The Moon does not cause tides: John99 proves science wrong.

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by Dywyddyr, Feb 17, 2011.

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

    Messages:
    3,256
    But trolling is defined as behavior that is inflammatory and extraneous. It's displaying hostility just to provoke a hostile response in return. He wasn't trolling... unless you've got your own definition I'm unaware of.

    He didn't even start the thread.

    All I see is that you're justifying his banning because he couldn't prove his assertions. That's a pretty bold action to take in response. I hope there was at least a warning...

    I did and he was evasive and silly.
    This is worth a ban?
    Come on think about that? Did Jimmy ban him because he did something wrong or because you guys couldn't simply walk away from someone behaving like a clown?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,379
    Saquist:

    I banned him for trolling and lying. If you like, you can concentrate on the trolling part.

    Who's Jimmy?

    What argument? John99 made the claim "The moon does not cause the tides." When asked to justify it he said he would "prove" it if a new thread on the topic was opened for him. One was duly created and he spent the next hundred posts prevaricating and simply repeating his incorrect claim.

    No. The Formal Debates forum is in a special category, as it happens. The rules of debate there are determined entirely by the debaters, prior to the debate starting. These can even override the usual sciforums rules, with the priviso that certain standards of behaviour appropriate to a formal debate are expected (hence the word "formal").

    Nobody has ever been banned on sciforums for "losing an argument".

    Here's a reasonable working definition that you can use for future reference:

    Definition: a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.​

    Now, if you question a basic result of standard physics that has been established and accepted for 400 years, while providing no argument or evidence for your claim that the result is false, I'd say that's pretty inflammatory, wouldn't you? Clearly, your intention is to upset people who know physics. And, even if we grant that this might not be the original intent and we could explain it away as pure ignorance, there is no excuse for persisting in such behaviour once you have been soundly corrected, directed to reliable sources where you can learn and so on.

    John's other nonsense claim - that the sun is "100% efficient" was also completely off-topic, posted in a thread on Communism, of all things.

    He specifically requested that it be started so he could "prove" his claim. Please try to keep up.

    John was officially warned prior to his banning. Moreover, he recently had a 3-day temporary ban for similar behaviour. If those weren't enough to send a message, then he's a slow learner.

    Given that he was evasive and silly in two separate discussions, and has an ongoing record of being evasive and silly, and has been warned repeatedly about his behaviour, and has been previously banned for his behaviour, yes it was well and truly worth a(nother) ban.

    Who is this Jimmy you refer to?

    Saquist: You and I both know that the only reason you are jumping to John's defence here is because I recently called you out on similar evasive, silly behaviour. Perhaps you're worried that you might be banned next. Perhaps you just saw an opening to criticise me. Either way, it doesn't seem like you're very well informed in terms of the background of this particular ban.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    Oh James darling don't waste your precious moderator time.


    @Saquist: Its obvious what the problem is here. Its not what he claimed but his unwillingness to back up his claim in some or any intellectual framework that other posters could address in any serious manner. There is enough silliness around the forums for everyone to realize that its not just John's silliness that caused his ban. Its a science forum that is quite loose with the rules in other forums outside of those that are strictly science.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Saquist Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,256
    You, James. Jimmy is a nick name for James.
    You know that, sir. (or at least it's a reasonable expectation that someone who speaks English as well as yourself should know that. Don't be coy. If you don't like the nickname have the maturity to say so.)


    It is the Very same definition that I used.

    Inflammatory means to arouse to violence or anger and this is traditionally done by insults and vulgarities or expletives. Its the behavior of looking or trying to start a fight. I would not call this thread inflammatory I'd call it stupid. I have a problem with how this arbitrary understanding of inflammatory is applied. I find the subjective inference to insult disturbing under the ramifications of banning.

    Very well I understand.
    But why didn't you close the thread? WALK me through you reasoning.
    Why did you even allow the thread if it was such an affront to your sensibilities?

    I can't speak as to what you know.
    I do know I asked you why you didn't just ban me instead of close the thread. And as a result I KNOW you can't possibly believe I have any "worry" what-so-ever about what ever action you may take against me.
    I know you didn't respond to those concerns...
    I know in this public issue that you DID respond...

    I will tell you what I know and what I believe. Before, you banned Ricery for Trolling. He deserved it he couldn't compose an argument without an insult. Evasive and silly isn't worth a ban. What concerns me is the inconsistency of your actions. If you sensed this was similar (even remotely) then it seems logical as an expectation that you would have closed the thread as you did before. YOU DID NOT.

    Your actions say otherwise about the equivalence of the behaviors that you claim you see. You should ban me and anyone else that fits this arbitrary view of yours....at least it would be consistent.

    There is a broader implication here.
    I'm concerned that this thread was allowed merely to bully John99. There is a persecution factor here and it ends with a ban, (because he was "being evasive and silly."

    Have we found a criminal or a whipping boy? That's my question.
    James thinks I've got a "personal stake" bury.
    But it is just as you say...and I'm glad for once someone had the courage to admit it objectively. "the social rules here are loose." So is it right to ban on loose rules?

    ...I don't know about that.
    It sounds dubious if not everyone is critized and punished like wise. It becomes a guessing game as to "who did I piss-off".
    I don't agree with attack moderators
    I don't agree with attack members
    I believe in fairness. This doesn't strike me as fair. SO either I should be banned or John99 shouldn't be banned....It's that simple right?
     
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2011
  8. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,062
    John was given 8 pages, to provide proof of this claims.

    Others took the time and attempted to educate him, with valid proof, of why his claim was incorrect and he was repeatedly asked to provide proof of his claims. He consistently refused to do so and repeated the same argument over and over again (without any proof or evidence).


    This was not a 'you're wrong' and then 'you're banned' issue. He was asked, begged, cajoled and then warned to provide evidence to back up his claims. He refused. He had ample time and opportunity to back up his claims, he refused to do so.

    So what would you have done differently? How would you have handled this differently?
     
  9. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,535
    This not only displays ignorance but a double standard.
    YOU complain if someone misspells or otherwise mangles your user name, James HAS stated (previously) that he doesn't like to to be called Jimmy AND there's a thread that not using someone's user name as given (without consent) is a forum no-no.

    So what if it is traditionally done that way? (Which is incorrect, by the way, it may be usual however). So you're of the opinion that lying, refusing to check sources, ignoring information given and contradicting your own sources at the same time as displaying a total and utter lack of knowledge or comprehension about the facts and continuing to espouse insupportable falsehoods is, some how, NOT a cause for anger?

    I've no problem with that. You've displayed much the same attitude as John99 on a number of occasions.
     
  10. Saquist Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,256

    I think banning people because they failed to prove a case is excessive.
    If he was trolling he was doing it very, very passively. (Passive Trolling?) We all share a responsibility to up hold forum "rules". People need to actually use the ignore button instead of just talking about it.

    At page 4 I would have moved it to The Cesspool or closed it. It was the people around him that was really encouraging it. If they wanted to continue the discussion or argument they could do it there. (I doubt they would.) The problem solves itself.
     
  11. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,379
    Saquist:

    I have not invited you to call me Jimmy. You will therefore refer to me by my chosen screen name James R. You may not take liberties with my name, or the name of any other member of sciforums. I am sorry that it is necessary to teach you basic manners.

    You don't think that questioning a physical result that has stood for 400 years in a forum with qualified physicists, with not a shred of evidence for your stated position, is likely to arouse anger among the people who have actually taken the time and effort to learn and/or gain qualifications in physics?

    It doesn't really matter what you'd call it, since you're not the moderator here.

    I have no obligation to justify myself to you. Next time, try a less combative approach and I might be more disposed to converse with you.

    Are you asking to be banned? How long would you like to be banned for?

    John99 said that if a specific thread was created then he would prove his claim that the moon does not cause tides. This thread was created. He then did not do what he said he would do. Worse, he didn't even begin to attempt to do what he said he would do.

    Nobody bullied John. He made a claim. He offered to back it up. Then he did not do so. Instead, he prevaricated and told lies and trolled.

    No. Read the ban list. The reason for his ban is listed there.

    How long do you wish to be banned for?
     
  12. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    the claim that the moon does not cause tides?
    who asked/begged/cajoled/warned?

    ban them please

    /snicker
     
  13. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    on pages 1&2

    post #19


    post #38

    pathetic shit really
     
  14. Saquist Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,256
    Acknowledged.
    I usually don't need an invitation to be friendly.
    So do you want the whole thing or will James do?
    (You can call me Saq)

    Be sorry for being facetious.
    I've given you and others the address of , SIR. I've treated you as I would like to be treated myself with respect and I avoid the typical predilection to give insult. I really don't believe you have the "moral authority to make that statement. And as a moderator you think it's proper to play coy, and be deceitful rather than flatly laying out the rules? Frankly I think you were playing around because serious doesn't traditionally beat around the bush does it? So I'm not the only one over stepping basic manners hmmm. Or perhaps you're merely treating me as a familiar....as I was.


    Look, (James R) I understand what you're saying.
    But I think you guys give him more seriousness than he deserves.
    Ask me if get all emotionally bothered when someone insults my religion.
    I just don't have that emotional...trigger. I think you guys over reacted.


    Of course not, you don't have to listen to me.
    You can...do....what-ever-you-want-to-do. And you did.


    I never said you had to justify yourself to me. Don't be so insecure. No ones trying a grapple you in a contest of wills.


    And you banned him for it.
    Really I'm asking you in all seriousness. (I've already checked): Have you ever banned someone for lying ever before?



    So let me get this straight...
    He trolled in a thread that was made for him? (I'm busting at the seams) Honestly that is the most hilarious contradiction I've ever read.
    That's an admittance that the thread shouldn't have been allowed in the first place.


    Are you asking me to moderate?
    Please don't play with me.
     
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2011
  15. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Moderator

    Messages:
    6,697
    Reiku (and his sock puppets) were banned for wasting people's time, ignorance, repeatedly ignoring correction, making claims they couldn't back up and lying. I'm sure JamesR banned at least one of Reiku's accounts at some point, so yes, he has banned people for being lying idiots.
     
  16. Saquist Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,256
    It's not on the list...but,
    Okay...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Then I have no choice but to leave it at that. (I'm sure he'll confirm something of the kind despite the lack of it on the ban list.) I don't have a problem taking his word for it. As long as he was warned and given proper moderator instruction...and as long as there is a precedent for it. (it's not a matter of record though). We just can't make up rules as we go along, no-one can keep up with that.


    Thanks for entertaining my concerns.
     
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2011
  17. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Moderator

    Messages:
    6,697
    Reiku has gone by the names of Reiku (banned by James), gluon (banned by James), Saxion (banned by James), Green Destiny (banned by James) Mark The Apostle (banned by James), JackBlack (banned by James R) and I'm sure there's others I'm not remembering, there's been so many.

    While looking at the ban list I noticed James also banned OilIsMastery and OIM showed the same sort of attitude John has in this thread, making claims about science which he didn't back up and simply asserted.
     
  18. Emil Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,789
    In my opinion,
    Moderators have not only the task of moderating discussions but also defend SciForums stateliness.
    We have many visitors who are maybe persons nescient.
    They may conclude
    because they read at SciForums.
    That does not serve to SciForums stateliness..
     
  19. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    Now?
     
  20. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,725
    Yes.

    No, that's not it at all.

    If you have a 9/11 survivor's page, and someone logs on and post "I'm glad all your family members were killed, you idiots!" that's not a troll, it's an attack. If someone logs on and says "but doesn't Bin Laden have a good point here? It's sad that your families were killed, but shouldn't we take the high road and give Bin Laden the recognition he deserves?" that's a troll.

    A troll is, basically, a seemingly reasonable response intended to both infuriate people and skirt the rules on personal or hostile attacks.
     
  21. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,140
    This thread has just proven an incredible theory!

    An argument can be made and sustain potentially indefinitely no matter how inarguable the topic!

    This discover has wide and deep philisophical consequences!

    We all accept that 2+2=4 right, no wrong! Someone out there can argue the opposite and no matter what counter arguments can continue to dismiss this fact. Why even have discussions and arguments at all? Its all clearly futile! Hear that noise, that is my faith in humanity finally dieing.
     
  22. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,535
    2+2=4 only if there's no yellow involved. If there is any yellow then 2+2= 3:15 PM, October 5th with cheese and penguins.
     
  23. MacGyver1968 Fixin' Shit that Ain't Broke Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,028
    mmmm....cheese and penguins....with a side of relish!
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page