Discussion in 'Site Feedback' started by birch, Nov 7, 2016.
Interesting . . . . I looked at this thread but posted NOTHING!!! The "glitch" is not mine!
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Is this a common characteristic of bright, think-outside-the-box scientists like yourself karen? Lying like a rug when the evidence is right here? On the forum, in your post - black and white, ya' know?
About a quarter of the way down in your "quote": ". . . .u-m-m-m-m . . . then why are all the unscientific politics and anti-Trump sentiments permissible on a science forum . . . . .OH! . . . I get it! . . . . .political SCIENCE. RIght?"
Are you trying to say James wrote that? Funny, it's not in his post. Gee, wonder how that happened...
Post number 12 in this thread, was posted by you, Karen.
In the post, you quoted the entirety of James R's post, and inserted one line in it, but you posted your sentence, in the quote itself, which not only led to reports, but requests from one member and staff, regarding your inability to use the quote function on this site.
The sentence you inserted into the quote you posted of James R's post is:
. . . .u-m-m-m-m . . . then why are all the unscientific politics and anti-Trump sentiments permissible on a science forum . . . . .OH! . . . I get it! . . . . .political SCIENCE. RIght?
Are you now denying quoting James and inserting that into the quote you posted in this thread, which can be found in post 12 in this thread? There is no glitch, Karen. You actively quoted James and then inserted that sentence in it. How do I know you inserted that sentence in it? Because that sentence does not appear anywhere in James R's original post that you quoted, and that sentence and sentence structure, closely matches how you post on this site.
So you are either lying about not posting in this thread (keep in mind, we can see you posted in this thread at post 12, and that you inserted a sentence in the quote you posted of the entirety of James R's post), multiple people are using your account here and posting under your name or you have multiple/split personalities. Which one applies to you?
Don't tell me that some people don't believe in gravity
Have you noticed how gravity is stronger since Trump became President?
I'm sure there are wilder ideas out there
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Is this ''Alternative Quoting'' a new spin off from ''Alternative Facts'' ?
Karen are you decoying for someone on the site? You seem to be active when a certain member starts to post elsewhere...just asking.
This is not a science forum. Actually, I see no reason to have sub-forums here.
Yes, it is a science forum. BUT for some strange reason, some members become upset if it seems attention is given in other non-science subforums at times. But i don't see how that matters because those who want to discuss science can and moderators make sure to cesspool crackpot or move it to another subforum. It's not like everyone is in one room and other's discussions compromise or interrupt their own.
Are they jealous? seems silly. Is the "party" too loud next door and disturbing their scientific discussion? it's a forum with virtual soundproof dividers. What could it possibly be? simple intolerance.
Actually the forum could be even better if it had more life subforums to round out every area of life or interest. but maybe too much bandwidth.
I think they should just make the entire forum about whatever conversation anyone wants to have.
Two of the best members for the religion and fringe subforums are on a temporary ban again. it is also driven by the assholes here who incite against them with their own intolerance. yet, you see the same ones who complain that there is not enough science or logic posting in these topics that they complain about.
why aren't they just posting in the science section then or starting topics there. they want to run off the ones who have a real interest and then ridicule the entire fringe section because that is really all it is. the problem is they are not good at it, dull and dead in the water.
Never once have I seen anyone even try to look up for themselves compelling events or stories that, if honestly analyzed, are intriguing and can't be just dismissed away easily and discuss with more respect for the subject. instead, you have these assholes who believe they know what the fuk they are talking about and are pretentiously dismissing everything with the broad brush (heard it all: mental illness, hallucination, imagination etc as if they fuking know) they have been taught to view such subjects.
The point is: GIA and MR do NOT deserve to be banned anymore than other members because they are NOT anymore in the wrong.
Can you clarify?
These two 'best members' got themselves banned (again), but it's not their fault, it's the fault of some others?
Are you suggesting the moderation team is systemically favouring 'intolerance' while punishing 'good contributors'?
they are not seeing the 'intolerance' goes both ways and what they consider 'intelligence' is narrow, considering typical soundbites and parroting safe convention is also a pass which has nothing to do with intelligence anyways. so why should GIA and MR be punished?
Were the reasons for banning listed as 'ideas are too good' or something like that?
Just perhaps, they're being temp-banned not for their ideas but for their appalling behavior?
Even the brightest kids in the class can get detentions if they engage in unacceptable behavior.
bs. their behavior isn't anymore 'apalling' than the rest. counterpoints made with the belief they are right is not punished, even if derisive, condescending or disrespectful, if at least fits within a standard totem opinion. but in reality, it's just as erroneous, rude and fuked up.
I think it's pretty safe to say the Mods see a distinction.
It's on record that at least one of those two has engaged in direct, personal barrages of abuse towards the Mods themselves - utterly exhausting any consideration they may have had for him. It is a testament to the patience of the Mods that the ban is only temporary. Don't take my word for it; it's publicly available.
Sciforums is all about bullying. Sometimes it's little more than an elementary school play yard with some vocabulary from high-school science class pasted on top. (Often in threads where the issues at question aren't even scientific issues.)
The underlying dynamic seems to me to be that Sciforums functions like a social clique. People want to belong, and they demonstrate that they belong by conforming, and by bullying those who don't conform.
Right. As soon as somebody posts an anomalous report, the anger and condescension start. If the non-conformer gets angry or barks back, they get a ban.
I don't see anything wrong with using science to address anomalous reports whenever doing so is appropriate. That's probably what people who know something about science should be doing. But it seems to me that most of the controversy on the fringe fora isn't typically about science at all. It's more epistemological or more directly concerns metaphysics.
There's often an assumption that some anomalous report X can't be taken at face value. Why? Because it's perceived as violating the club's chosen worldview.
Why does it violate it? Sometimes it isn't obvious. Cryptozoological animals don't violate physicalism or any laws of nature that I'm aware of. So why the instant anger and sarcasm? Why do so many people start posturing as if they were an intellectual elite? (That question might be its own answer.) I've compared it to religious faith before and still think that the comparison is apt.
Why must the board's worldview be accepted as a given in the first place? Why is a physicalist worldview that board participants kind of crudely attribute to "science" the last word on what can and can't exist in reality? One of the intellectual defects of Sciforums is that 'science' is often equated with logic, metaphysics and epistemology. So 'thinking scientifically' becomes a synonym for 'reason'. Except in real life, there's a huge amount of mushy vagueness underlying science, regarding what kind of ontology is most consistent with observation and what kind of methods and epistemology will best result in our acquiring knowledge about various hypothetical kinds of being (physics, mathematics, psychology...)
I still think that if they were approached intelligently, the fringe sections would be the most productive and intellectually stimulating areas of Sciforums. Underlying intellectual issues usually become most apparent at the edges, at the fringes, in places where there is controversy. But people need to be more tolerant of ideas that they disagree with, more willing to try to argue against them as opposed to silencing them with bluster. Board participants need to be able to recognize underlying conceptual issues, tease them out and address them more abstractly. That requires philosophical talent which the board seemingly lacks.
My suggestion has long been to open up 'cesspool' to unmoderated posting by board participants, except for removing spam and posts that present a legal liability to the board. Perhaps rename it 'Anything Goes'.
If a moderator gets an urge to close a thread (usually because they are frustrated, often because they are losing an argument), move it to Anything Goes and leave it open.
And never jumble all of a participant's threads together in a single thread so that arguments lose all of their continuity. That's just evil, another in the board's endless small-minded attempts to silence people. Move the offending threads to Anything Goes instead but leave them separate so that readers can follow the argument in each one.
Maybe those dudes have the wrong audience?
So, a moderated, unmoderated forum. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Will posts openly mocking and taunting board members by name be left alone?
Will cussing, soft porn, racism, bigotry be left alone?
There is no such thing as a forum that requires no moderation, or even auto-moderation. Contributors can always find ways around it. It must needs human judgement.
Even the Fringe forums are held to a standard of the rules; simply because the topics are "out there" does not mean that the requirements of evidence and civility are waived.
For example, MR was given quite clear instructions by the Administration (not the Mod team, but the Administration) on why his behavior was unacceptable. Instead of heeding the simple requirement, he chose to defy it. When called out on it, he doubled down. That is his fault, and nobody else's.
As for GIA - he isn't looking for discussion or debate - he is looking for a platform from which to preach and proselytize. That is directly in contradiction of the sites rules... I would recommend he go to Facebook or some other social media site to get his fill.
So you would prefer to dismiss the rules of good faith debate, supporting evidence, and honesty altogether in favor of... What? Total anarchy, I guess? Perhaps you don't like the rules, but they have been a feature here for quite some time, and it is only within the last year or so that some members have gone to such great extremes to subvert them... Ironically enough, that coincides with a general relaxing of some of the more strict interpretations of the rules.
Yazata, you call it bullying... If you actually feel that way, then I have to question why you stick around.
not accurate at all. GIA starts threads that question religious views all the time in differing ways.
not even true but again, an exaggeration. one subforum is not total anarchy. I would even say that would be an easier solution to have a subforum where there is minimal moderation. what is true and I've noticed is that there are members here who do not want to be a part of a forum where there is discussion outside of science or the conventional period. it is simply a mental state of elitism but that's one's prerogative. hypocritically, some of them have engaged in fringe topics whilst simultaneously deriding them and expressing that certain members be banned and implying fringe should not exist.
It is the admin's call on what kind of forum they want but as it stands, it's too brittle when both sides can easily benefit and co-exist/learn if implemented a certain way. crackpots serve a function of a different point of view that is in itself has it's own gems that can elicit or inspire looking at an old problem in a new way, even despite the erroneous aspects of the idea presented. the opposite is just the well-worn path. it seems admin can only see this in black and white, one way or another when it can be both.
have one subforum where crackpot ideas are not closed with minimal moderation (blatant pornography, racism, misognyny etc deleted) and just let people decide to participate at will, there are no victims in those cases because the participants decide through their own presentations and counterpoints what is valid or not, instead of moderators deciding what is logical or not. you can also move any crackpot threads there also. that is even less work for moderators. that's not anarchy.
why do you even close cesspool topics? what is the real logic behind that? moderators think they should have the right to decide what members want or should discuss or not? if there is no validity or interest, wouldn't it die on it's own? if there is trust in the validity of logic and truth so much, it should be allowed to go it's natural course in a topic, right?
it's one thing to move topics to an appropriate area but it's tyrannical to close topics unless they are seriously exploitive. as for my personal opinion on those who are so derisive of crackpot ideas or fringe on this forum as if they have had their fill up to their eyeballs is contempt. this is because in real life it's all about practicality, conventional logic and the mundane.
then people come to a forum and want more of the same and oh god, oh so sensitive about any inclination of deviation from the usual pov and they must be even obnoxiously boring/conventional but pompous ass people in real life like most who think they are the most acceptable because they fit in.
case in point: you have had many members who were stupid as hell as in average views and mainstream opinions who were never banned because, well, they just spouted the average views and mainstream opinions. because that is so much more valuable and worthy of print like watching paint dry, right?
Separate names with a comma.