Should something be done about unscientific people?

I think that a more salient issue is the pretense of scientific argument. There are a lot of posters who go around claiming to be serious about the whole scientific standards thing when they are no such thing, and plainly just trying to exploit that perception to buttress views that are otherwise. The antiscientific stuff may be annoying, but I'm not sure what real damage it does - such posters are rarely compelling, easily debunked, and widely ignored.

I'm noticing this more and more lately.

But often I think it's less an attempt to avoid, than a desire to replay old battles. Typically this is done with the full expectation that the same posters who fought with one before will return - the motive of many posters has little to do with advancing objective claims as such, and a lot to do with Fighting the Enemy. In many such cases, being seen to resist any argument that is thrown at you, no matter how salient, is even more gratifying than making unchallenged statements. The only objective point that's being advanced is the assertion that the poster will not be swayed in their views, no matter what. It's not about reaching an audience, it's about proving one's steadfastness to one's self.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

i thank the gods for jamesr
frak the rest

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Originally Posted by CluelussHusbund
...why not start cullin the wors of the worst but slow down on the perma-bans befor "traffic consideration" becoms an issue an ther-for you will have hit the happy-medium of whats bes for Sciforums... yes.???

Have all the mods/super mods (who have a list) to submit a list of people they thank shoud be baned... an then focus on the name that coms up mos often... then the mods who listed that name shoud make ther case why that person shoud be baned... an if James R agrees it woud be in the bes interest of Sciforums... that person shoud be baned.!!!
...
How about that plan.???

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm either way on it. We haven't any unanimity on the need for such a culling, and we must consider the objections.

Once upon a time, we demanded a minimum vote quorum for a policy proposed in SFOG.

If you draw up a coherent plan for a culling and achieve a majority out of a minimum of fifty votes, it would be something to put before the moderators and say, "This is the stated will of participating Sciforums voters". I can't make any promises that Plazma and James would agree to such an outcome, but it would make an effective statement regarding the desires of the community.

I'm not especially anxious for a bloodletting at present. Rather, I would prefer to simply tighten up our posting standards. This would have two effects toward reducing the number of poorly-written, ill-conceived, and maliciously-intended posts. First, moderators would be expected to enforce the standards, including the potential banning of repeat violators. Secondly, such standards might have the effect of chasing off some of our trolls.

But some of those aspects seem difficult to enforce even in their presently lax condition. Our citation standard, for instance:

Plagiarism consists of copying another person's writings and passing them off as your own. If you post something somebody else has written, you must name the author, and preferably also reference the source. Posts which include material from elsewhere that is not properly acknowledged will be deleted.​

Even that is too hard for enough people that moderators generally don't enforce it. Indeed, most days, part of our standard—

All quotes from other sites must be attributed (e.g. by posting a link to the site).​

—generally suffices.

Compared to a formal citation scheme (e.g., MLA, Chicago/Turabian, Harvard, &c.), author and hyperlink seems a relatively easy standard for members to meet. Still, though, it is often too much to ask of people.

One might suggest, then, that a restoration of our former motto, "Intelligent Community", and reasonable principles associated with it, might be enough to do the job.

As such, I think there are other routes to follow, that might bring satisfactory results, than open slaughter.

 

level one new user;
allowed to post in free thoughts and other irrelevant threads.

Level two member;
additional threads allowed, semi serious threads

level three senior member
allowed to post in all but the heavy scientific threads

level four certified member
allowed to post in all threads, must have proven themselves capable of meeting strict scientific protocols for posting


simple straight forward plan..easy to implement..easy to moderate..
(modifications to plan subjective to moderator discussion)

 

I guess I understand what it would take to get to level four of your plan..

But, what criteria would have to be met, in order to advance from level 1 to 2, 2 to 3?..And who would decide?...If it's up to the Mods, what percentage? Or, would that be up to Admin.?

 

the first three would basically be what it is now, the last would only be approved when a user could prove his reason ability to be able to post in certain threads.

 

bunch of fucking nazis, you lot

i suggest if this place is not up to your standards, fuck off. go join pf. go make your own board

fucking fascist pigs

 

Ok...But, even though a poster has proven him/herself worthy ability wise, it wouldn't prevent the trolling and flamewars we see so often..

I'm not sure how that can ever be prevented..Unless banning becomes commonplace, and I would hate to see that happen..

I don't agree with all that I read here, but, I do like the idea that we can all speak our minds, without fear of un-fair censorship.

Personally, I'm just here to relax, and am quite happy posting in the less than serious threads...But, I'd hate for someone to tell me that I didn't have the right to, if I chose to.

 

I don't have any standards, Gustav.....Guess that means I can stay?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

a belated welcome to sci, gremmie

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Thanks Gustav...Much appreciated..

 

Originally Posted by CluelussHusbund
...why not start cullin the wors of the worst but slow down on the perma-bans befor "traffic consideration" becoms an issue an ther-for you will have hit the happy-medium of whats bes for Sciforums... yes.???

Have all the mods/super mods (who have a list) to submit a list of people they thank shoud be baned... an then focus on the name that coms up mos often... then the mods who listed that name shoud make ther case why that person shoud be baned... an if James R agrees it woud be in the bes interest of Sciforums... that person shoud be baned.!!!

How about that plan.???

Souns like a plan... is James R on bord wit it... an if not... why not.???

 

I'm either way on it. We haven't any unanimity on the need for such a culling, and we must consider the objections.

Once upon a time, we demanded a minimum vote quorum for a policy proposed in SFOG.

If you draw up a coherent plan for a culling and achieve a majority out of a minimum of fifty votes, it would be something to put before the moderators and say, "This is the stated will of participating Sciforums voters". I can't make any promises that Plazma and James would agree to such an outcome, but it would make an effective statement regarding the desires of the community.


Desires of the community?

You do understand that something even more "unscientific" than the "unscientific" people are the bandwagon jumpers who provide no argument or perspective other than agreeing with the senior member whos scrotum they are closely snuggled with and attatched to?? 60% of posts are of such - atleast unscientific people provide some perspective and stimulate some argument.


I'm not especially anxious for a bloodletting at present. Rather, I would prefer to simply tighten up our posting standards. This would have two effects toward reducing the number of poorly-written, ill-conceived, and maliciously-intended posts. First, moderators would be expected to enforce the standards, including the potential banning of repeat violators. Secondly, such standards might have the effect of chasing off some of our trolls.

Tighten up posting standards? Hopefully this would mean that only relevant posts are permitted in the topic meaning no dick riders that simply agree with the seniority or insult the opp. person.

 

Because you LOVE them...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

They give you something to complain about.

These threads are a dime a dozen.

 

We definitely need to do something about the trolls/fools who refuse to see/accept evidence... they are a nuisance.

 

A red carpet to nowhere? Be careful. It could be a trap. Look at Britney Spears, after all.
Then again, look at the Kardashian sisters. 15 minutes of cheap fame sometimes nets you your own credit card line.

Nice, signore!:thumbsup:

I think you successfully condensed many arguments down to size.