Action Notes v.1.0

Not open for further replies.
Post edit

• "150 years of oil - a review and look ahead" — Moderator edit of topic post for better readability.

Note: Let me know if I botched the quote division; it looked like it was all one bloc. I haven't decided to enforce any hard rules about presentation. In this case, I just thought it would help.
Queue for review

• "Spanking Lowers IQ Points" — Thread queued for review; will reopen shortly. Update to follow.

Update: Thread restored to general circulation. One post edited. Mod Hat note posted. I am presently awaiting some policy clarification pertaining to the contents of that note.

General notice: Members are advised to leave reading comprehension zingers out of it, even on those occasions that it seems completely obvious.
Last edited:
Policy note

• "Spanking Lowers IQ Points" — Mod Hat policy note posted regarding manipulation of member quotes.

Clarification: It's real simple. When quoting someone, don't manipulate the quote. If you need to examine a manipulation of a quote, note the manipulation. Any questions? Send me a message.

Update: One post deleted as off topic, derived from above-referenced policy note.

Update #2: No, you weren't imagining things. The thread did disappear into the queue for a couple minutes. See the updated Mod Hat response for more information. One more post deleted as off topic.
Last edited:
Closure and redirect

• "'AS ABOVE SO BELOW': Ain't Necessarily So" — Thread closed and redirected to Cesspool. Pretty much a pseudoscientific copy and paste from various pages found at another forum, with the appearance of being posted as part of a personal vendetta.

Note: The funny thing is that this was posted in Science & Society, which, according to its description, deals with scientific ethics and social responsibility. Bringing a two year-old feud from one forum to another with a haphazard copy and paste assembly doesn't really appear to be either scientifically ethical or socially responsible.

Update (Oct. 8, 2009): I am, for the time being, retracting certain portions of my criticism based on the result of further investigation, but reserving the right to reinstate those points—as that inquiry continues—depending on what facts emerge.

Update II (Nov. 10, 2009): Retraction retracted.
Last edited:
Closure and redirect

• "Tv that watches you" — Thread closed and redirected. Link without any additional comment by member. Suggests pattern of spamming our board for another forum.
Thread title alterations

• "Science in 'action' or shameless moneysuckers" — Thread title altered.

• "Scientists & science as corporate whores" — Thread title altered.

Policy advisory: In either case, the point was to remove the word "bitches" from the thread title. We obviously permit a good deal of cussing and denigrating language around here, but members are advised that they should omit such words from thread titles.

• "Serial nut-kicker vs. rapists" — Thread redirected to Free Thoughts on two grounds:

(1) Not a Science & Society topic.
(2) Asks an extreme rhetorical question that undermines its validity as, say, an EM&J or Human Science thread.​

Note: While certain rhetorical propositions are not impossible, one needs, in extreme or even edgy cases, to make the connection between A and B. In this case, a deeper exploration of the common (comparative) basis for evaluating the nature and impact of rape or groin kicking was needed.
Cleanup: Burn posting

A number of posts have been deleted from a number of threads; a human spammer attempted to burn his prerequisite posts for hyperlink permissions in S&S. Cleanup is ongoing, and extensive.

Threads with deleted posts:

Note: Obviously, Sciforums discourages the practice of burn posting in order to achieve a certain count. If you see new members undertaking such a practice, by all means, feel free to notify the nearest moderator. Sometimes it is just misplaced enthusiasm, but in this case, it turned out to be a spammer. We'll have to figure out a more definitive freeze policy for burn posting, but until we figure that out, don't be afraid to holler at one of us if you see this obnoxious practice in action.
Closure and redirect

• Thread "What is sexy?" closed and redirected. Eight posts deleted. By the time a thread moves to freehand drawings of disastrous fellatio, it's probably done.

Note: No warnings, no suspensions this time. But no more home-drawn pornography. Or any other, for that matter. Not that they weren't funny drawings, or anything like that, but we do have a rule about that sort of thing. Thanks.
Post edits, deletions

• "Tide turning on Circumcision, Push to circumcise all male infants" — Eight posts deleted; three posts edited.

Note: That's the damage from the last two days. Happy fuckin' New Year, people. Shit. What, did Christmas come and go, so you're back to the savageries of everyday life? That was a disgraceful performance, and I'm not sure I've caught everything yet.

Two posts are edited without much of a note; I was dealing with a specific typographical issue. As such, I'm not at all annoyed about one of them. However, I need to make this clear: Learn to type each other's names.

I mean, really.

See Mod Hat in thread.
Last edited:
Post edits, deletions

• "Circumcision poll — Twenty-two posts deleted, six edited.

Note: Some of the casualties of this large-scale action were not necessarily offensive, but fell victim to a protocol I refer to as "Responds to moderated content". When striking material according to the rules, I clear all references to those posts or passages. Some members, who practice the form of quoting an entire post in order to respond to a small part of it, saw their posts deleted or edited because of this. Being more specific in the material you quote for response is not simply a benefit to me as a moderator in the event of trouble, though. It also helps all participants by making it more clear what part of a post you are responding to.
Post edit

• "Climate-gate — One post edited for insulting content.

Note: I have a feeling there's a bit more to do. Stay tuned.
Not open for further replies.