A plea

[draqon]

What's this word: правльныи?

he meant to type:

правельный = correct

Next time the wise cheesecake should utilize translit.ru

 

[James R]

sniffy:

Thankyou for this. The post record stands. The moderator in question stated in a post that nothing on the internet should be taken seriously particularly anything on this website. Nothing on this website could be guaranteed - truth, freedom, privacy, etc. Hours later he tried to backtrack.

I have looked at the relevant thread. I can't see anything that superstring said there that isn't accurate or reasonable.

Link to the thread that generated all this fuss: [thread=96966]Link[/thread]

He also stated that the members here should not expect to have any say in what goes on here.

This site is privately owned. That means that the owners can make decisions about the content of the site and have no obligation to ask for permission from the general membership on any such issue.

Nevertheless, it is slightly hysterical to claim that members do not have any say in what goes on here. In fact, we listen carefully to the membership and consult them on many matters. Moreover, the membership and the moderators are not separate entities. Moderators are drawn from the membership and we quite regularly select new moderators from among the long-term members. Also, moderators engage in the general discussions; they do not just moderate.

Now here is one member who has no confidence in one of your moderators but hey I'm not expecting to be taken seriously.

If I didn't take you seriously, I wouldn't bother replying to you at length as I am doing now. That doesn't mean I'm going to agree with you, though.

I suggest you check your report buttons, threads and get back to me publicly.

I've checked. I received one report from you since all this fuss blew up. It was a demand from you that the administrators respond to your complaint about the moderator election process. That has been done. I have received no reports about superstring, or the thread linked above, from anybody, including yourself.

I have also reviewed the thread linked above.

Nothing here guaranteed to be private your moderator said so remember? So I won't be sending anymore PMs. Everything can be altered. Names statistics poll results context everything. So why should I trust what you say?

If you're at the stage where you do not trust the administrators/moderators of sciforums with the information you provide, or you really believe that information you post is being maliciously altered, or you believe there is systemic tampering with member voting on polls, I suggest that now is the time for you to leave sciforums. Find a forum with an administration you can trust. Good luck to you.

sciforums is unlikely to last forever, but it has been around for 10 years so far. Your immortal words will no doubt live on in the google caches, if nowhere else, for some time after sciforums is gone.

Indeed. If they aren't deleted and altered. The context and emphasis changed. But then they wouldn't be regarded as my immortal words now would they? Or would they? Nothing here guaranteed certainly not truth or privacy.

As an evil administrator of the site who cannot be trusted, nothing I say is likely to give you any confidence in the administration. So, as I see it, now is the time for you to leave. If you seriously believe that your posts are deleted or altered maliciously, with changes to context and emphasis, then you can't fight it. You ought to just go to a forum that is good instead.

You are correct that nothing here is guaranteed. You need to decide if you can trust people or not. Since you seemingly have decided that myself and the other moderators cannot be trusted, your only option is to leave and complain to others about the unfairness of life on sciforums and what a terrible bunch of people we all are here. You won't be the first. I'm sure yopu know forums full of (six or seven) disgruntled ex-members where you will be welcomed with open arms.

Let's move on to your specific issue about moderators altering polls.

I believe clarity is vital. Perhaps you should advertise the fact that moderators can alter the poll responses. It could form part of those conditions that you name at length....

I think it would be obvious that moderators/administrators of any internet forum have the ability to edit posts, delete posts, move posts, alter polls, delete polls, split threads, combine threads etc. That's what moderators do on every forum on the internet. Perhaps you're just more naive than most forum users.

What would be a legitimate reason for screwing with a poll? Just out of interest you understand.

I have altered polls in the past for the following reasons:

• To add an option or two where a poll is biased or where it does not permit people not to disclose information and simply to view the poll results without voting. The most common option I have added is "Other" or "No opinion."
• The most common reason for changing a vote count (and this is VERY rare) is where a poster has posted in the thread with a poll saying "Oops! I voted option 1 but I meant to vote for option 2. Can you change it, please?" In that case, I always post a message in the same thread notifying that the change was made.
• I can't really think of ANY other instance in which I have ever changed a vote count of a poll. That even includes polls in which sock puppets have voted to try to influence the result. In those cases I have simply announced that the sock puppet votes will not be counted. But we're talking a once-or-twice-in-10-years event now.
• I have occasionally added options to polls at the request of the original poster of the poll.
• Sometimes polls are closed early (especially polls that would remain open permanently) when threads that they are in are closed for various reasons. I'm not sure whether this counts as "tampering" with a poll.

That's about it.

As far as I am aware, in 8 years no moderator or other admin has EVER altered a vote count in a dishonest way on sciforums. If you wish to accuse us of doing that, I would ask that you provide at least some vestige of an argument supporting your case.

Now 'Sciforums is private property thread' that is locked was significantly altered last night to make it look as though certain things were not said by superstring01 and that other things were said by me that were said in response to different posts. I draw particular attention to post *9.

The thread is linked above. The forum software records every instance where a post has been edited, with a time stamp and the name of the person who edited the post.

I can confirm that only ONE post in that thread has been edited AT ALL. That was a post by superstring, edited by himself. I note that EVERY member can edit his or her own posts.

In particular, sniffy, NONE of your posts in that thread have been edited AT ALL by ANYBODY as at the time I am writing the current post.

So, I suggest that you (a) have a bad memory of what you wrote and (b) are paranoid.

Votes can be altered by the moderators? Now I know this here is no democracy but still.....it does make rather a mockery of any issue members are asked to vote upon if you can't trust the result.

Laughable isn't it?

There's only one good solution - leave and find a forum whose administration you think you can trust. Be aware that they also will be able to alter polls on their forums. That's common to all internet forums.

Another option is to have your own private boycott of all sciforums polls. Vow that you will NEVER again vote on any poll on sciforums, because you just can't trust them. Feel free to try to convince other people to join you, too. Good luck with that.

When you alter a poll is that fact made public to the members? Or at least to the members who have voted in it?

Speaking for myself, the answer to that question is an unqualified "Yes. Always."

As an administrator, I would also take a dim view of any moderator I discovered altering polls in a dishonest fashion. Most likely I would remove that moderator from his or her position.

 

[superstring01]

To wit, James, I answered most of these questions myself, and every single question I was asked directly with almost exactly the same information provided by you.

I find it laughable that there is a person ALIVE (who has enough knowledge to access the internet) that is under the insane impression that a website--which is a collection of software bits & pieces--is somehow unalterable. Just as well, that we should be obligated to inform every member of the patently obvious.

Beware! When it rains, the water can hit your head too!

Seriously.

READ THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS!

~String

 

[Bells]

Alright. Enough already.

Jeez..

Sniffy, yes, moderators and administrators do have the ability to alter polls on this site. I believe the only time it has ever been used was to delete a vote at the request of the member who had voted incorrectly and felt strongly enough to make such a demand. Sometimes we will edit the poll to correct a spelling mistake at the request of the individual who has started the poll.

 

[superstring01]

Alright. Enough already.

Jeez..

Sniffy, yes, moderators and administrators do have the ability to alter polls on this site. I believe the only time it has ever been used was to delete a vote at the request of the member who had voted incorrectly and felt strongly enough to make such a demand. Sometimes we will edit the poll to correct a spelling mistake at the request of the individual who has started the poll.

Bells, you are right. The issue is, and has been, sniffy was told this several times by me, now by James and now by you the exact same fact. And how the hell is this non-permanence even a big deal, when it should have been well known by sniffy from square one!? It's the internet, it can change on a moment's notice! Nothing here, or on any webpage is etched in stone.

I'm curious about how many times a person needs to be told the same obvious--glaringly obvious--fact before they say, "Huh... you know, this ain't such a big deal!" and move on. In what universe is ANY PERSON living in where a website (that is owned and privately run) cannot be changed at the discretion of the owners.

~String

 

[S.A.M.]

I don't know, maybe sniffy expects some civility from administrators and mods. I know its a false expectation, having seen several instances of callous disregard myself, but then, mods and admins are not quite so forthcoming themselves when the shoe is on the other foot.

 

[superstring01]

I don't know, maybe sniffy expects some civility from administrators and mods. I know its a false expectation, having seen several instances of callous disregard myself, but then, mods and admins are not quite so forthcoming themselves when the shoe is on the other foot.

Can you read? I'm beginning to doubt it.

Sniffy had been throwing a tantrum in more than one thread. Read the discussion. Every question was answered. Yeah, I got annoyed about the issue at--oh, I don't know--about the fourth post where she was actually surprised that a website can be altered in any way the owners see fit. It's digital, but SOMEHOW, I should have been polite and coddled her.

What would have been the right response? "Oh, no dear, the place is unchangeable, and polls can never be altered. Never fear." Sorry. There are, in fact, stupid questions, contrary to what your teacher taught you. Dancing around a frakking website, then feigning emotional upset at the notion of its impermanence is a little moronic. Expect a cold response when you throw a fit about a matter that is--in essence--a non-issue.

As for your cold treatment, well SAM, you earned every bit of it and continue to do so to this day. Play dumb innocent girl all you want. But every punch you've taken was an earned hassle.

~String

 

[S.A.M.]

I don't really approve of your behaviour there either, so I am not really equipped to take an unbiased stand on it.

I've always been very clear about my own stand and quite disappointed in the churlishness and frivolousness displayed by some admins.

But I am a big girl and I can take the consequences of standing up for myself.

It doesn't prevent me from seeing rudeness and uncivil behaviour as unwarranted. sniffys OP was remarkably clear and Plazma's petulant post, your frivolous responses and James references to rants were all pretty much uncalled for.

 

[superstring01]

It doesn't prevent me from seeing rudeness and uncivil behaviour as unwarranted. sniffys OP was remarkably clear and Plazma's petulant post, your frivolous responses and James references to rants were all pretty much uncalled for.

Right. Well, you obviously missed the tantrums in another forum, the PM's to the admin staff and her idiotic upset over a website being changeable. In life, if you act like a lunatic, eventually you get treated like one. It would be like someone coming up to you and freaking out over the fact that the beds at the local hotel room had changeable sheets. After scratching your head for a few minutes, you soon realize that he's just nuts. Duh. They are beds. The sheets change.

Duh. It's the internet, and a privately owned website on the internet. Things can be changed with the stroke of a key.

~String

 

[S.A.M.]

. Things can be changed with the stroke of a key.

Indeed. And they are. I've often noticed in arguments with mods how posts disappear leaving only some points of view available rendering the argument pretty much indefensible. But there is an expectation of civil treatment and at least, some regard for honesty if only in following the same standards which are applied to the posters. I realised when I was banned that not everyone is required to support their claims to the same extent and while one can be threatened with a ban for not supporting ones claims, the same standards do not apply when its the mods who are slandering you. They are quite able to get away with calling you any name under the sun, and once you are termed as a "problem" and your legitimate complaints become a "rant", you can pretty much consider that the level of regard any complaint you make, is a swift cutting off of privileges to suit the political correctness and bias of the mod or admin in question.

Not that I was ever under any illusion about the democratic nature of sciforums, but the recent dive into condescension and patronising of posters has made it obvious that there are bigger egos at play here and very small minds.

 

[superstring01]

Indeed. And they are. I've often noticed in arguments with mods how posts disappear leaving only some points of view available rendering the argument pretty much indefensible. But there is an expectation of civil treatment and at least, some regard for honesty if only in following the same standards which are applied to the posters. I realised when I was banned that not everyone is required to support their claims to the same extent and while one can be threatened with a ban for not supporting ones claims, the same standards do not apply when its the mods who are slandering you.

Wow. So, it's all about you SAM! Congrats. You're like the Tyra Banks of Sciforums.

So, can you show how any of her posts were altered, polls changed? Or is this still about you, princess?

~String

 

[S.A.M.]

No, I won't. I've decided to adopt the new mantra at sciforums. No need to back up any assertions.

Makes life much easier, eh, when you can simply label people without the need to support it.

 

[Bells]

Okay.

What part of 'enough already' did none of you quite understand?

This has been dragged across 3 forums already. ENOUGH!

How about instead of lobbing stink bombs at each other and having the need to get that last snide remarks, we try to sort it out like civil adults instead of acting like demented lemmings?

She had a complaint to make. Instead of reviewing it and discussing it either in PM's or in the forum itself in a civil manner, everyone starts getting narky and overly defensive and offensive. Grow the fuck up, all of you.

 

[superstring01]

No, I won't. I've decided to adopt the new mantra at sciforums. No need to back up any assertions.

Well, you may have just admitted that now, but it's obvious that this has been your guiding philosophy for roughly--lemme think here--the 2.5 years I've been a member of this forum. The only thing different now, is that you've finally accepted your character flaw.

Makes life much easier, eh, when you can simply label people without the need to support it.

Right. You've never used labels, SAM! You've been so above it all!

~String

 

[superstring01]

Okay.

What part of 'enough already' did none of you quite understand?

This has been dragged across 3 forums already. ENOUGH!

How about instead of lobbing stink bombs at each other and having the need to get that last snide remarks, we try to sort it out like civil adults instead of acting like demented lemmings?

She had a complaint to make. Instead of reviewing it and discussing it either in PM's or in the forum itself in a civil manner, everyone starts getting narky and overly defensive and offensive. Grow the fuck up, all of you.

And yet here you are participating in the very thing you're complaining about, Bells.

~String

 

[John99]

No, I won't. I've decided to adopt the new mantra at sciforums. No need to back up any assertions.

.

backing up with a single link that supports your view (or even a few for that matter) is not really backing up an assertion. all it does is say 'look this person agrees with me, so now you are supposed to'. i try and avoid link wars because they are fairly meaningless. never was big on propaganda.

 

[S.A.M.]

@superstring: you may want to consider that every single post you made in sniffy's thread was irrelevant and extraneous. You did nothing to address her concerns and in fact made quite an unnecessary drama out of nothing at all. In fact, if every single one of your posts was deleted from that thread, it would lead to an overall improvement in the discussion.

@Bells
Yes mum, sorry mum.

 

[superstring01]

@superstring: you may want to consider that every single post you made in sniffy's thread was irrelevant and extraneous. You did nothing to address her concerns and in fact made quite an unnecessary drama out of nothing at all. In fact, if every single one of your posts was deleted from that thread, it would lead to an overall improvement in the discussion.

Except that her comments and questions were directed specifically at me, and every question was directly answered by me. About the third post was where I really got annoyed and started being snarky. Before that, I was blunt.

And what questions were there that weren't answered up front?

~String

 

[John99]

String, that whole issue was unnecessary. and there was no reason for you to get so defensive, by the same token there was no reason for sniffy to get so escited. even if it was mostly an act. for whatever reason

 

[S.A.M.]

I would try to frame the argument but I see that posts have been dumped in to at least two threads in SFOG and I can't be bothered to go through them.

My major concern is with how everyone from Plazma to James to you dealt with her. She got upset after Plazma churlishly blamed her and put the onus of depriving other members of an opportunity on sniffy[how difficult is it to say, we are still deciding on the moderators, the selection isn't over yet?]. James did not help by also assuming that her request was an unnecessary burden and you certainly did not help by intimating that sciforums was a dictatorship and she could take it or leave it. The whole admin and mod attitude is childish and irresponsible and constant demands to leave if you don't like it is the kind of behaviour you expect from first graders not supposed academic members. Would James respond to a negative TAQ by saying well thats what I do, if you don't like it, don't take my class? I think James needs to consider his approach and I am disappointed in Plazma acting as if a request for information is a presumption of evillness. Most people have little idea of how things work in the mod forum and to treat their genuine queries as a rant after intimating that you welcome their participation is shabby in the extreme

Also as well meant advice, I recommend you keep away from such querying threads, you have a frivolous attitude to poster inquiries and I have never actually seen you resolve a situation favourably.