05-21-04, 08:15 PM #1
Pseudoscience Section Rules New Moderation
What’s everyone’s view points on the new rules?
Mine are,,,,,,,,,,,, good luck Stryder.
Ohhhh, and watch bullet proof monk two times a day. (just kidding)
05-21-04, 08:49 PM #2
Cheers Norval, I was wondering when this thread would emerge.
Hopefully the rules should be simple enough and not to stringent, I don't want to start being interpretted as a "goose stepper", theres enough of them about as it is. (That doesn't imply on this board)
05-22-04, 12:00 AM #3
They seem simple and too the point. You do a good job in computers, so we shouldn't fear much.
05-22-04, 01:02 AM #4
Yeah, I know, so I figured I would just get it going as "some one had to do it". But seriously this isn’t going to be an easy task with so much going down in the world today. Most know that it is the paranormal and so called pseudo science forums that are the modern ham radio and CB talk of the world now. When it happens, it happens here first. Many feel humanity is on the threshold of something big, great, whatever, we are there. And you are the master of ceremonies for this far out chat channel.
05-22-04, 10:14 AM #5
many people have always felt that... and every other thing that hasn't come true... feeling are of a limited use when guessing the future, hence why we have brains.
05-22-04, 10:23 AM #6
I don't know Persol, Feeling is theoretically linked to Divination and fortelling events. For instance in a Schrodinger atom you could use photons to try and get the location of where the electron is going, if from the perception of the nuclei it could "Feel" the electron then rather than trying to detect through probability it would be able to "Divine" the location.
It's speculated such "feeling" could be used to work out the correct answer to multiple choice questions, For instance if you had 20 questions that had 4 answers each but only one was correct for each one, and you created the rule that if all 20 were answered correctly you won $1,000,000, where as if you got one or more wrong you would win nothing, there is speculation a machine could be developed to "Feel" the alternatives and work out the correct path based on very small instances.
Afterall if you won $1,000,000 it would cause great changes to you and your universe, that winning nothing wouldn't.
05-22-04, 10:29 AM #7
Speculated, but never demonstrated. The only times it has come close is when that 'feeling' is based on actual knowledge... at which point it is no longer just a feeling.
As for your test, its not very convincing. All of the questions are:
What letter is correct?
Your feeling isn't going to get you anywhere probability doesn't.
05-22-04, 10:32 AM #8No Trolling (20 pages in the Mexican DoD thread explains why "by volume");
05-22-04, 10:34 AM #9No Cut and Paste posts or Plagurism (More severity than Cross posters);
Is this how you are defining cut and paste?
05-22-04, 10:37 AM #10No Cat fighting (Hairpulling, scratching and biting is not permitted);
05-22-04, 11:18 AM #11
You should really rename yourself FiestyIce.
Okay, I admit that you want hardcore definitions, I was hoping that you might have been able to guess what I meant.
Not Trolling meant:
There was instances of trolling in the Mexican DoD thread where people were just stating the same questions without listening to answers just to get a rise. This caused the overall Thread to become increasingly large, and in turn meant some people that joined the thread tend to skip all the middle bit.
Since I think people shouldn't be made to skip all the gory bits in the middle, I'm suggesting that posts aren't bloated un-necessarily.
Cut and Pasteing was refering to external documents, But I'll correct that.
No Cat fighting meant none of that b*tchy hairpulling that some people do in these forums, One out of topic post can go un-noticed, it's when you have someone using the troll method to generate multiple out of topic posts just to mess with the thread. (in topic humour is permitted.)
Just getting me to rectify how I defined the rulesets probably makes me sound a cruel harsh tyrant but I'm not (Now step away from this thread Fiery, before I break out the secret squad of eliteist trained penguins to nibble at your toes )
05-22-04, 12:34 PM #12
Originally Posted by Stryderunknown
The fact that the military of a major country admitted it had an encounter with a UFO and provided full cooperation in the investigation with outside researchers is huge and there is certainly a lot to talk about.
05-22-04, 12:40 PM #13
Admittedly yes coolmacguy, that again is the reason why I thought of some of the offtopic posts causing it to be too large to navigate for some.
[I had the interests of those that wanted to read/join in a popular thread at heart]
05-22-04, 12:58 PM #14
05-24-04, 11:09 AM #15
I propose that "personal attacks" be made a separate rule from "cat fighting" and that examples be given:
- direct insults & statements like, "you're an idiot"
- racial slurs
- profanity directed to or about other members
- derogatory labeling such as "woo-woo," "kook," etc. (excepting things like, "believer" or "skeptic" and "ignorant," "pseudo-skeptic," or "pseudoscientist" if the latter three can be substantiated).
- accusing someone of "trolling."
- others at the moderator(s) discretion.
I also propose that if a thread is started in Pseudoscience then it and all links to information within the original post as well as those posts following are considered open for public discussion and debate. If the OP believes his/her thread has been hijacked, then he/she can request closing but the moderator(s) can choose to split the thread and create daughter discussions.
One last suggestion: set the time limit for edits to only a day or two. This will prevent mass-deletions that are so common in debate (particularly pseudoscience) forums where the OP gets vindictive wants to remove his/her participation from the record. That's always a telling move. This might be something that vBulletin can only do board-wide, however, and Porfiry might not be inclined to do it.
05-24-04, 11:31 AM #16
You've raised some valid points, a point on the time limit for edits, Every deletion a person does a moderator can see before they actually completely delete it.
So when a person removes all their traces of participation, it's only from the public eye and not from the moderator.
I shall update the ruleset
05-24-04, 12:16 PM #17
intelligent life forms that need rules to govern what they type.
im only joking (a little) but seriously i want to know what the allegations will be if and when me and some selected few begin discussing things that are of such controversy, we've been harassed for bringing them to the table before.
is stryderunknown gonna take sides or play fair ?
by this i mean, IF and WHEN a-holes begin bombing our threads with misinformation and insults/threats, is the 'moderator' gonna just LOCK UP / CLose the Thread, or is he gonna to clean up after the babies mess and let the discussion continue? Or is he gonna take the debunker side and shut the thread down anyways... ?
me'sa wants to know
05-24-04, 01:14 PM #18
Well I know I could have my own views about any particular thread, which I'm more than likely to post, however no matter my view and no matter how people receive that view I will try my best not to use any forms of Moderator action unless it's completely arbitory. This means I can take sides as a person within discussion but not as a moderator, unless of course dirty play is afoot.
The question is if you truly want "autonomous moderation" where I enter a thread and cleanout what I believe is junk from people venting?, or moderation based upon the thread starter wanting their thread cleaned up?.
However no matter the outcome of the question people should take into account that what ever they post on a forum like this could be archived for many years to come. This means no matter which side of the Belief scale you stand, potential future employers, opposites and equals in your field and other people that might be relevent in your future could potentially see what you have written and most importantly how you react.
So I would suggest everybody realises that point no matter if they are punting their own particular theoretical belief on something or skeptical retort.
05-24-04, 01:16 PM #19
If the believer can demonstrate that the information that a skeptic is using to debunk a wild claim is "misinformation" or "disinformation," then perhaps it should be deleted.
But merely disagreeing with the information or disliking it doesn't make it dis- or misinformation.
05-24-04, 02:13 PM #20
i disagree. the "misinformation" or "disinformation," should remain as a testament to the particular poster's intellect.
it is just as well you were not appointed moderator. your attempt to sanitize and misrepresent events by erasing it out of the historical record is...is... words fail me. sorry.
Originally Posted by stryder