Members' Feedback

Likey:

I'm me, and corrected only when blatant.

No Likey:

Only Sam and Asguard are really active posters. What does Plasma think? Stryder's occasional, as is James and Ben, Where's Zox? I think you need more mods, too. Smart ones. Enmos, Simon Anders, One Raven, all should have minimod powers.

Changes:

Moderated chat, maybe to replace that formal debate thing. Add those mods. Minimods would be able to close threads, but not cess them, hand out warnings, but not ban them permanently. Maybe install some ground effect lighting and a spoiler. Try and convince some more supersmart science specialists to visit daily. Pay me to exist.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What I would like to change at sciforums, is any desire I might have to change anything at sciforums.

It's already a fairly sick patient; I'd say extra medication probably isn't going to help.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think I was referring to Fraggle Rocker accusing me of bringing too much "religion" into a "science" discussion about "overpopulation." To which I must point out, that "overpopulation" by definition, is a highly "religious" topic, or at the very least, hits upon some very "religious" nerves. "Religious objections" to use of "birth control," is among the leading reasons for population growth. Anyway, I thought such accusations of "inserting religion," blantantly unfair, certainly no excuse to suggest banning anybody for. On my forums that I host, yeah, I have a "religion" folder you could say, but then, in my view, every single folder is the religion folder, since religion affects practically everything. The religion folder, would then be about discussions, involving mostly religious matters. I refuse to do a "poll" folder, as I want polls in their proper subject folder, which could be in every folder.

Now on your 1st question, of course I am going to cite Biblical references to what is "correct and moral." But perhaps you don't wish for me to bore you on that. Obviously, not all views can be "moral and correct." But in a forum, I think most views are somewhat presumed to be possibly, somewhat, moral and correct, at least in the view of the poster who opined to them. Otherwise, he or she wouldn't have posted it. Since forums, by definition, should include a wide variety of views, and not get "too serious" about a possibly "fun" discussion or debate, most all views should be admissable for consideration. Or at least a worthy excuse to consider and (fairly) bash a person's views to illogical pieces. It's not like we are voting on legislation, nor determining exactly what the laws of physics shall be, or anything "serious" like that, so what's the big deal anyway?

Correct and moral positions on the issues? Here's an example. Why we should vote against Obama. Just that one line in the debates, where Obama said that we can't drill our way out of this mess. What does that mean? Isn't it irresponsible in a time of rising demand, of India and China getting cars, to suggest we import 100% of our oil, when we have plenty of our own to drill? That's immoral, and a reason to vote for McCain and Palin, since they seem so much more eager to drill oil and not oppress the working poor with gasoline so expensive that they can't afford to get to work. Now if a Mod for Obama claimed that view "offensive," that would be no excuse for a banning, because it's a fair and admissable, and "moral and correct" view. Censoring one side of a debate, especially the "correct" side, makes the entire forum lose any credibility, and could lead to a whole host of forum members eventually becoming disgrunted and leaving, as more and more "unfair" bannings ensue, leading to forum atrophy and decaying and drying up.

And now I hear that the Obama camp, is trying to discredit and smear The Plumber story, now that it resonates with so many Americans. Dispicable! But then, I don't suppose the Obama camp pretends to be running a fair forum, but more like a wicked political agenda. The stakes are higher, so maybe somewhat different rules apply?

I don't know the history of this forum well enough, to provide any examples of which prior bannings I would find to be unfair. But I am saying, I almost never ban anybody, as I see the Reply link as usually being far more powerful and useful. If I disagree with somebody, I want to exercise my mind, as to explain to them as to why. I don't want them to just go on continuing to be "wrong," not even knowing of the many reasons out there to maybe consider another view.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Pronatalist-You are wrong.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Has the idea of getting a guest for a day ( you know a feature scientist on a particular subject for example) ever been tried?

 

Things I want: I'd love to moderate the encyclopedia (I've mentioned it before a couple of times).

I feel like it needs a mini-mod to handle all the small maintenance issues - like deletion of extraneous articles, updates to protected pages, and general trimming of all the encyclopedia's tattered edges. I fool around with it frequently, so I would make a vigilant custodian.

One example is the "current events" page. The reason for why it was locked has long since passed, and it needs to be reopened. Also the main index page could do with periodic updates to freshen things up (main index is currently protected). If these pages need to stay protected, then it needs someone with "better than default" privileges to periodically post new information in it. These kinds of things are too trivial for wikiadmin to stay on top of (I've noticed that you pop in very rarely to perform maintenance).

 

i agree
give om and others responsibilities there

 

I want to be the head pariah, at least for a week or so.

 

Om, please check your permissions in Encyclopedia. If they don't work, just let me know.

 

They work! Awesome. Thanks.

You have my sword!

 

In case you're still wondering what I was talking about: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=87163

Also see here: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=87084

 

well first off I am going to pretend you didn't say you only thought you knew who did it because I really can't discuss it with out insulting you. And no one gives a rats ass how you do things on the forums you host. Religious arguments have no right to be in a scientific discussion, deal with it.

seems to me someone isn't that astute about philosophy.

I am guessing your either unintelligent or a McCain hack because you completely misunderstood Obama's logic on energy.

well that answers that question.

feel free to exercise your mind just do it with logic, reason ,and science.

 

Oh, I think I understand quite well. Gasoline became skyhigh in price, because of idiotic, anti-people government policy to restrict supply. Obama comes out in the debate and says, after I signed the online petition for "Drill Here. Drill Now. Pay Less," that "We can't drill our way out of this mess." What could be more clear? He doesn't care a flip about what the American people want, but in pushing his liberal socialist tax-and-spend agenda. He wants skyhigh gasoline prices, in pretense about "the environment," but really to oppress the working poor and make people more dependent upon government. Unlike the typical gullible confused moron American, I have very little tolerance for liar politicians that talk out both sides of their mouths, contradicting themselves and saying different things to different groups. Oh, BTW, I hear Obama does that too, like like Clinton.

And I wasn't really so fond of McCain either. McCain also was a "Johny Come Lately" flipflop convert? to drilling our oil, but at least he came around before the debates. I was one of those "Let's wait and see who his running mate will be," holdouts, before wanting to much give McCain any support in my views. It's Sarah Palin I like more. And to put her a heartbeat away from the Presidency, is plenty good enough reason to vote against Obama, not to mention all the other reasons which I suppose you probably don't want to hear anyway? If you do, ask me, and tell me if you want the short list, or the really really long list.

I've voted "third party" before, and I will do it again, if ever I can't even tell any difference between the candidates. But for now, it's the usual, voting for the "lesser of the evils" strategy, which I am so sick and tired of. Could we like maybe one time, get 3 really good and qualified candidates to choose from? When will that happen? When pigs fly?

 

I think the point of this thread is to discuss, specifically, the direction of SciForums, and not the disagreements between specific members.

 

i agree.. kinda.. i won't provide any reasons though. too much detailed informatoin would have be shared by me. if its so for one person it probably true for most all people, it probably doesn't vary like this too much (maybe it does dunno)....

 

So site investigation should be simple :/

 

(c). Asking feedback from members from time to time

I don't know about others, but I know Avatar made a thread in comparative religion, asking whether members are happy with his moderation or not, what the community expected from him, and he also put a poll on that. I think this is good, because he then can take up suggestion from member to improve his performance, meanwhile member also feel respect him for welcoming their suggestion.

 

still don't get it. he wants to get us OFF oil.

 

There's a direction? :bugeye:

 

Presumably.