Do you think some of the members here act to be bullies?

Discussion in 'SF Open Government' started by Reiku, Dec 10, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Reiku Banned Banned

    So, what is your thoughts? :shrug:

    I think I see a lot of bullying going on. Maybe I am just a dilusional prick, who don't know any better.

    But my history here is vast and substantial. I think with even the likes of the psuedoscientists, the psuedo sub-forum is now a tag for, come in and bully me a bit... It's not nice, do you agree?
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Sock puppet path GRRRRRRRRRRRR Valued Senior Member

    Quit being such a whiney cry baby you delusional prick!

    Re. OP; No
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Reiku Banned Banned

    Coming from a cock, sorry, sock puppet...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Can I have some genuine answers, or should I take a visit to the doctor for some antipsychotic pills?
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Reiku Banned Banned

    Plus I am not generally whining. Sometimes I could not care half if some of them got there rewards for certain posts. But, I'd be disingenuous if I sat back, saw it happen and say nothing.

    What happened to the classiness of sciforums, when back in the day, such behaviour was almost never around? Is it part of an internet evolution of a slowely tolerated behaviour?
  8. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member


    Oh yeah, I agree totally.
  9. Reiku Banned Banned

    Thank you.

    I appreciate your truthful honesty, coupled with your infamous respectability here.
  10. Reiku Banned Banned

    I think there should be a revolt against such actions. I think that such actions bring this site down.

    I am not talking about a nazi-ship where good behaviour is completely essential, where bad behaviour is ultimately frowned and punished upon. I learned my mistake calling someone a specific name here. It was only out of long exposure of not being at this site and a reflection itself of how I was personally treated before that I did such a thing.

    Make no mistake, such a thing will not happen again!

    But, it has come to the point I think this place needs an official behavioural moderator! Strange idea? Just consider the facts...

    ...We have moderators whose opinions are unquestioned due to their own power in this place, under the protection most likely of their scientific knowledge which is often corrupted by their scientific bias, and let us not forget that scientists are not the be all and end all of the scientific justification, that they let by-pass the horrid contentions and behaviour of people here who target specific members in the act of blatent bullying.

    The immediate response to these actions, is someone even beyond the usually appropriate super mod, who whilst doing a good job, in reasonable respects, cannot be honestly asked to moderate the forums for bad behaviour.

    If this forum has the ability to hire mods (sometimes more than 1, or 2 and even 3 in the best of cases, but usually no more) may I ask that there be a mod who will act over the behaviour of sciforums, to maintain bullying at it's minimal.

    Because this post has now quickly became a government post, I will take this to the gov. but leave a trace here for my own decision to raise the point, but make it also known it is imperative that with the right support we quell this behaviour quickly so the place does not suffer a bad reputation, since, atleast in my opinion, this place is held in a usually high regard.

    To add to this statement, it is not high because it cracks down on threads which are unsubstantial with bullying tactics, but because it is high through the act's of excellent science discussions, which may have been impacted already through the use of left arm actions which cannot, or should not be tolerated!

  11. Stoniphi obscurely fossiliferous Valued Senior Member

    Well, personally, I would find that revolting.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  12. Sock puppet path GRRRRRRRRRRRR Valued Senior Member

    That is too funny, I hope SAM doesn't get offended

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  13. Reiku Banned Banned


    I called him/her honest, truthful...

    .. maybe that is what is wrong with sciforums. Too many here mistake good behaviour as being an insultive behaviour, or that those who see a good behaviour would like to hide behind it's shadow, so that you can call that behaviour troll like to justify your own?

    In light of that, I READILY welcome a banning or warning, or better yet, and more approproate, an infraction for obvious trolling!
  14. Reiku Banned Banned

    Oh, PS.... reported!

    Mod Hat:

    Users was banned for abuse of the report button whilst having multiple verbal warnings. Please take note everyone - the Report button is not a toy.

    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 11, 2011
  15. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    I argued against establishing this group of subforums specifically for the purpose of hosting bullshit. But I was outvoted. The idea was to separate out the bullshit and put it all in one place, but it's not working. The genuine science subforums still gather the same amount of bullshit as ever, so now SciForums has twice as much bullshit content as before. This is not the way become a respectable site of science and scholarship.
    It's the antiscience trolling that brings this site down. How many people stumble into this site from a Google search, stick around long enough to see all the trolling about creation "science," about consciousness affecting the laws of nature, etc., and run away screaming, "How dare those people call themselves a science site?" We'll never be taken seriously until we start taking ourselves seriously. Bullshit belongs in church.
    No we don't. We all rag on each other.
    That phrase does not make any sense. What bias? The fact that they understand and practice the scientific method, which for five centuries has proven to be the best way to understand how the universe works despite, aggressive attempts to falsify it?
    Another clause that makes no sense.
    We're all human and sometimes the trolls drive us fucking nuts. At those times we might give in to our feelings and allow the trolls to be treated the way they deserve. I have always argued that there's nothing in the rules or in our charter as moderators that requires us to be scrupulously fair in the manner of a democratic national government. Our assigned mission is to make this a place of science and scholarship. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who interferes deliberately and consistently with that mission should be banned on the spot. Fortunately for the trolls, most of the other moderators think they serve a purpose here, one which I personally do not understand.
    The moderators are not "hired." We are all unpaid volunteers.
    We have trouble making sure each subforum has one moderator. To think that we could find twice or three times as many people who are qualified for the job (maturity, communication skill, subject matter expertise, extremely thick skin, for starters) and willing to do it is ludicrous.
    That's James R's job and he performs it magnificently. Something tells me you must be a troll-lover, otherwise you wouldn't find much to complain about. He occasionally screws up like we all do since we're human, but that's the extent of his weakness.
    The only thing that's going to give this place a bad reputation is too much tolerance for woo-woo and just plain old incoherent posting.
    It's very difficult to express sarcasm in writing, especially in a place like this where many of the people are not native anglophones and many of us who are are rather young and/or poorly-socialized one-percenters. (I'm 68 so I guess I fall into the second category.) It's easy for sarcasm to be mistaken for straightforward speech, but it's almost as easy for it to happen the other way round. That's what happened in your case. They thought you complained were being sarcastic. So did I at first, frankly.
    It was an honest mistake. Chill out dude.
    Yeah, we all got your report since all of us have moderation powers on this subforum. I'll be curious to see how many of the moderators also thought it was sarcastic and worthy of a warning. I'm a professional writer and editor and I had trouble with it.

    As I said, sarcasm is such a dangerous weapon in written language that it can backfire and harm somebody who wasn't even using it! I think I'll suggest making a new rule banning sarcasm.
  16. Stoniphi obscurely fossiliferous Valued Senior Member

    Heh. Well said, Frag.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  17. Crunchy Cat F-in' *meow* baby!!! Valued Senior Member

    I think it was a mistake for the moderators to let you back onto the site.
  18. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Sadly true.
    Sci is no longer the place it was, let alone the place it should/ could be.
  19. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Heh Heh

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Nicely said.
    You are right.
    It hasn't achieved its purpose.

    Just casting my eye through the present offerings, the standard has gone down.
    And it wasn't great to begin with.

    People won't post their ideas in the right place.
    They have caught on to the fact that "Alternative theories" really means "Woo Woo Rubbish", so they post in the Physics section.
    They don't want to post their "Einstein was wrong" theories,
    in the same section as "Cats come from outer space".
    They're smarter than we thought.
    Last edited: Dec 10, 2011
  20. leopold Valued Senior Member

    who's problem is that?
    the mod of that particular subforum, that's who.
    how do you propose to do that?
    get rid of all the naysayers and fill the place with "yes men"?
    are there any "etched in stone" answers to any of the above?
    being "ridiculous", "laughable", or "retarded" is hardly proof.
    are you seriously advocating bias?
    too bad peer review sucks eh?
    in case you haven't noticed, peer review seeks to do exactly that, to smash your theories, sift your evidence, and expose the inept.
  21. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Mod Hat

    Closing this thread as it is yet ANOTHER duplicate of a discussion already going on in Open Govt. There is no need for more duplicates...

    Oh, and leo - he isn't advocating Bias... he's saying that it's an almost impossible trait to fully eradicate. Tell me you can make a decision on a topic you have ANY passion about without a single shred of bias, and I'll call you a liar.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page