Fringe subforum

[Kittamaru]

not accurate at all. GIA starts threads that question religious views all the time in differing ways.

Take a quick perusal through some of them... GIA starts threads condemning virtually every religion except his own, and then goes off on a tangent upon anyone who dares to threaten his precious. He doesn't invite, nor tolerate, dissent, and isn't looking for discussion any deeper than praise. Perhaps your view is different because you haven't been privy to the multitude of reports he has generated over the years?

not even true but again, an exaggeration.

Okay...

one subforum is not total anarchy.

Indeed, it isn't... because we have rules and a method by which to enforce them. I'm not sure what you are digging at here...

I would even say that would be an easier solution to have a subforum where there is minimal moderation.

EG, you want a subforum where the rules don't apply?

what is true and I've noticed is that there are members here who do not want to be a part of a forum where there is discussion outside of science or the conventional period.

That's... probably why they came to SciForums, and not, say, "Post random stuff" forums?

it is simply a mental state of elitism but that's one's prerogative. hypocritically, some of them have engaged in fringe topics whilst simultaneously deriding them and expressing that certain members be banned and implying fringe should not exist.

You are claiming the fringe sections are exempt from the requirements of evidence and standards... they aren't.

It is the admin's call on what kind of forum they want

Aye, and the Administration established the rules, and picked the Moderation team to help enforce them...

but as it stands, it's too brittle when both sides can easily benefit and co-exist/learn if implemented a certain way.

So in one breath, you say it's the admin's call... then in another, you want to dispute the call they made?

crackpots serve a function of a different point of view that is in itself has it's own gems that can elicit or inspire looking at an old problem in a new way, even despite the erroneous aspects of the idea presented. the opposite is just the well-worn path. it seems admin can only see this in black and white, one way or another when it can be both.

There is black and white on this - either an argument has good supporting evidence, or it doesn't. Now, that evidence doesn't always take the same shape or form - case in point, historical evidence that we cannot go back and validate because the source no longer exists, but has already been validated. All said - there is a specific rule stating that extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. Some dude with a 10 dollar RCA camcorder and a beer can seeing an unknown object is not exactly the extraordinary evidence required to claim that aliens have come for his sheep, to make the exaggeration plain.

have one subforum where crackpot ideas are not closed with minimal moderation (blatant pornography, racism, misognyny etc deleted) and just let people decide to participate at will, there are no victims in those cases because the participants decide through their own presentations and counterpoints what is valid or not, instead of moderators deciding what is logical or not. you can also move any crackpot threads there also. that is even less work for moderators. that's not anarchy.

Then if that is what you wish to suggest, I would recommend taking it up with the Administration, as they are the ones able to implement these ideas.

why do you even close cesspool topics? what is the real logic behind that? moderators think they should have the right to decide what members want or should discuss or not? if there is no validity or interest, wouldn't it die on it's own? if there is trust in the validity of logic and truth so much, it should be allowed to go it's natural course in a topic, right?

One could say the same thing about such topics as promoting antisemitism / white supremacy / misogyny or a host of topics that are simply not acceptable (such as supporting the mass execution of an entire sect of peoples). One would think the same about someone making utterly unsupported and unsubstantiated claims over and over in the face of overwhelming evidence that they are wrong... Yet, without someone to actually enforce the rules, those topics continue to live, with the claimant simply restating his or her initial position without ever validating it, whilst demanding ever greater levels of evidence from those showing how they are wrong.

Simply put - trolls exist. They get shut down in real life because, much like that Nazi sympathizer in Seattle, people can take action to stop the from soap-boxing their damaging rhetoric... on the Internet, though, there is nobody who can do that. That is why someone needs to exist to enforce the rules.

it's one thing to move topics to an appropriate area but it's tyrannical to close topics unless they are seriously exploitive.

If you disagree with the rules and/or approach that has been used since before I even joined SciForums... then I would suggest taking it up with the administration.

 

[birch]

He doesn't invite, nor tolerate, dissent, and isn't looking for discussion any deeper than praise.

this is not really true. having a topic open is invitation itself. no one can stop anyone from dissent or expressing their pov, even if others or the op disagrees. if one views disagreement as a deterrant, then debate is not for them or they can walk away from a discussion they feel is not going anywhere or agree to disagree.

this is a virtual form of communication. it is even more conducive to egalitarianism by it's structure than real life. in real life, you are often in a group where you have no choice but to hear opinions of those you don't want to engage with. on a forum, you literally pick and choose who you engage with and each instance is literally one on one. there are no real victims here or captive audiences. the only instances of victimization is when slurs or obscene remarks are made to other members or in extreme cases maybe a form of stalking/harassing of certain members and vice versa and even still, one can choose not to engage with a certain member at any time and/or block them.

 

[Kittamaru]

this is not really true. having a topic open is invitation itself. no one can stop anyone from dissent or expressing their pov, even if others or the op disagrees. if one views disagreement as a deterrant, then debate is not for them or they can walk away from a discussion they feel is not going anywhere or agree to disagree.

Birch, unfortunately, I don't have the wherewithal right now to bother going through and pulling out posts from GIA's sordid history to explain why you are wrong... suffice it to say, when someone acts the way GIA does, over the length of time that he has, it demonstrates that he is not, in fact, here for discussion. He is not inviting discussion, dissent, or opposing points of view, and his attacks on those with differing points of view demonstrate this.

on a forum, you literally pick and choose who you engage with and each instance is literally one on one.

Hypothetical situation for you - you start a post, looking for discussion on a topic. Several forum members are contributing and the discussion is going along nicely. Then, Mr. Troll comes along and repeatedly makes off topic remarks, insults people in the thread, and generally acts like, well, a troll.

How do you pick and choose not to engage with them? Simply putting them on ignore isn't going to work, since anyone else who wades in partway through might not be aware of what is going on. Others may respond to said troll, resulting in confusion for you because you can't see the Mr. Trolls posts, and thus it appears someone is talking to nobody.

Simply put - why should such behavior be allowed to persist?

there are no real victims here or captive audiences. the only instances of victimization is when slurs or obscene remarks are made to other members or in extreme cases maybe a form of stalking/harassing of certain members and vice versa and even still, one can choose not to engage with a certain member at any time and/or block them.

Again, it seems you are suggesting a massive rewrite (or, honestly, disposing of) the existing forum rules... I would recommend taking that up with the administration, since they are the ones who have the authority to enact any such changes.

 

[Yazata]

So you would prefer to dismiss the rules of good faith debate, supporting evidence, and honesty altogether in favor of... What? Total anarchy, I guess?

I don't entirely trust the board's current moderation team to be good judges of the epistemological and logical/rhetorical standards of intellectual debate. I certainly don't trust their moral judgments about who is showing "good faith" and "honesty" and who isn't.

I'm not even sure how to read those moral qualities into more abstract scientific and philosophical arguments and issues. If there is a logical or an epistemological problem with a point somebody is making, then point it out. Don't start spouting all these moral condemnations like "intellectually dishonest!". If you remain unconvinced by something somebody posts, try to explain why.

Not every issue is a moral issue.

The moderators seem to me to have pre-existing beliefs that they want to see triumph, so they press their thumbs on the scales to make sure that threads reach those desired conclusions. Otherwise they shut them up and close them down.

My proposal is for one little forum down at the bottom (out of sight, out of mind) where board participants can argue their views without the moderators trying to predetermine the results. If somebody is posting gibberish or bullshit, then let other board participants point that out. If something can be said in favor of a controversial view, people should have the opportunity to say it. Trust the board's participants to keep things going even when you supposedly superior ones aren't in command. (And you can still intervene if things get too bad.) That shouldn't be when threads reach conclusions that you don't like though.

Perhaps you don't like the rules, but they have been a feature here for quite some time, and it is only within the last year or so that some members have gone to such great extremes to subvert them...

The rules are fine, if a bit clueless at times. My argument isn't with the rules, but with how they are being interpreted and enforced.

 

[DaveC426913]

My proposal is for one little forum down at the bottom (out of sight, out of mind) where board participants can argue their views without the moderators trying to predetermine the results. If somebody is posting gibberish or bullshit, then let other board participants point that out. If something can be said in favor of a controversial view, people should have the opportunity to say it. Trust the board's participants to keep things going even when you superior ones aren't in control. (And you can still intervene if things get too bad.) That shouldn't be when threads reach conclusions that you don't like though.

Why wouldn't one simply join a forum that suits those needs?
If I am driving a Mini Cooper, and I want to haul boulders, do I tell Mini to graft a flatbed onto my Cooper (at great expense and risk), or do I just go get a pickup? They're free!

I frequent three different science fora, each with distinct focus and tolerance levels.

SciFo, BTW, is way waaaay waaaaaaaay the most tolerant of them. Seriously, it is the science forumy equivalent of being so open as to let its member's brains fall out.

 

[birch]

SciFo, BTW, is way waaaay waaaaaaaay the most tolerant of them. Seriously, it is the science forumy equivalent of being so open as to let its member's brains fall out.

if your brains fall out, then that's on you.

if one is that impressionable then perhaps they afraid they have a more tenuous grasp of logic than let on, so they need to constantly assert it at all times, just in case they may lose it. or more like, inflexibility to be open to new variables. lol

 

[DaveC426913]

if your brains fall out, then that's on you.

SciFo is the nexus of people whose brains have fallen out. The rest of us sometimes have to point it out to them.

 

[Kittamaru]

I don't entirely trust the board's current moderation team to be good judges of the epistemological and logical/rhetorical standards of intellectual debate. I certainly don't trust their moral judgments about who is showing "good faith" and "honesty" and who isn't.

Well, for starters, when someone is given evidence that refutes what they say, and their response is essentially "LOLNOPE" and then to repeat their claim without any additional backing or substance... we generally call that "bad faith" or "intellectual dishonesty" - simply ignoring evidence that doesn't support your claim without some damned good reason to do so is viewed rather dimly in most intellectual circles.

I'm not even sure how to read those moral qualities into more abstract scientific and philosophical arguments and issues. If there is a logical or an epistemological problem with a point somebody is making, then point it out. Don't start spouting all these moral condemnations like "intellectually dishonest!". If you remain unconvinced by something somebody posts, try to explain why.

And what, pray tell, would you suggest be done in a case where the evidence is presented (especially in cases where large quantities of evidence to the contrary are presented) and the poster simply goes "Nope, you're all wrong, I'm the only sane one around here" and re-asserts their premise with little to no supporting evidence? Why should the majority of the forum have to deal with it because they don't want to debate in good faith?

Not every issue is a moral issue.

Okay...?

The moderators seem to me to have pre-existing beliefs that they want to see triumph, so they press their thumbs on the scales to make sure that threads reach those desired conclusions. Otherwise they shut them up and close them down.

I'm sorry you feel that way, especially given the fact that this is simply not true.

My proposal is for one little forum down at the bottom (out of sight, out of mind) where board participants can argue their views without the moderators trying to predetermine the results. If somebody is posting gibberish or bullshit, then let other board participants point that out. If something can be said in favor of a controversial view, people should have the opportunity to say it. Trust the board's participants to keep things going even when you supposedly superior ones aren't in command. (And you can still intervene if things get too bad.) That shouldn't be when threads reach conclusions that you don't like though.

As I told Birch - this is something that needs taken to the administration and/or owners - moderators have exactly zero ability to enact these sort of changes (in fact, since the software change, we can't even see the forum admin panel anymore to make sub-sections within sub-sections or anything).

The rules are fine, if a bit clueless at times. My argument isn't with the rules, but with how they are being interpreted and enforced.

As always, if you feel someone is being unfairly moderated, or have an issue with how something is moderated, there is a proper set of channels to follow, including private messaging the moderator in question, asking another moderator for a review, or taking it to the administration.

 

[Kittamaru]

if your brains fall out, then that's on you.

if one is that impressionable then perhaps they afraid they have a more tenuous grasp of logic than let on, so they need to constantly assert it at all times, just in case they may lose it. or more like, inflexibility to be open to new variables. lol

I would counter-claim that this exact sentiment is true of many of our more promiscuous woo-woo posters.

 

[DaveC426913]

if one is that impressionable then perhaps they afraid they have a more tenuous grasp of logic than let on, so they need to constantly assert it at all times, just in case they may lose it. or more like, inflexibility to be open to new variables. lol

Exactly.

Which is what the rest of us are doing here, demonstrating the use of critical thinking skills to help find their way through a confusing maze of science and logic, full of both sages and snake oil salesmen.

A forum where logic, critical thinking and evidence-based argument is not required is the very last thing these people need.

 

[Magical Realist]

Which is what the rest of us are doing here, demonstrating the use of critical thinking skills to help find their way through a confusing maze of science and logic, full of both sages and snake oil salesmen.

Yeah, you're real paragons of objectivity and dispassionate logic alright. All I see are personal attacks and ad homs and attempts at having valued members banned for not agreeing with you. And critical thinking is a myth that basically comes down to preaching to others how to think about an issue so they reach the same conclusions you do. You can't legislate reason into some ideal objective procedure.

 

[Kittamaru]

Yeah, you're real paragons of objectivity and dispassionate logic alright. All I see are personal attacks and ad homs and attempts at having valued members banned for not agreeing with you. And critical thinking is a myth that basically comes down to how to think about an issue so you reach the same conclusions I do. You can't legislate reason into an objective procedure.

That is quite the bold claim MR... surely you can provide evidence to support your accusation that DaveC is simply posting "personal attacks and ad homs and attempts at having valued members banned for not agreeing with you."

 

[Magical Realist]

That is quite the bold claim MR... surely you can provide evidence to support your accusation that DaveC is simply posting "personal attacks and ad homs and attempts at having valued members banned for not agreeing with you."

Dave: "SciFo is the nexus of people whose brains have fallen out. The rest of us sometimes have to point it out to them."

 

[Kittamaru]

Dave: "SciFo is the nexus of people whose brains have fallen out. The rest of us sometimes have to point it out to them."

Oddly enough, I don't see your name (or anyone else's for that matter) mentioned there. Come to think of it, I don't see any attempt to have any valued member banned, either...

Now, if you wish to claim he is literally insulting the entirety of SciForums, then perhaps reporting the post would be the appropriate response?

 

[Magical Realist]

Oddly enough, I don't see your name (or anyone else's for that matter) mentioned there. Come to think of it, I don't see any attempt to have any valued member banned, either...

Did I say he posted about me? He's posting about valued members. That's what I said.

Another one by James R:

"You're a true idiot then, Magical Realist, and I can do nothing more to help you."

 

[Kittamaru]

Did I say he posted about me? He's posting about valued members. That's what I said.

I believe my comment covered that...

Another one by James R:

"You're a true idiot then, Magical Realist, and I can do nothing more to help you."

1) James R isn't DaveC
2) The fact that James is saying that should speak volumes
3) James is the administrator of this site... so if you have a grievance with him, I guess you'd want to take it to the owners.

It is odd, though, that one of your first actions upon returning to SciForums would be to attempt to pick a fight with another member...

 

[Magical Realist]

1) James R isn't DaveC
2) The fact that James is saying that should speak volumes
3) James is the administrator of this site... so if you have a grievance with him, I guess you'd want to take it to the owners.

Dave is speaking in the collective---as we or us. That little band of stalwart science cheerleaders that won't tolerate anything that rocks the boat includes James R. And no, we don't make exceptions to the rules for moderators and administrators, They are constrained by the same ethical guidelines as we are. If James R insults and ad homs, he is in the wrong. Period.

 

[Kittamaru]

Dave is speaking in the collective---as we or us. That little band of stalwart science cheerleaders that won't tolerate anything that rocks the boat includes James R.

I wasn't aware that having some standard for evidence was enough to rock the boat so harshly for you. Perhaps SciForums simply isn't the place for you, if those basic standards are too much?

And no, we don't make exceptions to the rules for moderators and administrators, They are constrained by the same ethical guidelines as we are. If James R insults and ad homs, he is in the wrong. Period.

Then, as stated, I suggest you take it up with the people who can actually do something about it - whinging at us accomplishes exactly bupkis.

 

[Magical Realist]

Perhaps SciForums simply isn't the place for you, if those basic standards are too much?

Perhaps I have the same right to post here as any other valued member whether I agree with the science cheerleaders or not. I just suffer the inconvenience of not hiding my nonscientific beliefs under the label of "my religion" here. So I get attacked and banned. The record speaks for itself.

 

[DaveC426913]

[ nevermind ]