It's a bit pointless to close threads that deal with the future of sciforums. Are we supposed to wait till it is all fucked up?

I can already tell you where you are going wrong. You are not following a scientific approach.

1. First you identify the real problem. Not the symptoms.

1.a Identifying the problem is basically done by comparing what you have with what you want.

1.aa Needless to say you will have to define first what you want.

1.ab Then you start analyzing the current state of sciforums.

then we can start thinking of a policy.

(No, political correctness is not a policy since it implies no goal.)

And you are informed on what exactly we are doing how?
And yes, you are to wait till we have something to show.
Smaller groups are more efficient than a crowd of thousand voices and needs.

The thread you are referring to was closed, because your forum colleagues spammed it into an off topic oblivion.

And you are informed on what exactly we are doing how?
And yes, you are to wait till we have something to show.
Smaller groups are more efficient than a crowd of thousand voices and needs.

Tell us then? what is the problem? You can't homo.

Well, our conclusion is both simple and engenious,
we concluded that the main problem of Sciforums is spuriousmonkey. :D

Well, our conclusion is both simple and engenious,
we concluded that the main problem of Sciforums is spuriousmonkey. :D

yeah...keep trolling homo. Tell us the problem.

the thread didn't need to be closed.
the off topic posts could have been deleted.

i'm anxious to hear about this new world order that's in the works.
i also agree with spurious when it comes to political correctness.

I'm with the PEOPLE.

The Moderator subforum is Private, please take that in mind.
You are invited to help us with ideas and insights, but we don't have to report to you. It slows us down and is not productive

The policy (well, the draft at least) has nothing to do with PC.

One of the main problems is the structure of Sciforums that divides people more than it is healthy.

the thread didn't need to be closed.
the off topic posts could have been deleted.
You have to learn to take responsibility for your actions. If you trash the thread, the mods might not be very eager to clean up your shit.

how about a new skin?

No.

The Moderator subforum is Private, please take that in mind.
You are invited to help us with ideas and insights, but we don't have to report to you. It slows us down and is not productive

The policy (well, the draft at least) has nothing to do with PC.

One of the main problems is the structure of Sciforums that divides people more than it is healthy.

So you have no thoughts on what the problem is and you just came in this thread to flame.

I'm not surprised.

Or are moderators not allowed to have opinions? Is sciforums going to blow up if you identify the problem?


I'm with tablariddim and rottie.

If you have ideas and suggestions, and want to help, please do.
Otherwise you are just a noise maker.

I'm with tablariddim and rottie.
Your personal life is none of my interest.

If you have ideas and suggestions, and want to help, please do.
Otherwise you are just a noise maker.


Your personal life is none of my interest.

No, you are the noisemaker. You have said nothing. Just antagonized members here in this thread and other threads. Actions of a class A asshole (allowed according to the skinwalker rules).

My latest thread on this topic:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=67097

I'm certainly not going to spell out the real problem when having to deal with people like you who parade around like their shit doesn't stink because they happened to be a moderator.

My loyality lies with the spirit of sciforums, not with an administration.

Tell us what the problem is.

I accuse you of the worst offense possible on sciforums. You have the intention to change sciforums without thinking.

My loyality lies with the spirit of sciforums, not with an administration.

What spirit of sciforums, you ball buster.

And I will say nothing till we have finished our planning and published the policy.

What spirit of sciforums, you ball buster.

You really have to look carefully nowadays to find it. It mostly follows tablariddim around like a puppy in love.

And I will say nothing till we have finished our planning and published the policy.

You won't say anything? Of course not. You don't know what the problem is.

Doesn't work on me.

What secret policy is this!

Doesn't work on me.

reported for trolling.

You'll be given love
You'll be taken care of
You'll be given love
You have to trust it

Maybe not from the sources
You have poured yours
Maybe not from the directions
You are staring at

Twist your head around
It's all around you
All is full of love
All around you

All is full of love
You just aint receiving
All is full of love
Your phone is off the hook
All is full of love
Your doors are all shut
All is full of love!

You show no interest to discuss the probems of sciforums and only have come to troll this thread. We got the message that you can't say anything because you don't know from the first post you made. We are not all retards. Feel free to continue your stupid messages with no content.

reported again troll asshole. Please continue to alienate members. nice going.

well here are my suggestions from the other thread:
let's have the rule if you wouldn't say it in church then don't post it here.

there needs to be a rule that people like poster x don't put words in posters mouths.
i have not objected to reason and poster x should be forced to retract the above statement.

another thing that needs to be done is to do something about skinwalkers nazi moderation style and his abuse of moderation powers.
i have said more about this here:
http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=67416
i even stated i would accept a permaban if anything i posted about skinwalker was false.

yet another thing that needs to be done concerns the following:
dance in the land of faeries and wood elves
something similar pops up when religion is discussed.
skinwalker, hercules rockefeller, and numerous others are notorious for saying such things. this practice needs to stop.
yes, of course this is a science board. well in that case get rid of the religion forum then.

let's have the rule if you wouldn't say it in church then don't post it here.
What does that mean? I'm not a churchgoer.
well in that case get rid of the religion forum then.
It will never happen. Religion forum has become an integral part of Sciforums, want we it or not.

About your dissatisfaction with particular moderators you have to talk to Plazma Inferno, he's the only one with power in this.

What does that mean? I'm not a churchgoer.
it basically means to "keep it civil" and limit the use of cuss words.
this of course verges on political correctness but i believe it's in the best interest of all of us.

It will never happen. Religion forum has become an integral part of Sciforums, want we it or not.
in that case you need to decide what is to be discussed there.
if religion is to be discussed there then ANYONE that uses the phrase "pink elephant" or something similar to describe someone elses beliefs gets infracted, 3 infractions for the same thing no matter how far apart they are results in a ban.

About your dissatisfaction with particular moderators you have to talk to Plazma Inferno, he's the only one with power in this.
thanks, i'll give him a heads up.

so, james isn't the sciforums god anymore? :bawl:

spuriousmonkey:

I would love that you suggest some improvements, instead of non-productive criticizing.


Avatar unlike many other members suggests something. He opened threads about problems and suggests positive changes every day.

I'll tell you what is the problem here. Or should I say problems.

Lack of loyalty to community. Giving up when problems occur. Turning back to everyone and everything. Standing aside and mocking every constructive attempt instead of helping.

Most of all covardice!

These few days were really disappointment for me. Virtuous community indeed.

Who will show up in this thread and suggest something that is really connected with SciForums problems?

I still don't see anyone. I doubt that anyone will show up.


Maybe when we suggest something there will be plenty of those who love to turn everything into mockery.

Hissy Fitters are part the problem. :D We all know who they are. When they don't get their way, or are confronted in their views, they throw temper tantrums like a child. On and on and on, ad infinitum. Like dealing with a child throwing a hissy fit, spanking them only makes them wail louder. Intelligence has no bearing on this trait, morons and high functioning individuals seem to be equally affected. Playing with hissy fitters got to be something of a sport for a certain band of misfits. They got their rocks off harrassing others not in their own little group to throw a hissy fit. Unfortunately, they didn't seem to be aware of an old saying: Don't fan the flames if you can't stand the heat. They have gotten burned a few times themselves and have caught the desease. Spanking them only makes them wail louder. The monkey's ass may be toast, a direct result of his own flame fanning activities. I can't give any advice on how to end this cycle. It's like our own little Palestinian/Israeli quagmire.

spuriousmonkey:

I would love that you suggest some improvements, instead of non-productive criticizing.

Non-productive criticizing?

When the encyclopedia started I started with making many scientific entries. And already at this point it was shown that we could hit high on google with these entries even surpassing the mighty wikipedia. Then the unproductive negative lunatic fringe of the moderator team started to throw a hissyfit led by athelwulf and (Q). I was insulted for my 'jism'.

At that point I asked for clarification. I was not to continue building sciforums ' wiki in any serious manner till the official stance on the wiki was put forward. Despite numerous repeats of this demand nothing came forward.

The sciwiki project that could have meant an influx of scientific minded posters was subsequently dropped by me.

Problem: non-involvement of management. Stimulation of negative non-productive influence in the moderator team.

More recently I made a thread on what's missing in sciforums, which not so coincidentally is entirely related to the above comments. There is no mission statement of sciforums.

Once in a while something retarded will be said like this is a science forums. No, it is not and it will never be. I proposed a very clear and feasible mission statement.

No response of course.

I ask the administration to explain what they think is the problem currently with sciforums. All the response you get is trolling and the attitude of 'don't worry children, all will be well'. I wonder why this attitude would elicit a negative response in a community that still has some intellectuals among them.

And of course this is a symptom that is related to my first comments. Which is indeed part of the problem.


Avatar unlike many other members suggests something. He opened threads about problems and suggests positive changes every day.

great. Maybe we can all move to the moderator forum. Apparently the discussion we desire is there. we will have to take your word for it. Although apparently he is a saint in the moderator forum he acts like a piece of shit in the forum proper. I already received confirmation of this by other members.



I'll tell you what is the problem here. Or should I say problems.

Lack of loyalty to community. Giving up when problems occur. Turning back to everyone and everything. Standing aside and mocking every constructive attempt instead of helping.

Most of all covardice!

These few days were really disappointment for me. Virtuous community indeed.

Who will show up in this thread and suggest something that is really connected with SciForums problems?

I still don't see anyone. I doubt that anyone will show up.


Maybe when we suggest something there will be plenty of those who love to turn everything into mockery.

Cowardice? You turn your back on real problems and you blame the community of cowardice? You have some nerve.

You expect people to come forward to discuss problems while you can do nothing more than to blame members? How does that work?

"hey fuckers I hate you. You are lazy. You are the problem. I am so disappointed with you. Please come forward with suggestions to solve the problem that I have. I don't really care about the problems you have."

Nice.

"We are the problem."

No, we are the solution. The potential. Untapped potential.

http://www.horg.com/socks_senate.jpg

Non-productive criticizing?
I was referring to this thread and Avatar's 'Sciforums' thread I've closed.

When the encyclopedia started I started with making many scientific entries. And already at this point it was shown that we could hit high on google with these entries even surpassing the mighty wikipedia.
No one disclaims your contribution to SciForums and SciWiki. It's invaluable asset.
I'm talking more about here and now. What can be improved from this start position. What can be done from now on.
Not just you! What can we all do!

At that point I asked for clarification. I was not to continue building sciforums ' wiki in any serious manner till the official stance on the wiki was put forward. Despite numerous repeats of this demand nothing came forward.

The sciwiki project that could have meant an influx of scientific minded posters was subsequently dropped by me.

Problem: non-involvement of management. Stimulation of negative non-productive influence in the moderator team.
Well, real problem was, or still is, serious engagement of only particular group of members. You and few other members were the only engaged in creation of Wiki.
Other members were passive.

More recently I made a thread on what's missing in sciforums, which not so coincidentally is entirely related to the above comments. There is no mission statement of sciforums.
Things cannot be solved in one thread or in one post. I'm aware of the situation. Recent occurences quickened the proccess.

Maybe we all closed eyes recently and were floating in the flood, trying to keep our head above the mud.

Well, not anymore. This time we will solve this. But, there has to be support from all members.

First we (mods and I) have to made frame, a skeleton, which members will fill with flesh. Plan is to work in small group (Mods) to avoid time loss.

There's nothing secret in Mods forum. But, you probably know all things very well.

Currently we agreed that science is direction were we want to go. Actually, we didn't agree, that was the fact.

Also, since many members came here to relax form boring jobs, lives, world,... we agreed that forum shouldn't be strict place for science discussion only.

We agreed that we make a frame as soon as possible and present it to members, so all members could be included in Policy making and give suggestions.

We lead discussion about introducing reputation system which will allow opportunity that all members could rate others threads and posts. That will help in distinction of serious posters and trolls.

Also, there are other things we discus. Nothing secret. Everything is quite predictable.


Once in a while something retarded will be said like this is a science forums. No, it is not and it will never be. I proposed a very clear and feasible mission statement.

No response of course.
I thought you're for making this place scientific? Now I'm bit confused with
this?

I ask the administration to explain what they think is the problem currently with sciforums. All the response you get is trolling and the attitude of 'don't worry children, all will be well'. I wonder why this attitude would elicit a negative response in a community that still has some intellectuals among them.
Please remind me where? I cannot remember this.


great. Maybe we can all move to the moderator forum. Apparently the discussion we desire is there. we will have to take your word for it. Although apparently he is a saint in the moderator forum he acts like a piece of shit in the forum proper. I already received confirmation of this by other members.
As I said, smaller group - effective time frame. In the meantime, we could use this thread for submiting problems and suggestions that members have.
Soon, we will have frame and discus together what's ok and what isn't.


Cowardice? You turn your back on real problems and you blame the community of cowardice? You have some nerve.

You expect people to come forward to discuss problems while you can do nothing more than to blame members? How does that work?
How many serious attempts have been turned into pointless trolling? When I turned back to the community?
Well, yeah you're right.
I closed my eyes when problems occur. I let myself down the stream hoping that I'll catch some bough and save all things. I kept my mouth sealed when I should give suggestions.

I'm just sitting in the dark and having fun watching members' confrontations.
And how SciForums falls miserably.

Right? That's why I'm engaged. To ruin this place with some stupid scientific ideas.

Knowledge Base will never be activated.
Idea of SciQuiz engine turned into object of mockery.
I gave up on monthly awards for members for best post, thread,contribution...
Also on Sci Lexicon integrated into forum system.
There are couple of others ideas, but it's pointless now.

I've created four scientific subforums, none off topic.
Wiki has been started...

I just like to ruin this place...


"hey fuckers I hate you. You are lazy. You are the problem. I am so disappointed with you. Please come forward with suggestions to solve the problem that I have. I don't really care about the problems you have."
LoL, your words. I thought we have same problems?



No, we are the solution. The potential. Untapped potential.
Exactly. But, I still don't see anyone.

Good to see that the god dam freethought is finally moved.

I still can't understand why you all insist on this being a science forum when half of its content is not—infact, more than half because society and psychology lean more towards the understanding of behavior and behavioral patterns and such—not quite the chemistry of behavior.

But by advertising this as a science forum you discourage the attraction of a whole different set of people whose core interests are more specialized and dynamic in the arts, philosophy, psychology, alternative thought, etc., areas that could greatly boost formidable conversation without going off-topic or stagnant with the same recycled shit. I mean no disrespect, but science people are a bit bland—as evidenced here in their tired affected attempts to "hang loose" amongst themselves, as provided by the extracurricular activity (non-science forums) SciF keeps "on the side".

I think Pete had a good idea in the science forum. He came up with these alpha rules, in an attempt to have certain threads where serious discussion takes place. So, for example, if one wants to have a somewhat intelligent conversation, they can insert ALPHA in the thread title. This lets the moderator know that the discussion should stay on topic, and that off-topic posts can be deleted or moved to another thread.

A prime example is the "Global Warming Science" thread I started. I was quite keen to talk to people who really knew the science, but it seems to have dissentigrated into something different, with the normal dialogue inevitably following. (I don't wish to cast stones, as I have been quite guilty in derailing many threads.)

You can't force intelligent conversation, but you can foster it. There will always be threads like "Should I join Match.com", or "What color are your underwear", and this is fine. There are some threads which make no illusions about wanting an intelligent conversation. But one can implement certain procedures to keep a meaningful dialogue intelligent.

Good idea!

Good kindergarten sign-post idea. Meh. So now it's affected smarties too?

I think Pete had a good idea in the science forum. He came up with these alpha rules, in an attempt to have certain threads where serious discussion takes place.
good idea yes.
but . . .
i believe that every thread that is created in the science forums should be treated as an alpha thread. in fact the science forums should be held to a higher standard than, say, free thoughts.

Step 5. This involves underpants, the rest is self explanatory.

Maybe you should be more explicit---look who we're talking too...

(Trying desperately to get this thread back on track.)

Maybe you could have moderators keep an eye out for specific threads that seem to get started over and over. For example, I am quite sure that in six months, we'll see a carbon (no pun!) copy of the Global Warming: The Politics. If moderators see such threads popping up again and again, maybe they could be instructed to lock the threads untill the thread-starter comes up with a good argument that can't be found in another thread.

The point is, less people will take discussions seriously if the same discussions are always had. I'm sure that spuriousmonkey, despite his cynicism, once tried to explain to IceAgeCivilizations where his errors in judgement were.---i.e. why his science was bad. 20,000 posts later, monkey seems to have been a bit, umm, jaded.

I'm sure that spuriousmonkey, despite his cynicism, once tried to explain to IceAgeCivilizations where his errors in judgement were.---i.e. why his science was bad. 20,000 posts later, monkey seems to have been a bit, umm, jaded.

No, I couldn't, because IAC didn't have any science.

This is all very interesting

Meanwhile Avatar, have you got a job yet?

spuriousmonkey:

I would love that you suggest some improvements, instead of non-productive criticizing.


Avatar unlike many other members suggests something. He opened threads about problems and suggests positive changes every day.

I'll tell you what is the problem here. Or should I say problems.

Lack of loyalty to community. Giving up when problems occur. Turning back to everyone and everything. Standing aside and mocking every constructive attempt instead of helping.

Most of all covardice!

These few days were really disappointment for me. Virtuous community indeed.

Who will show up in this thread and suggest something that is really connected with SciForums problems?

I still don't see anyone. I doubt that anyone will show up.


Maybe when we suggest something there will be plenty of those who love to turn everything into mockery.

I'll give you a suggestion. You've already got the basic framework in place so it wouldn't take too much initial effort, just a fair amount of on-going vigilance.

Repartition the actual science sections of the board into an approved participation only segment. Allow only serious members posting access to it. Everything else could remain exactly as it is and catch all the garbage pseudoscience, free thoughts, political ramblings, etc. Anyone with access to the science section that starts going hokey-pokey should be just kicked back into the general pool of members.

At the very least it would separate the wheat (of which there is little here) from the chaff - which is practically overwhelming.

Repartition the actual science sections of the board into an approved participation only segment.

Seriously bad idea.
I mean. Really. Really bad.

Seriously bad idea.
I mean. Really. Really bad.

Care to expand on that?

Who does the approving?
How does one get approval?
Are there opportunities for excluding someone on less-than-reasonable grounds?

Care to expand on that?

Well. It would be a good idea if we wanted to be ElitistPigForums. But I don't think that that is the direction we are aiming for.

Well. It would be a good idea if we wanted to be ElitistPigForums. But I don't think that that is the direction we are aiming for.

I still don't see any problem with it since the rest of the forums would be as just as wide open as they are today for every single topic known to human kind. They can still discuss all the cartoons, politics, ghosts, and whatever that they want to. The thought is to provide a place for serious-minded science discussion away from all that and it's often childish behavior.

I still don't see any problem with it

Heh.
Of course not.

The thought is to provide a place for serious-minded science discussion away from all that and it's often childish behavior.

And you, of course, are an old school forum member who knows well the forum dynamics which are welcome here...

No, I couldn't, because IAC didn't have any science.

Come on---not even once did you write "That doesn't work because this specific scientific principle prohibits it"???

The Moderator subforum is Private, please take that in mind.
You are invited to help us with ideas and insights, but we don't have to report to you. It slows us down and is not productive

The policy (well, the draft at least) has nothing to do with PC.

One of the main problems is the structure of Sciforums that divides people more than it is healthy.

spuriousmonkey:

I would love that you suggest some improvements, instead of non-productive criticizing.


Avatar unlike many other members suggests something. He opened threads about problems and suggests positive changes every day.

I'll tell you what is the problem here. Or should I say problems.

Lack of loyalty to community. Giving up when problems occur. Turning back to everyone and everything. Standing aside and mocking every constructive attempt instead of helping.

Most of all covardice!

These few days were really disappointment for me. Virtuous community indeed.

Who will show up in this thread and suggest something that is really connected with SciForums problems?

I still don't see anyone. I doubt that anyone will show up.


Maybe when we suggest something there will be plenty of those who love to turn everything into mockery.

Great. Just great. Eastern Europeans have taken over sciforums. Next thing we'll know, there will be labor camps and "re-education".

With that in mind, I'd like to be the first to tell our Chairmen how I am consumed with the Glorious Spirit of the Revolution!!


Seriously.
I like that Free Thoughts has been dropped. This Alpha idea is good- it means mods only have to moderate the places that want it. Saves everyone time and infractions. It should be tried out, at least.

Great. Just great. Eastern Europeans have taken over sciforums.

like they did with the eurovision song festival! (i guess this reference doesn't mean much to the average american).

I like that Free Thoughts has been dropped
Really?

Er... I'm laeving. I maen it this tiem.

But no, really, when did this happen? I don't remember voting for that.

I thought about this before. It's not a big deal. Did people vote for this?

No, they opened a direct line to jesus.


Really?

Er... I'm laeving. I maen it this tiem.

But no, really, when did this happen? I don't remember voting for that.

Maybe you should try praying to jesus instead of satan the next time.

But no, really, when did this happen? I don't remember voting for that.
No, you don't. :mufc:

Next thing we'll know, there will be labor camps and "re-education".
No, no, that's "work and recreation camps". :p
You know what they say: Arbeit macht frei

It's ok, it's not been dropped. Merely moved in a way that barely registers with me. Mere tinkering. I can relax now.

Well, it has been dropped from the top.

Who cares. I never look at the front page.

Well, that's your habit. I never look at those latest posts, etc. you are using.

(Trying desperately to get this thread back on track.)

Maybe you could have moderators keep an eye out for specific threads that seem to get started over and over. For example, I am quite sure that in six months, we'll see a carbon (no pun!) copy of the Global Warming: The Politics. If moderators see such threads popping up again and again, maybe they could be instructed to lock the threads untill the thread-starter comes up with a good argument that can't be found in another thread.



I think Pete had a good idea in the science forum. He came up with these alpha rules, in an attempt to have certain threads where serious discussion takes place. So, for example, if one wants to have a somewhat intelligent conversation, they can insert ALPHA in the thread title. This lets the moderator know that the discussion should stay on topic, and that off-topic posts can be deleted or moved to another thread.

A prime example is the "Global Warming Science" thread I started. I was quite keen to talk to people who really knew the science, but it seems to have dissentigrated into something different, with the normal dialogue inevitably following. (I don't wish to cast stones, as I have been quite guilty in derailing many threads.)

You can't force intelligent conversation, but you can foster it. There will always be threads like "Should I join Match.com", or "What color are your underwear", and this is fine. There are some threads which make no illusions about wanting an intelligent conversation. But one can implement certain procedures to keep a meaningful dialogue intelligent.

I'll give you a suggestion. You've already got the basic framework in place so it wouldn't take too much initial effort, just a fair amount of on-going vigilance.

Repartition the actual science sections of the board into an approved participation only segment. Allow only serious members posting access to it. Everything else could remain exactly as it is and catch all the garbage pseudoscience, free thoughts, political ramblings, etc. Anyone with access to the science section that starts going hokey-pokey should be just kicked back into the general pool of members.

At the very least it would separate the wheat (of which there is little here) from the chaff - which is practically overwhelming.

Ben TheMan and Read-Only:

You provided interesting suggestions. For the start I'll put leo's quote:

good idea yes.
but . . .
i believe that every thread that is created in the science forums should be treated as an alpha thread. in fact the science forums should be held to a higher standard than, say, free thoughts.
This is the point.
'Alpha' rules should be implemented in whole Science, Technology and Philosophy categories, not only in separate threads.

Higher standard of science forums, than in 'Off topic' forums is one of the primary goals.
Question is how to maintain that standard? Strict moderation of science forums maybe? Or some kind of reward system (reputation, ranks, real material awards...)?

Ben, I especially like this sentence I've put in bold. You're right. Discussion cannot be forced. We should make a room for both intelligent and casual discussion. Also we have to find way to foster and reward intelligent discussion.

It's not idea to cancel casual free thought talks, that would be nonsense. But, we must emphasize intelligent and scientific discussion.

Read-Only:
Basically, everyone has right to post in every forum. But, we could consider this option to 'kick' (bad word) members who don't contribute in scientific forums, or who make real mess with off topic posts and threads.
Anyway, this should be discussed.

Thank you all for your inputs!

Great. Just great. Eastern Europeans have taken over sciforums. Next thing we'll know, there will be labor camps and "re-education".

With that in mind, I'd like to be the first to tell our Chairmen how I am consumed with the Glorious Spirit of the Revolution!!


Seriously.
I like that Free Thoughts has been dropped. This Alpha idea is good- it means mods only have to moderate the places that want it. Saves everyone time and infractions. It should be tried out, at least.

LoL. No. I'm not Eastern European. And if I was does that make any difference?

Some of my family members were inhabitants of working camps, so you will forgive me if I say that I despise any form of uniformism.

I'm fan of individuality. Freedom. Even if we talk about groups (small, medium, large) I'm rather for strong individuals within the community than blind unity.

Anyway, I love your stereotypes. Keep them updated. :thumbsup:

Higher standard of science forums, than in 'Off topic' forums is one of the primary goals.
Question is how to maintain that standard? Strict moderation of science forums maybe? Or some kind of reward system (reputation, ranks, real material awards...)?

i believe it should be the posters themselves that do it by the use of the report button.

off topic posts:
let's say we have a thread with 50 or so posts.
poster x has made 15 and poster y has made 15.
poster x or y goes off topic.
the moderator should step in with a post and remind the posters what the thread is about.
the very same thread but now we have a poster that has made less than 3 or so posts and then makes an off topic post. in this case the post should be deleted and replaced with a moderator warning stating that any further attempts to derail the thread by that poster will be met with infractions and, if necessary bannings.

my opinion, of course.

Extending the 'Alpha' rules to all the science forums would be horrible.

A point to note, very few alpha threads were ever made and these threads were barely participated in.

Is this the goal we want?
Dry. Boring. Empty.

I think not.

Extending the 'Alpha' rules to all the science forums would be horrible.

A point to note, very few alpha threads were ever made and these threads were barely participated in.

Is this the goal we want?
Dry. Boring. Empty.


Not to those who seriously want to discuss the topic, only to the ones who want to butt in with nonsense and sheer garbage.

Actually, in a weird instance of contrafibularity, we've just been discussing this in another thread:
But anyway: what do you think of these proposals for making all the seance forums 'alpha' forums - will that stop your yapping? Do you approve/disapprove/care/not care?
I do not feel threatened by these plans, but I do have the concern that GeoffP, hercules and I will be the only people able to yap meaningfully in for instance the biology seance forum.

Of course we are well acquainted with the posting style of two of these members and I think I speak for all when I say that we are all looking forward to see an entire subforum filled by what be essentially two independent dialogues by two of the greatest educators of our time and the far future.

And then there is hercules. He might post something interesting.
Ah yes, I think I remember this one now: something about most proper biology seantists - those who understand the issues - being too busy chopping up rats in unspecified locations to bother posting rubbish on a so-called 'seance' forum, and about the rest of us being too stupid and uninterested to contribute. Hence, biology forum closed due to a lack of interest (also, I think, part of the reason you're no longer a mod?).

So it's a rubbish idea, then, yes?
In sum: it tends, in biology at least, to lead to a dearth of contributions.

This is why the alpha rules are so popular, eh?

Like I said, few alpha threads have ever been created. And those few threads have barely been participated in.

If those few people like them, then they are welcome to create alpha threads all they like and participate with the few that care to.

Extending the fallacy to the forums at large would be disastrous.

Hell, Read-Only, if you like Nazi Germany... what are you doing here? Plenty of other forums where you can't fart, right? And you, yourself, take every opportunity to insult this forum. To disparage its members. And, by extension, to hold yourself above all the others.

I could give you some links to boring forums, if you like. Would you like?

Not to those who seriously want to discuss the topic, only to the ones who want to butt in with nonsense and sheer garbage.

Oh. And by the way, you've made a huge logical error here.

The 'Alpha' rules are not about staying on topic. This is part of them, but they consist of much more than that.

Staying on topic is one thing, but the strictness of the alpha rules in its other requirements are the problem.
That's why alpha threads are rare. And boring.
Not the requirement to stay on topic.

Personally, I think that the main change the forum should try is to simply endeavour to stay more on topic than at present.
To shitcan a large percentage of the banter which does destroy threads.

This is not to say that topic must be followed to the umpteenth degree. Some leeway should be given, especially if the original topic is sparse or not being commented upon and a tangential topic is introduced which is interesting and spurs on interesting conversation.

I also believe that it is an effort that must be made from the ground up. That is, the creativity and innovation of a forum comes from the user base. Not from 'alpha rules'.

Strict rules tend to stifle creativity.

The editing process comes after the brainstorming.

Sciforums is about brainstorming, not textbooks.

This is why the alpha rules are so popular, eh?

Like I said, few alpha threads have ever been created. And those few threads have barely been participated in.

If those few people like them, then they are welcome to create alpha threads all they like and participate with the few that care to.

Extending the fallacy to the forums at large would be disastrous.

Hell, Read-Only, if you like Nazi Germany... what are you doing here? Plenty of other forums where you can't fart, right? And you, yourself, take every opportunity to insult this forum. To disparage its members. And, by extension, to hold yourself above all the others.

I could give you some links to boring forums, if you like. Would you like?

More pure nonsense. I despised Nazi Germany and I'm in no way insulting this forum - just a few very stupid people who clearly need to be pointed out as next to worthless for the lack of quality in their posts.

I already participate in other forums, thank you. In fact much more so than here because I actually have to HUNT here to find things worth reading. This is just another stop on the rounds I make when I'm in a "fourm-ing" mood.

I know very well that I don't have to stay here - and I don't. I just pass through ocassionaly (which is why my post count remains so low).

just a few very stupid people

At the very least it would separate the wheat (of which there is little here) from the chaff - which is practically overwhelming.

Oh?

Extending the 'Alpha' rules to all the science forums would be horrible.

A point to note, very few alpha threads were ever made and these threads were barely participated in.

Is this the goal we want?
Dry. Boring. Empty.

I think not.

Nexus you are just wrong. First of all, they are only in the physics fourm where the threads are generally on topic anyway. Second, some of the threads have gone to several pages (mostly because a guy named Zanket refuses to admit that he is wrong).

How come hardly anyone ventures out of the physics forum? Sometimes I come accros a poster with 1000+ posts and I think, who the fuck is that? Then it is one of these people that only hang out in the physics forum.

(just a question)

Staying on topic is one thing, but the strictness of the alpha rules in its other requirements are the problem.
That's why alpha threads are rare. And boring.

i disagree.
alpha threads are boring because of their subject matter. not because of alpha rules.
typical example would be:
mitochondra transfer rates for zoological specimens etiologcal requirements.

yes indeed, very exciting.

How come hardly anyone ventures out of the physics forum? Sometimes I come accros a poster with 1000+ posts and I think, who the fuck is that? Then it is one of these people that only hang out in the physics forum.

You're not talking about me are you?

You're not talking about me are you?

No, i see you regularly.

Nexus you are just wrong. First of all, they are only in the physics fourm where the threads are generally on topic anyway. Second, some of the threads have gone to several pages (mostly because a guy named Zanket refuses to admit that he is wrong).
Are you missing the point? The proposal is to extend the alpha rules to cover all the science forums. The evidence to date shows that, in biology at least, and possibly in other fields too, it will go down like a lead balloon.

People at work, a center of excellence, leading in innovative biology, and more of that popular blabla, don't even want to talk about science. The only person that does is my best mate, but he hangs around at a football forum.

What are alpha rules? They sound ominous.

No off-topic posting; no flaming; be polite and courteous; avoid logical fallacies, etc. Strict moderation, post editing/deletion, etc., in accordance with the rules.

I think they're quite appropriate for serious academic discussions but tend to lead to a lack of contributions as previously noted.

No off-topic posting; no flaming; be polite and courteous; avoid logical fallacies, etc. Strict moderation, post editing/deletion, etc., in accordance with the rules.

I think they're quite appropriate for serious academic discussions but tend to lead to a lack of contributions as previously noted.

Thank-you. It sounds like alpha rules are the interweb's kryptonite.

No off-topic posting; no flaming; be polite and courteous; avoid logical fallacies, etc. Strict moderation, post editing/deletion, etc., in accordance with the rules.

No profanity.
Statements must be backed up with references.
All direct questions must be answered.
Speak clearly.
Blah blah blah blah.

Basically, they're untenable.


I do believe spurious plans to demolish that brick wall with his head.

Can't you stop being a troll for even a minute?

reported for flaming.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! :roflmao:

If opinions did not matter there would be no need for discussion or review.

Yes. Wasn't that how some of this started. Where I asked the moderators what the problem was leading to a new policy because we would like to discuss the matter and avatar kindly informed us that all was taken care of and we need not worry.

Yes. Wasn't that how some of this started. Where I asked the moderators what the problem was leading to a new policy because we would like to discuss the matter and avatar kindly informed us that all was taken care of and we need not worry.

You know what the mod forum is like, what do you suppose we could do on our own? No one is getting paid here and only trolls like me are around most of the time.:shrug:

At least some people are taking this thread seriously:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1421214#post1421214

You know what the mod forum is like, what do you suppose we could do on our own? No one is getting paid here and only trolls like me are around most of the time.:shrug:

I see your point and I know your situation. I merely made a different decision. There is no right or wrong here. However, let us all be realistic. trolls like us are the ones that can make a difference under the right circumstances. And currently I do not like the circumstances.

The biology content on sciwiki could have exploded by now if a clear policy had been presented early on, when I repeatedly asked for it. It's not hard for me to write all I know on developmental biology. It's my job to know. And then I know rather a lot on other biological topics. Out of pure interest.

Decisions are made. And we all have to live with the consequences.

And what can you do on your own?

Not much if you are not in charge. Been there, done that. Let's make an analogy with science: How many articles can you get out on your own as a postdoc. None if the groupleader says so, five or more if the groupleader says so and puts you into the "network of production". I'm going to aim for 3 this year, although small ones. My groupleader for instance doesn't like to do small papers (impact factor 4 or less) because they are too much work. So by the grace of my groupleader I am allowed to do small papers.

And currently I do not like the circumstances.

Then, get on your bike and ride. Problem solved.

Then, get on your bike and ride. Problem solved.

No, the other members will still be harassed by you.

avatar kindly informed us that all was taken care of and we need not worry.

Yes, everything is being taken care of. Please stand by...
Meanwhile please relax and have a good time. :m:

Yes, everything is being taken care of. Please stand by...
Meanwhile please relax and have a good time. Everything is fine. :m:

yes, please continue to mock and show us how the moderator team takes their job, and the member base seriously.

Seriously though, we are working hard to create something better and for some reason many members now have taken pitchforks and play their little revolution game because they feel left out. Well, it's really worse for your own nervous systems.

But tell me, do you get to go to your parliaments and write notes and corrections in laws as they are being made? And Sciforums isn't even a democracy.
We will do what we intend to do, and then you'll have all the time in the world to evaluate and judge. :cool:

If opinions did not matter there would be no need for discussion or review.

Seriously though, we are working hard to create something better and for some reason many members now have taken pitchforks and play their little revolution game because they feel left out. Well, it's really worse for your own nervous systems.

But tell me, do you get to go to your parliaments and write notes and corrections in laws as they are being made? And Sciforums isn't even a democracy.
We will do what we intend to do, and then you'll have all the time in the world to evaluate and judge. :cool:

See sam, there is no need for discussion.

Of course there is, we read these discussions carefully.
But you can't entrust an unruly crowd to come up with a reasonable document if your intention is not the recipe for chaos.

Of course there is, we read these discussions carefully.
But you can't entrust an unruly crowd to come up with a reasonable document if your intention is not the recipe for chaos.

Ah, avatar sees the community as an unruly crowd, resistant or marked by resistance to control. We have failed to submit to his rule. His majesty

Is this really how you are planning to entice an increased membership of science-minded people and scientists? By making the conform to rule? Submit to discipline? Submit to the random harassment by moderators?

An interesting plan.

Not the community as a whole, just particular individuals that have taken up the hobby of revolution. A few dissidents that think themselves to be the nation.

Not the community as a whole, just particular individuals that have taken up the hobby of revolution. A few dissidents that think themselves to be the nation.

Really, who might those individuals be? this is fascinating news. Is invert nexus still trying to buy sciforums? I thought he was quite happy with the current way things are going. Do tell.

That's state secret for you.
Be seeing you :cool:

I'm rather disgusted with the new official policy on sciforums where mods are encouraged to stalk and harass members.

I cannot honestly say I find this new policy an efficient way to increase science content of this forum or to attract new members interested in science. They only have to have one look at what kind of moderators are assigned here and they don't even bother with registering.
let's try to get this thread back on track shall we?

for a long time i couldn't make a post without sam commenting on it.
i guess one could say i was being harassed and stalked, but i never saw it that way.

you need to get out of the religion forum more often MW, the fresh air will do you good.
hey! i wondered where that post went. now i know!

No profanity.
do you see profanity in prestigious papers?
but i do agree with you to an extent.
it's basically a moderator call.
Statements must be backed up with references.
all statements? i think that should be refined to "challenged statements".
All direct questions must be answered.
and this is a problem because?

remember vertie we are talking about the science forums, not free thoughts or site feedback and such.

I see your point and I know your situation. I merely made a different decision. There is no right or wrong here. However, let us all be realistic. trolls like us are the ones that can make a difference under the right circumstances. And currently I do not like the circumstances.

The biology content on sciwiki could have exploded by now if a clear policy had been presented early on, when I repeatedly asked for it. It's not hard for me to write all I know on developmental biology. It's my job to know. And then I know rather a lot on other biological topics. Out of pure interest.

Decisions are made. And we all have to live with the consequences.

And what can you do on your own?

Not much if you are not in charge. Been there, done that. Let's make an analogy with science: How many articles can you get out on your own as a postdoc. None if the groupleader says so, five or more if the groupleader says so and puts you into the "network of production". I'm going to aim for 3 this year, although small ones. My groupleader for instance doesn't like to do small papers (impact factor 4 or less) because they are too much work. So by the grace of my groupleader I am allowed to do small papers.

I see what you mean and I understand what you are trying to do. I think the present circumstances are a reflection of the fact that most people want a different sciforums and have an image in their mind of what they want. Realistically though, no one has ANY idea at all how to go about it. Some people think others should be guided; others think they should be more involved. Ultimately, though, isn't it the responsibility of those who want a certain type of sciforums to actually work towards it?

I fail to understand, very frankly, the mentality of those who claim to want a certain kind of atmosphere, but spend all their time insulting/criticising and thus encouraging the reverse. Discussion is a team effort and it takes very little tact to steer it in a particular direction required; surely its not that difficult to discourage/ignore trolls?

If you want people to contribute sense, you should begin with yourself, don't you think? (PS the you does not mean you. specifically, if you know what I mean).


Taking your analogy a little further, its no point asking your post-doc to aim for an impact factor of 4 if your own work will never reach an impact factor beyond 2, ya?

See sam, there is no need for discussion.

Only if you believe that one person can really take charge in this forum; on my part, I believe that unless everyone wants the same things, compulsion is more likely to take it the other way.:shrug:

let's try to get this thread back on track shall we?

for a long time i couldn't make a post without sam commenting on it.
i guess one could say i was being harassed and stalked, but i never saw it that way.



Darn, did I ever do that? I don't recall it, but if I "followed you around" it was probably because you initiated points that grabbed my interest; I only "follow around" people that say something I want to debate on.:shrug:

If you want people to contribute sense, you should begin with yourself, don't you think? (PS the you does not mean you. specifically, if you know what I mean).
Of course, of course.



Taking your analogy a little further, its no point aiming for an impact factor of 4 if your work will never reach an impact factor beyond 2, ya?

Quite so, and of course I do have seen people being totally broken by groupleaders demanding a higher impact where in reality there was just no possibility for a higher one.

Only if you believe that one person can really take charge in this forum; on my part, I believe that unless everyone wants the same things, compulsion is more likely to take it the other way.:shrug:

You are always so reasonable and disarming. Are you related to ghandi?

Of course, of course.

The way I see it, moderators want better forums? Well then they should contribute in their own forums and lead by example (moi included), lead the discussion, so to say.


Quite so, and of course I do have seen people being totally broken by groupleaders demanding a higher impact where in reality there was just no possibility for a higher one.

Exactly, and whats the point? Even negative data is data and time and effort goes into every experiment, ya? I've actually abandoned a manuscript, I got so frustrated with all the do's and don'ts.:(


You are always so reasonable and disarming. Are you related to ghandi?

No I'm actually pulling out my hair by the handfuls and I've ground my teeth to the roots, but fortunately on the internet I can appear very zen.

do you see profanity in prestigious papers?

Do you see any prestigious papers here?
Do you need Spurious to explain to you the difference between Sciforums and Science?

all statements? i think that should be refined to "challenged statements".

So you agree that we should provide long lists of references for all of our posts? Bibliographies? Methods? Etc.?

You do realize that this is a discussion forum, not a scientific journal, don't you?

And, there are times when we know things without having our 'notes' in order. That is, we don't have references for every little tidbit of information echoing around beneath our arachnoid spaces.

Must we then remain silent for lack of reference?

and this is a problem because?

Because this is a discussion forum and you should be free to choose what you wish to discuss. If someone asks you a question which you don't care to go into, then you should be free to decline comment. To be penalized for declining comment is... stupid.

I see that the administration of this site continues to allow the moderators to flame the members, so that their buddies can give them infractions if they respond to it.

No SM. I gave you an infraction for acting like a turd. You pushed and pushed until you got just what you wanted. You would have done the same, had you been in my position (and have done in the not too distant past in case you have forgotten).

Embracing conspiracy theories, now? What next? Aliens with pitchforks?
What in the hell is the matter with you?

You are making a bad situation 100 times worse. You are placing many others in very bad positions. Cut it out already.

And grow the hell up.

Not the community as a whole, just particular individuals that have taken up the hobby of revolution. A few dissidents that think themselves to be the nation.
What the....?

:eek:

Keep going with stuff like this and I'll be chasing you down with a pitchfork. Some of us happen to like open discussion. We are not a "nation" Avatar. We are a forum on the internet.

-----------------------------------------------

Do you see any prestigious papers here?
the point i was trying to make is that you do not see the "fuck you dickhead" in journals such as "nature". do you really need to call valich a "dumbfuck"?
Do you need Spurious to explain to you the difference between Sciforums and Science?
please do not sic spurious on me, i don't feel like becoming charred remains.



So you agree that we should provide long lists of references for all of our posts? Bibliographies? Methods? Etc.?
yes, when it's requested.
well not exactly the way you put it, a nice link or two would suffice.

You do realize that this is a discussion forum, not a scientific journal, don't you?
yes, i do

And, there are times when we know things without having our 'notes' in order. That is, we don't have references for every little tidbit of information echoing around beneath our arachnoid spaces.
a damn good point vert, i'm glad you made it.
you must admit though, unreferenced material cannot be anything more than opinion.

Must we then remain silent for lack of reference?
no, but be prepared to be shot down by a well armed opponent.



Because this is a discussion forum and you should be free to choose what you wish to discuss. If someone asks you a question which you don't care to go into, then you should be free to decline comment. To be penalized for declining comment is... stupid.
okay, there is a god, i have proof, want me to show it to you? fuck off.
not to be confrontational vertie but i hope i made my point.

maybe this can be solved by the nature of the first, or opening, post of a thread. if the opening post implies a serious subject matter then the thread is a alpha thread.

What in the hell is the matter with you?

You are making a bad situation 100 times worse. You are placing many others in very bad positions. Cut it out already.

And grow the hell up.-

Come now, you can't be serious. Spurious is throwing a whiny, sniveling tantrum, so he's getting treated as such. No big woop.

Come now, you can't be serious. Spurious is throwing a whiny, sniveling tantrum, so he's getting treated as such. No big woop.

Perhaps it would be more useful to address the the issue than exacerbate it.

i was halfway into a movie called "platoon" and decided to check out this thread.
a good example of an off topic post.

All the Black Adder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witchsmeller_Pursuivant) references were removed? :confused:

Keep going with stuff like this and I'll be chasing you down with a pitchfork. Some of us happen to like open discussion. We are not a "nation" Avatar. We are a forum on the internet.
I'm just half seriously teasing spuriousmonkey with USSR time slogans, since he thinks that Latvians are "just some sort of Russians", and that the mods are nazis, and I didn't want to disappoint him. Maybe I got over the top, but it was fun.

the point i was trying to make is that you do not see the "fuck you dickhead" in journals such as "nature". do you really need to call valich a "dumbfuck"?

The insults in journals are much more sophisticated, but there nonetheless.

you must admit though, unreferenced material cannot be anything more than opinion.

Please provide a reference proving this statement.

maybe this can be solved by the nature of the first, or opening, post of a thread. if the opening post implies a serious subject matter then the thread is a alpha thread.

How about it you just type "ALPHA" in the subject heading?

Thread closed!

Official SciForums discussion:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1424035#post1424035