Hello all, I've received few private messages with questions regarding our role on sciforums so I decided to make my answer public. Our plans are to keep this forum going in the same direction, so you don't have to worry about it's future. Our ultimate aim is to make it the BEST science forum on the internet. And not only forum. We will try to provide people, interested in science, other resources such as science articles, news, terms dictionary, personal blogs, etc. I've noticed that some people on forums are frustrated because their strictly science threads or posts had been riuned by off topic stupid and sarcastic comments. We will pay attention to keep all off topic chit-chat in the place which is appropriate for such conversation. We will respect the voice of the community. However this forum is originally designed to serve science and to people interested in science and it won't be changed in the favor of general non-sense kiddy discussion and noise. So there's no reason for panic. Regarding design and visual changes we have some problems because current skin incompatibility with the most recent vBulletin version. Anyway I can promise you that we're working hard to overcome such issues and the change will be so minor that probably some people won't even realize that anything was changed. And finally, to be completely honest, we expect to cover some costs of our work, server maintenance and administration trough advertising on the site. However most ads will be introduced only to non-registered trolls and very new users (under 20 posts or such). This is basically no change in the policy since ads were on the site even before we came. I understand that some people are ultimate negative and live to counter others for whatever reason. Anyway I hope that most people will at least wait for actual changes to occur before they comment our actions. Best Regards, Zoran
Rad Zoran, you're the man. I welcome advertisements, I like to be aware of what's available out there for my consumption.
Zoran We would like to know what changes are being made to the moderation. Some threads have been deleted rather than cesspooled. Will this be the norm?
take a look at this website zoran, dont be fooled by the name. this is not a primarily science forum, without counting the cesspool, science forums take up 5 subforums out of 25
Not necessarily. Personally, I'm more concerned with this one: It's funny, because it will need to be changed to get ride of the general non-sense. But, here's the thing. That's not necessarily a bad thing. Depending on how strict the implementation. The derailing of threads does go too far sometimes. More lately than in the past. This has been brought up in a thread by ToR and I generally agree that the chit-chat can and should be kept down. Keep it in it's place. But, that's not to say that the occasional chit-chat-like comment is a horrible sin and should automatically be deleted. There is a line that is crossed and at this point cleanup should occur. We don't need a zero-tolerance policy. So. We'll have to wait and see how this is implemented. Frankly, I'm still worried. And damn anyone who feels I shouldn't be. Most forums on the net are run in a similar manner. This makes most forums boring, dull. drab. Sciforums is run in a bit different of a manner. Looser. Relaxed. It's true that this relaxation carries with it certain risks. And, it's also true that the present climate is somewhat... characterized by that risk. Way too much chatter. Threads going from new to 10 pages in a day. That's ridiculous. Especially when you consider that most of the posts are inane and off-topic. (Although, in part, this occurs as a judgement by the community and is, in fact, a form of community moderation. Inane threads are filled with inane chatter.) But, an important fact to realize (and I hope that the new management is actually taking the time to read this) is that many of our best members (and I'm talking about good members, not merely prodigal ones) left because of periods of over-moderation. They, too, loved this place for its loose moderation standards. But, from time to time, Herr Goofyfish (especially) and occasionally James R goes on moderation rampages. It is during these times that our best members have fled for parts unknown. Fact is, it's mostly the physics and maths people who prefer the more dry atmosphere. But. This ISN'T the Physics and Maths Forum. This is SCIforums. By the way: True. But not true. I believe it actually started out talking about astronomy and exobiology. But, what it quickly developed into is a general discussion forum. Specifically, it is a place for 'intelligent discussion'. You know. Just like that thing it used to say up there before it was replaced (ignobly) by "Online Health Community"? Now. "Intelligent" is a quite general and undefined word. Everybody seems to think they know what it means, but when put on the spot to define it, they fail. Time after time. The problem is that the definitions are usually quite limiting and actually stifle the very thing that it attempts to define. You can't put intelligence in a box and expect it to thrive. For instance, one definition of intelligence seems to focus on propriety. You might be surprised how often the argument comes up that the use of profanity and crude language/behavior equates to lack of intelligence. That's moronic logic. And yet it is used as criteria by a large number of people. Polite people. Dull. Drab. Boring. Politically correct. People. But, not necessarily intelligent people. (Although not necessarily NOT intelligent either. Although the propensity to define intelligence in such a stupid way and the failure to listen to logic when informed of their inanity does suggest that something is wrong with their brains...) Another possible interpretation of intelligence has been described by Zox. He seems to equate intelligence (assuming that his criteria for the use of the board is intelligence, which is actually going a bit far based on what he actually said. But, the board is, after all, "Intelligent Discussion", not "Science Discusssion")... He seems to equate intelligence with two things. One. Science. There is a huge flaw in this. We have an art forum. We have philosophy. Religion. Pseudoscience. Scifi. Etc. Science is not the end all and be all of intelligence. Nor is it the end all and be all of this forum. It is only a part. Don't let the 'sci' in the name fool you, Zox. The description is far more important. "Intelligent Community". Two. Focus. He seems to equate intelligence with focused and direct thinking. One should stick with the topic and never allow tangential thinking to alter the flow of discussion. There is a HUGE fallacy in this as intelligent thought and discourse is often free associational and can range over a huge range of topics starting from the most dull and inane of topics. I know. I've seen it many times. Tis true that of late, the 'free association' is more of witty banter than anything worth the work in my opinion. But, even witty banter has its place in the definition of 'intelligent'. The thing is that intelligence is, above all, free. It must be free. It must not be stifled. Some rules are acceptable. Some moderation is acceptable. These are, in fact, challenges for intelligence to work around. Puzzles to solve. But, in an atmosphere where rules become dogma and the challenge becomes a fight for survival... why should anyone stay? The thrill is lost and the clarion call of free range calls from over the horizon. But. As said. We'll have to wait and see just how these things are to be implemented. I hope that Zox is listening and understands the concerns presented here. They are not frivolous. Nor are they only evinced by a select few members. The fact that only a few members (relatively speaking) are speaking out in such a manner is attributable to the fact that few ever look down in this forum. I'd bet that only 20% or so of the forum has any idea that this whole thing is going on. Maybe less. This is no problem at all. Not with me. For one, I won't ever see them anyway (even if you didn't restrict them to guests and new members...) The site needs to support itself. There's nothing wrong with that. Something can be said for the aesthetics of the situation, of course. No need to go overboard and inundate people with flashing lights and commercial breaks from our sponsors or anything. This leads to another consideration, of course, you've mentioned the desire to keep the look and feel the same. It's important to understand just what that look and feel is. A newcomer may fail to reach the proper verdict on this. Minimalism. Minimalism. That is. No big grand banners. No huge logos. No in your face marketing. No extreme moderation. Heh. I suppose the minimalism fails when it comes to certain behaviours by the users however.... Something for us to consider... I think that this is unfair and more than a little passive aggressive. The concerns being expressed over the future of this forum are not an example of peopel being negative and 'living to counter others'. In fact, I find that more than a little insulting. Our concerns are relevant and understandable. Sciforums is a unique forum. Sciforums is run in a unique manner. There is a huge danger that any new management (especially a management who doesn't even KNOW the forums to begin with) will come in and believe that they can improve things by instituting changes which are, in the end, very common and are anathema to the very thing which makes Sciforums shine when compared to the other shit holes out there. I believe I've expressed part of the reasons why this is so, above. Also. The forum has been kept afloat for the last year and a half by user donation. I've donated 200 dollars myself to this latest donation drive and intended to donate more when the time ran out and we still had not reached the goal. I was prepared to pay 300 dollars when I thought the forums might be in danger of shutting down a couple of months ago. The users ARE the forum and this should not be taken lightly by the new management. Be wary. Do you think that's the best course of action? To keep our mouths shut and hope for the best? That is ludicrous. Seriously. Look. You, yourself, have stated that you weren't 'warned' about us. You had no idea what you were getting into when you bought this forum. Right? And we should expect you to make the proper decisions in how to run the forum without our input? That is ludicrous. Think about it. You'd do well to take our words into consideration.
since we are putting in 2 cents worth here's mine: first don't change the look too much, this forum is about the posts not the eye candy. second i agree that off topic posts should be kept to a minimum. attempts at derailing threads should be dealt with. third the moderation is just about right. fourth i feel that cussing is for the lame, seriously. although i have in the past let go with some 'colorful' words. fifth let's get rid of the goat fucking avatars
Every 'attempt'? Zero-tolerance? Why? Any idea how arbitrary this is? How many doors to other arbitrary authoritarian actions it opens up? If you let one thing go, it all goes. You cross the line, and you can never go back. What do you think about the war on drugs? Do you think that giving up some basic rights to combat this evil menace is acceptable? What about the war on terrorism? Would you lock yourself into a cage in order to be safe?
i believe that serious topics need serious moderation, especially the threads in the science forums. i do not believe in zero tolerance or political correctness, like i stated earlier the moderation is just about right. can't you use the word screw instead of fuck? do you agree that minors read these posts? how about the other way? let's see how vile and vulgar we can get shall we? one poster whom you respect said in a PM to me that sciforums is the wild west as far as forums go. is that what you really want invert, to be known as a board of lawlessness and anarchy? to be honest this is an area that will cause the greatest anxiety with posters and moderators. i have no easy answers. only by voicing our opinions will the mods know. law enforement is screwed. our beloved CIA sees to that. my honest opinion? bomb the CIA off the map, that will end the drug problem. what has terrorism got to do with this boards moderation? i share your concerns invert, i have yet to encounter a board like sciforums. but you must admit that some things do need to change and like you i worry about which direction this board will go and by how much.
No. Screw does not have the same implications as the word fuck. Same goes for pussy. Asshole. Shit. Words have meaning and they convey that meaning in specific ways. I cannot use shucks for shit and expect to carry across the same message. I am sure some do. However, this has always been more about adult discussion than keeping things polite for the kiddies. Interestingly enough, our new management has even shown his disdain for the 'kiddie talk' although he would most likely attribute profanity to childishness. It's interesting. Actually. The way people view profanity and crude behavior. They want to protect the children from it. But, at the same time, equate it with childishness. An interesting dichotomy. I view it as words and, when utilized effectly, is nothing that can be summed up in a pure kneejerk reaction. There are instances where profanity is inane. Where interjection of profanity is used as a crutch for lack of linguistic skills. But, this is not unique to profanity. Should we also ban uses of net jargon? I despise all the 'lol's' and 'lmao's' and what have you. And what about people that use 'like' excessively? Or any one of a thousand other turns of phrase which are used as a crutch when constructing one's speech? They are all used as shortcuts and suffer from generalization. That is, they fail to properly convey specific meaning. But, properly used, all these methods of speech do convey specific meaning. So. I ask again. What is wrong with profanity? And why is that we should protect those minors that do read the forums from words? Words which they already know. Words which they most likely already use. And words which they might well not be able to use effectively. Should it not be our goal to teach these youngsters a proper use of language? Not to censor themselves in a kneejerk way, for this is pure limitation and stifles any creativity, but rather to cultivate a lexicon and grammar with which they can express themselves in the world? Just what are our responsibilities when it comes to teaching the new generation? Should we hold them back from all possibility of infection until their thymus has begun to atrophy and their time to build immunities is on the wane? Or should we throw them into the water and let them swim? There is no greater danger than the one what stands up with the strident cry of "won't someone think of the children?!" As a matter of fact, I commonly use this tactic as a test of people's reactions. Anyway. Do you think that the forums are 'as vile and vulgar as we can get'? If not, then why not? If so, then why so? I think they are simply average. They are... like life. Yes. I like the idea of Sciforums being analogous to the wild west. And. It is a well known fact that Sciforums is looked down upon by other science boards. They send their cranks and pseudos here. Didn't you know that? The cranks and pseudos don't fare much better here than there in finding an open audience for their ideas (usually) but at least they are free to speak their mind. And the debunkers and those who care for that sort of thing are free to dump their ridicule and scorn on them. It's a rare day when a pseudo is banned for being a pseudo here. This is a common occurence at these other boards that are not 'the wild west'. It's also a rare day when any of our local band of vigilantes is banned for tearing at the pseudo with their well-honed teeth and wolf pack tactics. The metaphor with both terrorism and drugs was one in which people willingly limit their freedoms to fight some phantom foe. This is as relevant as it gets. I don't think that 'some things' do need to change at all. The board has periods of slumps and the chatter gets quite heavy at times, but this is all an ebb and flow and is quite normal for this place. The slump cannot be cured by moderation. Creativity cannot be forced. And will not flow in a stifling environment. As I said before, many of our best and brightest left because of over-moderation. Not because of lax moderation.
Not when fuck is more accurate. I would never use the word screw. It's too vulgar. anyway, start rant: Disclaimer: I will limit myself to the bioscience forums, because I am not qualified to talk about the other sections. We will try to provide people, interested in science, other resources such as science articles, news, terms dictionary, personal blogs, etc There are already several of these forums around. I've noticed that some people on forums are frustrated because their strictly science threads or posts had been riuned by off topic stupid and sarcastic comments. False. The worshipping of pseudoscience in the pure science sections has caused frustration in only a few. Because they disrupt 'scientific' discussion. That said the only people that are frustrated by it are the real scientists. However, we can put this in perspective. There are about 5, give or take a few, of these around. As a matter of fact if you look at the biology threads you will often see that the sarcastic comments are made by the real scientists. Possibly out of frustration. Possibly because sarcasm is a highly appreciated form of humour in scientific circles. Off topic remarks? Who is judging? In short, these are all extremely minor offenses. We will pay attention to keep all off topic chit-chat in the place which is appropriate for such conversation. What is chit-chat? And what is the appropriate place? Who is to judge? The sciforum culture is to be lenient. However this forum is originally designed to serve science and to people interested in science and it won't be changed in the favor of general non-sense kiddy discussion and noise. To serve science? I'm a scientist and I cannot see how a forum can serve science. Well, I know some forums that 'do' this. They are forums where you can ask if pretreatment with Sodium Citrate pH 4.5 is better done in the microwave or the autoclave and which duration is optimale for e14 brain slices of 7 micrometers thick. You don't want a forum like that. They have no soul. They have an audience that constantly is changing. One post. One answer. And gone. No community. 'general non-sense kiddy discussion and noise' - well, I can already see where it is going then. The way of the other science forums. The ones we avoid like the black plague. Well, once in a while I post one or two posts in thescienceforum every few months or so. The plain truth is that there can be no intersting scientific discussion on a high level on a forum. It's just nonsense. It never existed and never shall. Science is too specialized for that. Scientists have other means of communication. Well, of course there is the average person interested in science. Well, we certainly have seen the level of their knowledge on this and other forums. textbook knowledge. None of these people have ever seen cutting-edge science in action. You will end up with what is already there in other forums. 'noise' - what's noise to some is the elixer of life to others. Who is going to decide what is what? ----- What is really special about sciforums? The answer is really simple. SOAP OPERA! Some people are maybe ashamed to see this simple point but it is the driving force behind this forum. That is why these things such as vulgarity, chit-chat, noise are so predominant. It is the result of the social interactions that take place on the screen and behind the screen. The soap opera that is known as sciforums is based on intellect and humour. The battle of the mind. The grouping of similar minded. The campaigns to eliminate opponents. The humourous response. The sarcastic response. The chit-chat to explore the minds of others. The formation of alliances and bonds. It is a social experiment roughly revolving around the general topic of discussion about life: science, philosophy, religion, platitudes, chit-chat, ideas. Most will never admit they come for the soap, but they do. The intense soapy threads reflect this phenomenon. Most views, most response. Xev is a celebrity. Gendanken is a celebrity. Are they primarily known for serving science? Hardly? Am I known for serving science? Fuck no. That's my day job.
i must admit some of the best reading have been the xev/invert threads. i must also say i have been here almost a year so i guess 'verts and monkeyman over-rule my butt on this matter.
Welcome, and thank you for saving our little room, a few questions: Who are the 'we' you refer to? Were you a member here (under different name of course) before you bought the place? What was your reason for taking it over? How accessible will you be to members? Will Q get the boot Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Will I get the boot? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Can you give the following the boot: ****** ******* **************
clearly they were all mods, hence the names have been have been 'erased'....mods strike again! first in penis study thread now this! grrrrrrrrrr Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! and Zox please no more emails offerring me mod responsibilities, Biology is not my thing.
suggestions for ZOX: 1. don't over mod intelligent discussion (i.e. heated political debate, heated pseudoscience debate, ect) 2. let members vote in the "open government" areas before making changes. 3. don't kill the religious debate. it may seem like a giant flame war, but it is intelligent conversation. 4. let the existing mods do most of the work, they seem to do a good job. also, ask them if they need more mods, and if they do, select them from long time members, who have an idea of what the site is about. to thedevilsreject and ToR: you guys are just chat room style yakers, you should not be trying to change the direction of sciforums. I don't mean to sound offensive, but I know I do. I sincerely think you guys don't represent sciforums very well. I would say that spurious is probably the best representative of what this site represents. he seems to spend about an equal amount of time talking about science/tech/bio and just BSing with people.
p.s. Zox: don't offer people mod spots by how many posts they have, you should go with older members, with fewer posts. like myself, though I don't have much time to deal with moderation as I am an engineering major.
