Abuse of moderator power

Status
Not open for further replies.
Magical Realist

Magical Realist

Valued Senior Member
Just got off a three day ban for another bogus reason. Get this folks. I was banned for not providing a source in the amount of time set by the moderator. That's right. Seems there's a new rule that if you don't provide a source for your claims in some arbitrary amount time set by the moderator, then your outta here. That's what happened to me. I was in the middle of a debate with like 6 other people, trying to respond to each of them in time, and in jumps Kittamaru to proclaim that I had better provide a source for some claims, as well as an apology, in like 20 minutes or I would suffer the dire consequences. In the process of trying to do so AND respond respectfully to others my time ran out and so I was banned. Does that make sense to you? That a moderator should have such power over members that he demands that we take no phone calls, or eat no meals, or visit no restrooms, or do anything at all, until we respond to them?

Here's another question. If we are entitled to ignore whomever we wish, why does a moderator get to ban you if you don't respond to them? In the future I have no intention of responding to any more of Kittamaru's posts since he basically abuses his power as a moderator and bans and cesspools and infracts whomever he wants. Will this get me banned again? Time will tell...
cleardot.gif
 
Daecon said:
What was the claim that you were asked to provide a source for?
Click to expand...

Something about the chances of dying of measles being less than dying from falling down, or getting murdered, or committing suicide. I did get that from a source, but never had the time to fetch it in time. So I was banned.
 
Maybe if you stopped trolling you wouldn't get banned so often? That thread was clearly a trolling set-up from the start. You started the thread saying you were "fully on board with getting kids vaccinated" and "I'm not trying to spread pseudoscience here, but I wanted to know both sides of the argument. " But that was a lie: Pretty much all you did, starting with your very next post, was flood the thread with copy-pasted entire anti-vax websites! There's no potential for discussion when you flood it with nonsense: that's a tactic designed to prevent discussion of key points by overwhealming people with garbage to respond to. It prevents coherent discussion of individual, key points.

Frankly, you should just be thankful the moderation is so lax here that you didn't get banned for trolling following the second post.
 
Last edited:
Russ_Watters said:
Maybe if you stopped trolling you wouldn't get banned so often? That thread was clearly a trolling set-up from the start. You started the thread saying you were "fully on board with getting kids vaccinated" and "I'm not trying to spread pseudoscience here, but I wanted to know both sides of the argument. " But that was a lie: Pretty much all you did, starting with your very next post, was flood the thread with copy-pasted entire anti-vax websites! There's no potential for discussion when you flood it with nonsense: that's a tactic designed to prevent discussion of key points by overwhealming people with garbage to respond to. It prevents coherent discussion of individual, key points.

Franly, you should just be thankful the moderation is so lax here that you didn't get banned for trolling following the second post.
Click to expand...

I wasn't trolling. It was the first time I'd ever looked into this issue. The more I looked into it the more studies came to light. So I was swayed towards being convinced that early overvaccination IS a cause for autism and other debilitating conditions. I citied dozens of studies on this, particularly on the effects of mercury containing Thimerasol and aluminum adjuvants in vaccines. Why is it so hard accept this evidence? Is it really that scary to you to stand on the side of the maligned and demonized antivaxxers who are only trying to protect their children?
 
You didn't happen to link to, or mention anything by, Robert (Bob) Sears of "askdrsears.com" (in)fame, did you?
 
Magical Realist said:
I wasn't trolling. It was the first time I'd ever looked into this issue.
Click to expand...
So, the first time you looked at the issue (that's quite a claim!), you choose to look pretty much exclusively at anti-vax conspiracy theory websites instead of reputable ones? If that were true, it wouldn't be much better than trolling, but in any case it doesn't explain why you copied and pasted vast amounts of information into the thread.

However, I don't believe it. You're too good at it for it to be accidental. Being gullible enough to believe anything you read as long as it comes from a conspiracy theory source isn't a good enough reason to explain the lager arguments you made in the thread, including the ones you are making now.

One of your tactics is focusing-on the weaker arguments to attack, rather than attacking the good ones. It's why you pretty much totally ignore me in the thread and focus your attacks on others who maybe aren't quite as good at debunking your BS.
Is it really that scary to you to stand on the side of the maligned and demonized antivaxxers who are only trying to protect their children?
Click to expand...
It is one-sided comments like that that make it tough to swallow your claim that you wanted to see both sides. I see no evidence at all that that claim of yours was ever true.
 
Last edited:
Russ_Watters said:
Maybe if you stopped trolling you wouldn't get banned so often? That thread was clearly a trolling set-up from the start. You started the thread saying you were "fully on board with getting kids vaccinated" and "I'm not trying to spread pseudoscience here, but I wanted to know both sides of the argument. " But that was a lie: Pretty much all you did, starting with your very next post, was flood the thread with copy-pasted entire anti-vax websites! There's no potential for discussion when you flood it with nonsense: that's a tactic designed to prevent discussion of key points by overwhealming people with garbage to respond to. It prevents coherent discussion of individual, key points.

Frankly, you should just be thankful the moderation is so lax here that you didn't get banned for trolling following the second post.
Click to expand...
Why would you even say this? It has almost nothing to do with the mans issue. If anything you're trolling. I read his post and the issue is ridiculous even laughable that a moderator would do such a thing.
 
He's a crank and anti-vaxxer of the worst kind, by pretending to be a professional doctor.

His conspiracy crap has been debunked and refuted many times, yet he still convinces gullible idiots to put their children at risk from preventable diseases.
 
Snowshy said:
Why would you even say this? It has almost nothing to do with the mans issue.
Click to expand...
Do you watch sports? Occasionally, players will whine about a weak or mis-called penalty, but usually they don't whine too much (unless it is a really critical penalty). Why? Because they know that they also get-away with a lot.

Occasionally, though, a particularly dirty player will start getting hit with weak penalties because they are a dirty player. So, perhaps this particular infraction was overblown, but it is only because of such an overwhealming volume of garbage from MR that it came to it. It's a "make-up call" and it is definitly fair when looked-at in context.

So, was my post not on-point? Maybe, but I would argue that MR's own post misses that important point.
 
Daecon said:
He's a crank and anti-vaxxer of the worst kind, by pretending to be a professional doctor.

His conspiracy crap has been debunked and refuted many times, yet he still convinces gullible idiots to put their children at risk from preventable diseases.
Click to expand...

Wonder how he came to the conclusion vaccines are dangerous. You said he's a famous doctor noted for giving good advice?
 
Abuse of moderator power????
Rubbish!
In actual fact its an abuse of the laxity in the system that applies on this forum with regards to the many different 'brands" of anti science pushers.
It's an abuse of power by some religious members here, using their baggage to denigrate science whenever they see a chance. It's an abuse of power by others that suffer with delusions of grandeur and tall poppy syndrome, and see their brand of science as superior.
It's an abuse of power by those that are just plain angst against science and the science community in general, and will do whatever they can, and take whatever opportunity they envisage to try and drag science down to their gutter level.
You so very obviously are one of that group.
What you need to remember is that despite the laxity in regulations and posting subjects on this forum, it is first and foremost a mainstream science forum.
Post your nonsense in the fringe sections, and you may get less trouble.
Try and denigrate and abuse the science sections, and you'll get your just deserts.
 
Magical Realist said:
In the process of trying to do so AND respond respectfully to others . . .
cleardot.gif
Click to expand...
"you need to grow up"
"your hysterical need to blame is noted"
"You're not making sense now..Maybe your childhood vaccine is finally kicking in. lol!"
"Spoken like a mindless corporate tool."
"Ok now you're just lying."
"Either you're too ignorant to actually understand what they're saying, or you're being deliberately obtuse."
"You really should see a therapist about your rage issues."
"when you have to be so snivelingly condescending and prickish."

If that's what you consider "responding respectfully" then you might be better off on a political board where such attacks are accepted.

I was banned for not providing a source in the amount of time set by the moderator.
Click to expand...
Makes sense, and in fact you demand other people follow that rule - "Now support it per Sci Forum rules." You'd be a hypocrite to not be willing to do the same thing you demand of others.
 
Magical Realist:

I checked the warning list. The one that got you banned says the reason was this:

"Continuously posting (mis)information without citations, refusing to provide references when requested, personal insults against the membership, and becoming a continual drain upon staff resources. In general, just breaking a plethora of forum rules."

You currently have 65 active infraction points. If you need more detailed information on your points, please send me a private message.

I hope that you are aware of our new policy on warnings and bans. It is posted in a sticky thread at the top of the Site Feedback subforum.
 
James R said:
Magical Realist:

I checked the warning list. The one that got you banned says the reason was this:

"Continuously posting (mis)information without citations, refusing to provide references when requested, personal insults against the membership, and becoming a continual drain upon staff resources. In general, just breaking a plethora of forum rules."

You currently have 65 active infraction points. If you need more detailed information on your points, please send me a private message.

I hope that you are aware of our new policy on warnings and bans. It is posted in a sticky thread at the top of the Site Feedback subforum.
Click to expand...

That's right. Keep it nice and nonspecific. Just a vague breaking of forum rules. Yeah. I'd be interested in knowing how I got 65 infractions in the past few days.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top