Closing threads to win arguments

Magical Realist said:
Too bad he didn't know that..Maybe you two should have colluded together.
Click to expand...
You seem also to be into conspiracy theories as well. :rolleyes:
Crying victim, as you have done in the past and as other cranks and quacks tend to do, is quite revealing.
If the truth actually be known, there have been at least two mods, who have "stuck up for your right" to post your nonsense, and have asked others to give you a fair go. But as usual, when situations expressing doubt on your nonsensical claims are put to you, you either quickly start your anti science crap, obfuscate and make excuses, or just continue to offer your u-tube and other examples of the same nonsense. And then we are once again, on the merry-go-round again. :)
And that's why your threads are closed...nothing more, nothing less.
Most here admit that with UFO's, and the small number that remains unexplained, that the possibilities are open, but not conclusive..do you understand that?
The extraordinary evidence required is just not there....it's as simple as that.
That's your stumbling point:
 
If the threads are posted in the appropriate sub-forms, why would they be closed? I could see if you were posting about Big Foot in the science section, but if you're posting these types of threads in the ''fringe'' areas, then not sure why they're being closed. It can make for interesting discussion, no one should confuse the fringe area with science.
 
wegs said:
If the threads are posted in the appropriate sub-forms, why would they be closed? I could see if you were posting about Big Foot in the science section, but if you're posting these types of threads in the ''fringe'' areas, then not sure why they're being closed. It can make for interesting discussion, no one should confuse the fringe area with science.
Click to expand...

The reason given for closing the Bigfoot thread was that I quoted Sci Forum rules about not posting misinformation and then later on posted a link that said the 2012 DNA study performed on Bigfoot showed it was an unknown species. This was particularly unforgiveable to Tiassa, who not only closed the thread but infracted me as well. I've already posted a direct link to Melba Ketchum's website showing nothing was contaminated or faked in the study. IMO they had no argument left to make and had to shut me up. That's usually what it comes to here.
 
Magical Realist said:
Mods seem to do that quite often here. Shouldn't there be a rule against this? Against having the last word on an argument by either banning a poster from the thread or closing the thread with some bullshit reason like intellectual dishonesty or "dangerous information"? Guess what? If you have to win a debate by censoring the opposing view from replying, you haven't won anything. You've only shown that your own position cannot be defended.
Click to expand...
Since courtesy dictates that a reason be giving for closing a thread, moderators essentially always have to have the last word and "win". That's just a fact of life. It's like complaining that you're always the one having to give a person money when you buy something. That's not fair! We should take turns giving each other money!

In any case, if you were referring to the bigfoot thread, Tiassa wasn't even active in the thread, so he wasn't part of any argument to win or lose by posting and locking the thread. So your complaint is about something that didn't even happen in the recent case that prompted you to start the thread!
 
One of the members recently commented, that he joined this forum because things are a bit relaxed here compared to other science oriented forums. I personally do not find this observation flattering for this forum, but I cannot comment about owners/Mods here.

Things are actually relaxed here, Mods allow the problems to pile on and then they act, instead of resolving the same in the bud. There are many resident trolls here who do not contribute much except baiting, trolling and abusing.

I agree with weg that in fringe section if OP is not resorting to abuses or indecency, then thread should not be closed. An objective assessment of the case, which is acceptable to others, should also be not expected from the OP. At the worst if the issue involved is pathetic and stupid, the same can be consigned to cesspool, but closing conditions should be very restrictive and clear.
 
In any case, if you were referring to the bigfoot thread, Tiassa wasn't even active in the thread, so he wasn't part of any argument to win or lose by posting and locking the thread. So your complaint is about something that didn't even happen in the recent case that prompted you to start the thread!
Click to expand...

Tiassa had to have been reading the thread to shut it down. The excuse for shutting it down is itself an argument made against me. That the DNA study was debunked, which it wasn't. He was making an argument against my position and then shutting me up. Hence this thread...
 
Here is the situation here. It's a Science Forum in name only. They say that most of their traffic is the woo woo traffic and therefore can't/aren't shut it down. The logic is also that by allowing it in a science forum some people may be educated about science in the process.

I think the more logical thing to do would be to just admit that this is largely a woo woo site which allows scientific posts.

Regarding shutting down threads, banning people, that doesn't work well and is rarely used on a site that is larger and that continues to grow. Shutting down threads because they have "run their coarse" is unnecessary and is just a controlling type of behavior that isn't needed.

On most sites you wouldn't even know who the moderator was and moderation is rarely needed. It's only when there are too many rules and too much control that it is "needed".

The only rules needed are, no hate speech and civil behavior among posters. No need for banning anyone, threads don't need to be closed, posters don't need to be lectured. Posters moderate each other to a degree anyway.
 
Magical Realist said:
Mods seem to do that quite often here.
Click to expand...

I've noticed that a lot. Threads just start to get interesting, they just start to raise interesting issues when they are closed, often with ad-hominem "last word on this" remarks from a moderator that suggest that the moderator was simply angry and might have misconceived a great deal of what was written.

Here's a suggestion: that moderators not close threads, unless they contain something that presents a legal danger to the board (in which case they should be deleted). Instead move them downwards to the 'fringe' fora, but leave them open. Isn't that why the 'fringe' fora were created? Why not use them??

At the worst, move threads to Cesspool without closing them. If arguments start to be personal and begin going in circles, if that's happening in Cesspool, WHO FUCKING CARES?
 
Yazata said:
I've noticed that a lot. Threads just start to get interesting, they just start to raise interesting issues when they are closed, often with ad-hominem "last word on this" remarks from a moderator that suggest that the moderator was simply angry and might have misconceived a great deal of what was written.

Here's a suggestion: that moderators not close threads, unless they contain something that presents a legal danger to the board (in which case they should be deleted). Instead move them downwards to the 'fringe' fora, but leave them open. Isn't that why the 'fringe' fora were created? Why not use them??

At the worst, move threads to Cesspool without closing them. If arguments start to be personal and begin going in circles, if that's happening in Cesspool, WHO FUCKING CARES?
Click to expand...
Which moderators or sub sections?

An aside, I'm glad that say, rpenner, has got rid of some garbage, yet, that is more specific.
 
Yazata said:
I've noticed that a lot. Threads just start to get interesting, they just start to raise interesting issues when they are closed, often with ad-hominem "last word on this" remarks from a moderator that suggest that the moderator was simply angry and might have misconceived a great deal of what was written.

Here's a suggestion: that moderators not close threads, unless they contain something that presents a legal danger to the board (in which case they should be deleted). Instead move them downwards to the 'fringe' fora, but leave them open. Isn't that why the 'fringe' fora were created? Why not use them??

At the worst, move threads to Cesspool without closing them. If arguments start to be personal and begin going in circles, if that's happening in Cesspool, WHO FUCKING CARES?
Click to expand...

Well said, I am also of the opinion as stated earlier that as long as OP is not abusive and there are no legal issues, then thread should not be closed.

If you see the trend here, there are few posters like Daecon, Kristoffer, Toad..
These people do no homework, they do not contribute but they rejoice when the thread is killed or crapped. Their main objective is start abuses, adhoms and just ridicule, they take some kind of sadistic pleasure in crapping any thread which attempts some critical discussion. I would urge Mods to screen their posts before it is published. There are only a few jokes here who are making this site somewhat unpleasant.
 
The God said:
Things are actually relaxed here, Mods allow the problems to pile on and then they act, instead of resolving the same in the bud. There are many resident trolls here who do not contribute much except baiting, trolling and abusing.
Click to expand...
Oh shit! That comment caused my irony meter to explode.
 
Seattle said:
Here is the situation here. It's a Science Forum in name only.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what a "science forum" is supposed to be. A homework-help forum for high-school and college undergraduate students? A shop-talk forum for professionals? A place for educated laypeople to discuss science? (If the latter, how much education qualifies a layperson as 'educated' in science? Who draws that line?)

They say that most of their traffic is the woo woo traffic and therefore can't/aren't shut it down.
Click to expand...

What does "woo" mean? It's a word that I've only seen used on Sciforums and boards like it. I never encountered the word when I was in a university setting. (Except as what young lovers do to each other.)

I'm guessing that "woo" means 'pseudoscience'. The science/pseudoscience distinction is a basic issue in the philosophy of science, and trying to understand how that distinction is made and where the demarcation line should be drawn could be fascinating things to discuss if people approached them intelligently. Eruptions of "woo" might create perfect occasions for that.

A considerable proportion of what people discuss on Sciforums are actually philosophical problems from (or at least very relevant to) the philosophy of science: The atheism/theism discussions. The assumptions of physicalism, whether methodological or metaphysical. The nature of evidence and how evidence is used to confirm hypotheses. Problems of induction. What justifies deductive inference? The role of mathematics in understanding reality. Problems of defining and identifying 'truth'. Problems of scientific methodology. Are there limits on what humans can know? Can we be mistaken, not just about particular things but about everything? Is there some distinction between knowledge and belief? Is anything absolutely certain? What do necessity and possibility mean? How are they recognized? Does every event have a cause? Free-will and determinism. What is the place of purpose in a physical universe? Why is time so different than space? Mind/brain problems. What is 'consciousness'? What are phenomenal properties like 'red'? What defines personal identity and its continuity over time? Is language necessary for intelligent thought? What is 'meaning' and how do words acquire it? What kind of reality do abstract objects like numbers have? How do we know abstract objects? Is our knowledge of the physical world based solely on sense-perception? Is it possible to organize all of our knowledge into a single consistent logical system? What are subjectivity and objectivity? How are wholes related to their parts? Can qualitatively new kinds of phenomena 'emerge' from complex systems? What is 'life'? What different kinds of life might there be? What does quantum mechanics tell us about the nature of physical reality? What is the relationship between scientific theory and the reality it models? How do scientific theories change as science progresses?

And on and on... The questions are probably endless. If we think about even the most familiar aspects of our lives for more than a minute or two, we are suddenly at the frontiers of human knowledge. We are surrounded by the unknown at every moment. It doesn't require a journey to CERN or to an astronomical observatory to approach the mysteries. It just takes a little thought.

So what is the nature of science and where does it stand in all of this? That kind of question is probably going to be best addressed at the boundaries, when examining problem cases. That's why the science/pseudoscience and science/religion boundaries fascinate me. That's why I think that the 'fringe' fora on Sciforums might conceivably become its most interesting and intellectually vibrant areas. If the day ever comes when the fringe/'woo'/pseudoscience fora are Sciforums' most active and popular areas, I don't see that as necessarily a bad thing.

Regarding shutting down threads, banning people, that doesn't work well and is rarely used on a site that is larger and that continues to grow. Shutting down threads because they have "run their coarse" is unnecessary and is just a controlling type of behavior that isn't needed.

On most sites you wouldn't even know who the moderator was and moderation is rarely needed. It's only when there are too many rules and too much control that it is "needed".

The only rules needed are, no hate speech and civil behavior among posters. No need for banning anyone, threads don't need to be closed, posters don't need to be lectured. Posters moderate each other to a degree anyway.
Click to expand...

I heartily agree. As I already suggested, I do think that moderators should try to keep the science fora up on top free of cranks and foolishness. But that doesn't mean silencing people. It just means moving their threads to the 'fringe' fora. It also assumes that our moderators are well enough educated about the subjects they moderate to recognize what is and isn't crankery, which isn't always obvious. For example, there are many entirely legitimate physicists and cosmologists on the faculties of some of the best universities, who express skepticism about some of the ideas that the theorists are promoting these days. Roger Penrose at Oxford recently published a new book about that.

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10664.html
 
Last edited:
I'd like a moderator to reply in this thread...

I think it would be a good thing, if they have the time...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top