put on his ignore list.

So the issue is, do you want people to just stick their fingers in their virtual eyes and say 'la la la, I can't hear you' whenever they try and support an idea which is blatantly wrong?

We have mods if posts are out of hand. If someone wants their own personal platform from which to lie and make stuff up, SciForums shouldn't be it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I fully agree!

 

READERS:

Here is a perfect example of what I am talking about.

In thread GLET vs GR [thread=42429]Here[/thread] Persol posted (6) times. Not once making any contribution to the thread but only casting personal attacks and innuendo. Yuriy posted (13) times and continued to repeat the same arguement even after it was answered. Each containing personal attacks.

In another thread [post=714909]Post[/post] I posted a long list of other scientists Conferances, Communications and Experiments that are Generally Ignored which draw Relativity into question. Since these submissions were not my statements but those of highly qualified scientist, Persol and Yuriy chose to attack me and disregard all the information posted.

For example in one case where a general comment had been made in one paper, I made note of a correlation between that view and my own. Referring to that paragraph I said.

To which I got the following response from Yuriy.

This falsely claimed I said something I had not by quoting a paragraph from the paper referenced and further continued personal insults and attacks. I clarified the issue pointing out what I actually said.

What I claim for the view in UniKEF is unmistakeable and is not what Yuriy claimed I said and for which he made personal attacks.

His response follows:

Notice that he cites the paragraph from the paper but stops my statement midway completely altering the meaning of my statement. This is deliberate. An attempt to tell a lie and yet he has the audacity to call me a liar while doing so. This is wholly unacceptable of anyone, particularily of anyone supposedly educated and a professional.

If this is not sufficient, he then reposts this same distortion (5) more times in its exact above format and makes no contribution toward the issues raised in the thread which deals with other scientific views and test data.

This sort of distortion and unwarranted diversion and disruption of serious topics of interest is untenable. If we each had the ability to ban posters and hide such trash from others, this site would soon be free to actually have intelligent discussions.

Such posters would soon learn that if they want their opinion considered it would have to be made in a respectful way which was on topic.

Moderators jobs would certainly be relieved.

 

I support this idea.

 

Clearly Moderators could not be blocked but something must be done for the intrusive conduct of certain members that do nothing but disrupt threads and contribute nothing but personal insults to a discussion.

See my above post regarding Persol and Yuriy. There is no way that I or anybody should have to tolerate being called a liar and other names for the shear enjoyment of such abusive posters.

In the example I just gave Yuriy launched his campaign of attacks with his first post. He repeated the same deliberate falsification of my post 5 times.

He gentlemen is the liar here and I do not tolerate such abusive BS. I will respond in kind but that distracts the issues to be discussed. If people here want to have these little ego pissing contests then fine but you are accomplishing asolutely nothing by doing so.

 

Nobody seeks the soap box from which to lie. Moderators would still be in a position to control content. However posters such as Persol and Yuriy could be kept from trashing a thread simply because they disagree with a particlular view.

 

I voted for the idea. There are just some people that mess things up.

But it was a rash decision. So what if the thread starter doesn't want to hear from that poster? What about others who participate in the discussion?

 

that all the pseudosci and religious folk who don't want to hear any counterevidence/facts, so they can boil in their falcified (sp) fat.

 

It is always good to be reminded that your view is not necessarily the correct one. Many things we don't want to hear are necessary knowledge.

 

I'm afraid you are spouting unqualified objection. Some of what was posted was infact quotes made by Einstien. These references were well placed scientists 50 in the one mentioned above. This is not an issue of selective theory advocation but the ability to rationally discuss any theory even the sacrosanct Relativity.

The following was the Einstein quote:

************************************************
http://surf.de.uu.net/bookland/sci/farce/farce_4.html#SEC4

Einstein wrote to his dear friend M. Besso in 1954:

"I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept,i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics."
*************************************************

Now tell me that such a man just before his death making such an admission regarding his life work is not something that should be considered and discussed.

Do you still want to assert that my goal is to post crap? Hardly.

 

I certainly have no objection to being shown in error or for being given useful information. My objection is the outlandish conduct of certain members that do nothing but deliberately attack personalities and make no real contribution to a discussion.

People that distort and lie and drag the thread off topic so that the issues never get discussed.

 

I oddly like this idea too, if it's possible it would be fun to try for a few weeks at least.

Maybe you could earn the right to block people from your threads, say, by winning so many arguments. Once you've proven you're a level above the bottom you should be able to keep the bottom from ruining your threads.
It's happened to me a few times, great subjects degrade into people "chatting" for many pages about LOLs and good times, it's very irritating and at a forum dedicated to intelligent discussion you'd think the intelligent wouldn't have to put up with that.

 

Thanks for the support but I don't think a litmus test of superiority to earn the right would work. In the case I mentioned above Yuriy repeated the same irrelevant question multiple times inspite of I having addressed his concern.

Who decides who won the arguement?

Frankly certain rules could apply.

1 - The thread starter could not delete any posts. Blocking a poster that had respectfully made a counter point would ultimately backfire on the person blocking further posts of such a poster. It would show intolerance to an alternate view.

2 - Perhaps an offender would have to receive one warning by the thread starter before he could block if the offense was repeated.

i.e. -"Do not drag this thread off topic. Start a seperate post"

"Do not call me a liar". "Do not insult my intelligence", etc., etc, and if it then continues blocking would be in order.

 

i voted yes, but i think itd be best to add
whoever started the thread and one/two other members must ban the person
and
mods can unban the people

good idea

 

Surely the best way to deal with the person opposing your views is to deal with each objection contructively. If your truth stands, it will stand in spite of their objections?
I am no scientist but I am sure this is what proving theories is all about. Surely the theory only exists because you disagree with the objectors in the first place and can prove your theory against each and every objection with evidence? This is what I am told continuously anyway in the Religion forums. Luckily I only have to point at the butterfly to prove that my God exists

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

peace

c20

 

free speech anyone? oh right... I forgot. Now we have Patriot Act. No need for free speech. Nothing to see here, move along.

Maybe we should shoot ourselves right away? Divine silence then it would be.
:m:

 

When I think of the parapsychology section, I hope the skeptics would just quit going there.

 

stupid idea, and unless some major changes has been made to the forum software since last i used it, not possible.