A Very Strange Alert

[Futilitist]

Hi Site Feedback.

I recently received a very strange alert. Here is a screenshot:

Usually alerts just let me know that someone has posted in a thread I am following. This "alert" seems like some kind of improper taunting. Considering that my "Apocalypse Soon?" thread was just suddenly locked unfairly after 2.5 years and 87 pages, this "alert" is more than a little offensive to me. Am I being bullied by the staff?

Can someone please explain this message?

Who wrote it?

Does it come from a MOD?

If not, who else has the permissions to do this?

I can't believe the depravity of this site, but perhaps there is some sort of innocent explanation. I'll be very interested to see what it is. Thank you.



---Futilitist

 

[Daecon]

You reported someone else's comment for moderator action, the mod who dealt with your report decided it was unwarranted.

 

[Futilitist]

You reported someone else's comment for moderator action, the mod who dealt with your report decided it was unwarranted.

A moderator (Kittamaru) and I had an ongoing conversation about my complaint. My complaint was completely answered there. The matter had already been settled. If this was a new comment on that issue, why wasn't it posted on the thread that was made for that purpose?

Are you confirming that the strange and improper alert was from Kittamaru?

If not, who else might have permissions to override such an essentially automatic function as the alert system, and insert taunting messages to me there?

Why didn't the poster of the strange alert give it's name?

Where do I answer it?

Who do I address my answer to?

No matter what happened, it is not a good thing.



---Futilitist

 

[Daecon]

I don't know how it works on Sciforums, but I'd imagine a reported post goes into a queue for moderator action, and whichever moderator(s) are assigned to the sub-forum either agree with the report and give infraction points to the poster, or disagree with the reporter and dismiss the report (along with a reason for the dismissal).

The forum software then sends a copy of the dismissal reason to the person who originally reported the post for moderation.

 

[Daecon]

Also, I don't know if Kittamaru is one of the moderators assigned to the Physics & Maths subforum, so it may or may not have been Kittamaru who originally dealt with your report. Of course it could have just been whichever moderator was logged in at the time who decided which course of action to take.

 

[Futilitist]

Please don't take this the wrong way, but why are you answering me on this?

How do you know so much about the system?

Where is the staff for a more definitive answer?



---Futilitist

 

[Daecon]

I was online and saw this thread and thought I could help, or at least offer some advice based on my own experience.

I admit I don't know the inner workings of this specific board, but I expect it's similar to how other boards work. It doesn't look like any staff are online right now, but I'm sure they can clarify the details when one of them signs in.

 

[Futilitist]

Thanks for the help, Daecon. I appreciate it.

I'll check back in the morning. I'm sure it will all make sense in the end.



---Futilitist

 

[James R]

Daecon is correct. All reported posts go into a queue. They tend to be dealt with at random, by whichever moderator decides to review the report queue at a particular time. In many but not all instances, there is some discussion among the moderator group to reach a consensus on the appropriate action to take regarding a report. This might mean that a report sits in the queue for some time, sometimes several days.

Once a decision is made on what to do with the report, the report is actioned by a moderator (or not, if that is the decision), and a short resolution or rejection message is sent to whoever filed the report originally.

In this instance, I handled the report and posted the rejection notice.

Futilitist reported a post that was a comment on his posts in a particular thread. That post stated, in full, "You should speak at the UN. Avert the collapse of civilization." The report complained that "This is supposed to be a serious physics thread. This comment by [poster name] is obviously trolling. Please issue another warning. Thanks."

On reviewing the thread, I noticed that Futilitist had posted exactly the same graph about 3 or 4 times, and posters in the thread were getting understandably frustrated that he was providing no new argument to back up his point. Therefore, I decided that, on a balance, the reported post was fair comment on the thread, even though it was sarcastic. I decided that no moderator action was warranted in this instance, and so rejected the report with the above message to Futilitist.

Hopefully that makes things clear.

Oh, and please be aware that the day-to-day running of sciforums is by volunteers. We have no roster that says that a moderator must be present at all times to deal immediately with queries from members. All reports get actioned eventually, and most queries to mods/admin do get a response, but don't expect instant action.

 

[Futilitist]

Hello James R.

How come your answer to my complaint was in the form of an "Alert" from unidentified source?

And here is the main problem.

I asked this simple question and never received any real answer, just trolling. That is why I repeated the question:

"That is a very close relationship, isn't it? That is because the relationship is based on the physics of energy.

A 99.5% correlation is not a coincidence! If the relationship between oil use and GDP has nothing to do with physics, how do you explain the close correspondence between world oil production and world GDP? Please answer this important point. Thanks."


Since no one will admit that the factual relationship between GDP and oil production even exists, and that concept is so foundational to the physics argument, it was difficult to carry on an adult discussion and introduce the next concept. I repeated the question several times, and now you are saying that this is a form of spamming? You are saying that the childish non-answers given are more valid than my simple question. I also asked, on the thread, if you might join the thread to help settle some of these disputes in a more useful way, and you refused to even acknowledge me. Did you miss my request?

So, after all that, since you are here talking to me now, will you please answer my simple physics question?

If the relationship between oil use and GDP has nothing to do with physics, how do you explain the close correspondence between world oil production and world GDP?

And if you have some more time you can spare, will you please visit the Etp thread and briefly weigh in on the argument? If not, can you please explain here why you refuse to take a look at the Etp model? Do you agree with almost everyone else here that the model is just complete bullshit? It feels like you are stonewalling, just like everyone else.

And one more thing. Kittamaru closed my "Apocalypse Soon?" thread. This was not handled fairly at all. If I make a solemn promise to you to answer even the most trollish questions in the driest, most scientifically possible way, will you please consider reopening my thread that I worked so hard on for 2.5 years? I obviously genuinely care about the topic. Thanks.

Otherwise, it seems like you are sending a clear signal that you also believe the topic of the inevitable collapse of industrial civilization is just total bullshit, and has no valid place on this science forum. Is that the message you are trying to send?


---Futilitist

 

[Beer w/Straw]

You could take pause before you post. James R said he reviewed that thread and a point of contention was you posting that graph. And now you post it again? I think it's fine to talk about the closing of a thread, but most of your post appears to me out of place for this thread.

I feel I shouldn't argue with you as I could be reprimanded. You are so illogical that my recourse would be to get personal.

 

[Kittamaru]

Why was it in the form of an alert? Simple - because that's how the forum software is written.

Quit playing the victim... that thread was closed because it had gotten so off topic and so inundated with fallacious mudslinging that trying to moderate it back on track would have resulted in several dozen infractions being handed out to multiple parties. This was already explained to you.

Per the site rules:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/sciforums-site-rules.142880/

Feedback and complaints

• Post general feedback in the Site Feedback subforum.
• Post matters of general interest regarding site policies and moderation in the Open Government subforum.
• Complaints about individual moderators should be directed to administrators using Personal Messaging. Do not post them in the public forums.
• To report breaches of the site rules, use the 'report' button on offending posts.

That, and conspiracy theory nonsense (that you are somehow being unfairly targeted) also does not belong in the Site Feedback sub-forum.

 

[Futilitist]

Why was it in the form of an alert? Simple - because that's how the forum software is written.

Then how come your "moderation" was done in "comments" and not as an anonymous "Alert"?

I asked James R some fair and valid questions that obviously belong here in site feedback. I will wait for James R to answer. Thanks.



---Futilitist

 

[Kittamaru]

Then how come your "moderation" was done in "comments" and not as an anonymous "Alert"?

I asked James R some fair and valid questions that obviously belong here in site feedback. I will wait for James R to answer. Thanks.



---Futilitist

Simple:

D. Moderation and Penalties
1. Posting on sciforums is a privilege, not a right. All material published on sciforums is at the discretion of the moderator team.

2. Any post may become the subject of moderator or administrator action in accordance with these rules and guidelines. Moderation may include editing, moving or deletion of posts or threads. Members are not always contacted personally when their posts are moderated, but moderators ordinarily document their actions in some way that informs the members affected (e.g. by posting a note in the relevant thread). Moderation that leads to an official warning or ban is always accompanied by a personal message to the member concerned.

3. These rules and guidelines are enforced at the discretion of the moderators. Moderators may judge in any particular instance that in all the circumstances no action is required. Sciforums is moderated bearing in mind the stated aims and ethos of the forum; we will not be bound by the letter of these rules as written, but by the spirit of the rules.

Not all actions result in an alert being sent out. Case in point, as I already explained to you (and you have pointedly ignored), the moderation in question was applied to the user; as a result, you would not receive an alert on it.

It sounds, to me, like your anger is primarily at the fact that you cannot wield the moderation team like a weapon to shame and scorn those who disagree with you...

 

[Futilitist]

Not all actions result in an alert being sent out. Case in point, as I already explained to you (and you have pointedly ignored), the moderation in question was applied to the user; as a result, you would not receive an alert on it.

This does not answer my question.

1) Why didn't James R's name appear on the "Alert"?
2) Why didn't your moderation also appear as an "Alert"?
3) Why was the only visible reprimand from you posted on my comment?
4) Since Beer w/Straw denied that he/she(?) had received any moderation, how would I, or any other reader know that any moderation had happened?
5) Why did you strike Beer w/Straw's comment and not mine.
6) Don't you understand that reprimands are more effective if everyone can see them?
7) Why isn't this site more fair and transparent in all of it's dealings?

It sounds, to me, like your anger is primarily at the fact that you cannot wield the moderation team like a weapon to shame and scorn those who disagree with you...

That is not true. I asked a few simple questions to James R. Why don't you just let him answer them.



---Futilitist

 

[Beer w/Straw]

4) Since Beer w/Straw denied that he/she(?) had received any moderation, how would I, or any other reader know that any moderation had happened?
5) Why did you strike Beer w/Straw's comment and not mine.
6) Don't you understand that reprimands are more effective if everyone can see them?
7) Why isn't this site more fair and transparent in all of it's dealings?

Then why don't you publicly humiliate me instead of starting conversations with moderators?

 

[Futilitist]

Then why don't you publicly humiliate me instead of starting conversations with moderators?

Because you scare me, Beer w/Straw.



---Futilitist

 

[Kittamaru]

This does not answer my question.

I guess I wasn't direct/simple enough for you...

1) Why didn't James R's name appear on the "Alert"?

Because that is how the FORUM SOFTWARE is set up. It is not by our design - it's the limitation of the software.

2) Why didn't your moderation also appear as an "Alert"?

Because I didn't issue you an infraction. The rest of the membership is not alerted when an infraction is issued.

3) Why was the only visible reprimand from you posted on my comment?

Because that "moderator action" applied to a singular post, thus the public warning. The other action(s) applied over several posts, thus issuing a public warning in that method would be impractical, as it would require a warning issued on each post. The points/infraction system is not set up to handle such a distribution (ergo, it can only assign points and a public warning to one post, even if it is the result of several)

4) Since Beer w/Straw denied that he/she(?) had received any moderation, how would I, or any other reader know that any moderation had happened?

So you are taking Beer w/Straw's word over the moderation staff... if we say an infraction was issued, it was issued. I believe I even submitted proof to you of said infraction via PM - if that is somehow insufficient for you, then I dare say that falls into the range of "NMFP". You can believe what you wish; however, the simple truth is, Beer was issued an infraction (and the record shows as such).

5) Why did you strike Beer w/Straw's comment and not mine.

At the time, it seemed to be the best recourse to try and get the thread back on topic. Unfortunately, you seem more intent on a public "name and shame" than actual discussion.

6) Don't you understand that reprimands are more effective if everyone can see them?

Are they? Certainly you can provide statistics and studies that back this claim?

7) Why isn't this site more fair and transparent in all of it's dealings?

The appearance of "fairness" and "transparency" is different from person to person, much like the concept of "right" and "wrong"... case in point, just look at what is going on in Baltimore, or even the Middle East. If you have an issue with how moderation was handled, you should take it up with the administration via private message, as the rules state.

That is not true. I asked a few simple questions to James R. Why don't you just let him answer them.

Simple - because we are a moderation team; I am online right now, James is not. Seems fairly straight-forward to me.

 

[billvon]

"That is a very close relationship, isn't it? That is because the relationship is based on the physics of energy.

A 99.5% correlation is not a coincidence!

Correlation is not causation, even when the correlation is over 99%. You have admitted this.

If the relationship between oil use and GDP has nothing to do with physics, how do you explain the close correspondence between world oil production and world GDP?

The primary link is that a better economy = more money for larger cars, boats, vacations = more fuel purchases = more fuel production.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Then where do I find out about infractions I have?