Is it me or is this site in its death throes?

Discussion in 'Site Feedback' started by Bowser, Jul 17, 2017.

  1. The God Valued Senior Member

    Mamma Mia..
    It sounds too much like a yes man.

    It's very much feasible in real world. It's a matter of self control that since I am in argument with this guy on this issue, I will not infract him but neither will I run away from my responsibilities of marking him as a violater for others to know and act.

    Fairness may be there but it comes under hammer once the aggrieved guy claims that oh I was infracted because the mod member ran out of argument. Why give this opportunity?
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Do you honestly think that - were the decision process to be handled publicly, and interactively - the Aggrieved would concede to it, saying 'Ah, I see the process that led to my being infracted, and I can find no fault with the logic. Mea Culpa.'
    Do you think this would shorten the average time Mods would spend on infractions?
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. The God Valued Senior Member

    Read Nawaz Sharif (Pakistan ex PM) reaction...but so what?
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Posted in wrong thread perhaps?
  8. The God Valued Senior Member

    No, an infracted or disqualified person will always crib, but that does not mean that we should not follow fair practice. However expedient the matter or cause be, it should manifest that the process too was fair. An involved mod issuing infraction to his opponent is not a manifestation of fair process, however expedient or truthful the decision may be.
  9. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Just because someone feels they're being treated unfairly doesn't mean they are being treated unfairly.

    I can't imagine the accused in a courtroom demanding to be present during the jury's deliberation so they can challenge the decision process. It is just not a privilege one has the right to expect.

    The fact is, the site - as with (likely) all other sites on the webernets - must have an efficient and final way of addressing rule violators, lest the site get paralyzed by administrivia.

    Sure, in a magical world, moderators would moderate impartially, recuse themselves from their own domains of expertise, publicly debate all infraction issuances, do it full time (because they'll need to), and do it all for free.

    But the same can be said for any pipe dream. Offering an ideal solution is easy. It doesn't mean much if it cannot be executed successfully.

    It's like saying food and wealth should be distributed equally to all. Sure, but nobody's been able to do it.
    Last edited: Jul 30, 2017
  10. The God Valued Senior Member

    Who is unscathed ...
    Dmoe, me, q-reeus, Paddoboy, river, well wisher, clusshusbund, MR, you also, ED, schmwlzet, danshawen, almost everyone barring few like kristophers and sweetpeas (because they either bring out the mean in others or assist the mods in finding out such behaviour).

    The involved mod cannot take the argument that look other mods may be busy and you are soiling this thread so I will infract right now. I do not think Kittamaru is arguing like that, his argument is not based on time constraint but his argument there is no such rule forbidding him.

    Delayed Edit : gender issue.
    Last edited: Jul 30, 2017
  11. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Hah, if you actually believe that, then I have some wonderful oceanfront property in Colorado to sell you.

    At one time, mods did everything we could to do just that, to avoid the appearance of conflict of interest et al - not only did it do virtually nothing to prevent folks from griping about said moderation, but even with a full team on staff, it resulted in several situations where poor behavior went on far longer than it should have, utterly derailing otherwise fruitful threads and frustrating honest contributors.

    The simple fact of the matter is, as it stands, any moderator action is able to be submit to the administration for review if someone feels aggrieved or unfairly targeted. Folks like MR, however, seem incapable of following simple forum rules, and whine about every infraction, playing up the victim card whilst refusing even the slightest responsibility.
  12. sweetpea Valued Senior Member

    And, they don't even get a uniform, not even an armband.
  13. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    as/re moderation:
    A few years ago, when first I came here, I had a different avatar which I had used on other sites.
    Moderator note: Image of a sculpture depicting naked woman follows. This is off-topic for the current thread.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I do not remember if it was from this:
    or from a pix of another clay (?), but James R demanded it's removal, admonishing me that this
    was not a pornography site
    a lump of clay modeled by the hand, eye, and mind of a sculptor(this sculptor)----------
    kind of a compliment actually---(no offence was taken)
    so now, as avatar, you have my take of on the riaci bronzes bronzes&rlz=1C1CHZL_enUS737US737&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiil5O0obHVAhWq5oMKHTYpBxkQ_AUICigB&biw=1366&bih=662#tbm=isch&q=riace bronzes anatomy

    does it really matter?
    I did stop going to another site because I found the moderators noticeably immoderate and ultimately intolerable.
    I went back there a few months ago and found that it had gotten worse than I had remembered.

    So, this site is as a feather comforter compared to the other which could be likened to a bed of nails or trying to relax on shards of broken glass.

    y'all have heard/read the story of moose turd pie? (ask if you want to read it)
    if'n you ain't willing to put the time and effort into being a moderator, maybe it's best that you do not complain overmuch.
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 1, 2017
    Magical Realist likes this.
  14. The God Valued Senior Member

    OK, I am urging science forum owners, now since they are making Money from ads to provide nice T shirts to all the mods with science forum logo appearing on it. They can also consider gifting few T shirts to decent members.
    DaveC426913 likes this.
  15. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    You supply the T shirts and I'll bring the bucket of water.
  16. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Magical Realist:

    You are being stupid, or disingenous, or both. Here's what I wrote, which you quoted directly above your response:
    So, switch your brain on, read the post that came from, then apply what I've taught you to the situation given. The result is this:

    "I see. So they SEE the planet Venus, but they mistake the planet Venus for an alien spaceship. They see the planet just fine, but their interpretation of what they see is simply wrong. They remember [note carefully: not "fake remember", but "remember". What would "fake remember" mean, anyway?] seeing a flying saucer instead, but that's wrong. Their mind filled in a gap in their knowledge and made a mistake. The gap was that they didn't know what the planet Venus looked like, or that it was in the sky right then and there, or similar. So they drew on memories of films and stories of alien spacecraft and constructed a memory of something that was never there."

    And yes, THAT kind of thing happens ALL THE TIME, as I explained to you at some length.

    What is it with you? Do you actually want people to think you're a fool?
  17. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    Its turned to nuthin but name callin an meanness... i recomend this thred be ended an locked befor people start gettin ponts an bans.!!!
    Magical Realist likes this.
  18. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    There are lots of weasel words in this thread. It seems to me that a number of posters are making straw men of their opponents' arguments, often by conveniently inserting a strengthener into a claim that wasn't there in the original. In addition, people are making caricatures of their own claims by adding unsupportable strengtheners.

    For example, consider Magical Realist:
    This is all well and good right up to that last three-word sentence.

    Yes, human perception and memory are reliable. To an extent. Some of the time. Under some circumstances. About some things. But "totally reliable"? No way. Not a chance.

    See what happened there? In the space of 4 short sentences, MR went from a reasonable statement to something ludicrously wrong. And that could easily have been avoided had he avoided the temptation to strengthen his wording to such an extent that he made an obvious nonsense out of his own claim.

    And this from Bells to Yazata:
    Here, context is important. Bells was specifically discussing eyewitness testimony in criminal trials.

    Now, if we extract out the statement "The issue with eyewitness testimony is that it is more often than not, wholly unreliable" and deal with it in isolation, it is obviously ludicrous. Eyewitness testimony, in general, is not "wholly unreliable" "more often than not". That's an unsupportable claim on the face of it.

    I believe that Yazata's focus on that claim, out of context, has led to a considerable amount of unnecessary back and forth between him and Bells. Look at the rest of what Bells wrote. Only two sentences on, we have "I have never said that eyewitness testimony is bullshit, nor have a I argued it. What I have consistently maintains is that it is often unreliable."

    What I ask is this: do Yazata and Bells actually disagree that eyewitness testimony in criminal trials is "often unreliable"? There might well be an argument to be had as to whether the strengthener "often" is more appropriate there than "sometimes", but I doubt that Yazata would have any real objection to the claim that eyewitnesses in criminal trials can be unrealiable, as a general proposition.

    And does anybody reading this thread actually come away with the belief that Bells actually thinks all eyewitness testimony is "wholly unreliable"? I don't think so.

    I suggest that it would make for a more productive debate all round if posters were to argue in good faith. That would mean not creating straw men of your opponent's arguments, but responding to the clear intent of the argument rather than to some kind of easily-dismissed ludicrous version of it. And if in doubt, by all means seek clarification of what the other poster meant.

    Also, admitting that you accidentally made a more extreme claim than you can actually defend doesn't have to be a sign of weakness. Admitting your own mistakes can also make for a more productive discussion.
  19. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    I suggest you stop cheer-leading from the sidelines.

    If you have something useful to contribute to the thread topic or the discussion that has developed, by all means do so. But if you're only interested in giving blow-by-blow commentary regarding the moderators' interactions with Magical Realist and others, then you'd be better off leaving this thread now.
    cluelusshusbund likes this.
  20. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Magical Realist:

    You only see it as ludicrous because you have never bothered to learn anything about false memories or suggestibility or how memory works in the first place.

    Yes, some people "manufacture" memories of seeing flying saucers, where none existed. Those memories are indistinguishable to them from their "real" memories. This is because memories, as I have explained, are in part constructed or reconstructed by the brain.

    Similarly, there is a wide literature regarding the "recovery" of memories of childhood sexual abuse where, in fact, such abuse never occurred. This is another example of people "manufacturing" memories of things that never happened, that nevertheless seem as real to them as anything else that they remember happening in their lives. No doubt you'd dismiss "fake memories" of abuse as "ludicrous" and impossible, just as you dismiss "fake memories" of alien encounters.

    Your dismissal of these things is just ignorance. But worse than that, it's wilful ignorance. You make no attempt to find out about these things. You don't want to learn or improve yourself. Is as if you like being an ignorant fool. Or else you like your readers here to perceive you as an ignorant fool. Who knows? Maybe you're really an expert troll who is pulling all our strings just for fun.

    The thesis that eyewitness observation is unreliable is uncontroversial. You have been provided with actual scientific studies that evidence the fact. And in opposition you have only your uneducated opinion - nothing more.

    The thesis that all eyewitness observation is unreliable is untenable, and obviously so. But nobody is really arguing that. Pretending that they are in order to avoid addressing the real issue is disingenuous.

    You have explained that you believe that eyewitnesses are generally reliable because people manage to live their lives successfully using their normal senses, including sight. But that point is not contested by anybody here.

    The contested issue is the extent to which eyewitnesses in criminal trials, or witnesses of alien spacecraft, for example, are reliable.

    Evidence has been provided to you showing that in certain specific situations - police line-ups for example - eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable. And in response, you argue - what? That in your personal uneducated opinion, contrary to the studies, they are reliable?

    I'm sorry, MR, but you need to do better than that. Repeating "Yes they are reliable! Yes they are reliable!" over and over again, with nothing to back up your opinion, does no good. You need to provide appropriate supporting evidence, or at least a better argument than "I feel in my gut that this is the case."

    Again, I emphasise that you need to argue in good faith. You need to address the actual disputed points, not the undisputed straw man versions that really are "ludicrous".

    Critical analysis requires more than forming a snap opinion and then defending it to the death. It requires a willingness to consider all sides of an issue fairly and as objectively as possible. The same principle applies whether you're discussing the viability of the existence of ghosts or the reliability of eyewitnesses in criminal trials.

    You have not only failed in this thread to honestly engage with the issue of the reliability of eyewitnesses, but all indications are that you actually refuse to discuss the real issue. Instead, you insist that all your opponents here are attempting to argue a ludicrously unwinnable position.

    Again, disingenuous. You must pay attention to context. For example, you might try looking for studies that show that witnesses in criminal trials are overwhelmingly reliable, because this is the point you have returned to over and over again. You insist that there are thousands upon thousands of reliable convictions based on eyewitness testimony alone. If so, it shouldn't be hard for you to support your claim. Yet all we get from you is "nobody needs to prove what is already well known". In other words, your argument boils down to "it's obvious". To that, I say: it's obviously your opinion, but no conclusion is obvious until an argument has been made for it, and you haven't made one yet.
    billvon and DaveC426913 like this.
  21. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    I deeply Appleogize James R... its just that thangs can become somewhat chaotic when the mission of Sciforums dont always seem to match administrations actions.!!!
    Magical Realist likes this.
  22. birch Valued Senior Member

    sometimes, you can know something as fact technically yet have no way to prove it. it is a strange conundrum. for instance, there was a time in my life when i was having quite a few visions of my future and at the time, i actually did think this was my imagination until it actually occurred years later. now, if it was some general metaphor or idea, then that would be explainable but it was explicit and specific down to what people were wearing, doing etc and down to the last detail.

    what does that mean for me? that i actually know that pre-destiny is possible as well as the concept of free-will (to the fullest extent) is questionable and that the future may already be in place yet we haven't arrived there yet. yet i have had these experiences and science thinks it's bunk. so i looked into the occult because where could i turn to find out how and what the heck and why? what am i supposed to do?

    what people don't appreciate is what if you were in that position to have that experience, do we deny it and lie to ourselves? with some of it i could but not with certain ones. for instance, at around this time i had a dream of being in a movie theatre and i was alone in it for some reason and there was a certain scene in that movie i was watching. fast forward years later and i saw that scene (scene was exact except for of course there were people in the theatre with me) and it was a movie that i went to see over 20 times because it blew my mind as i saw that years before in that dream yet i can't understand the rhyme or reason or the significance except maybe the universe is playing with me and giving me peeks because it's amusing??! then when i tried to connect the pieces, i realized that it was around this time that a certain major turning point was occuring in my life or a significant life change. and this is all coincidence, again? also, around this time i was experiencing quite a lot of it, some of it was positive and some of it was negative and then it stopped but years later they all happened yet science would say this is all not real but i 'know' it is because i experienced it and it came to actual manifestation exactly! there are more mysteries in the way the universe works than science knows yet and instead of being at least curious to the possibility, they rather block that idea. it's not an idea though because i actually know but i can't prove it. the only proof is anecdotal but i experienced the evidence and it was not my interpretation, it was literal!

    the only thing that gave me any clues was with the occult and astrology. my natal chart is unusual or more rare and that it has many aspects that point to attracting the paranormal. most people just statistically might have one or none but my chart is laden with ALL of them? can this be a coincidence? i even have two ascendants (most people have one) as well as almost all planets being on cusp, neptune in twelfth house (again paranormal/psychic attunement) and stellium considered again, attracting paranormal. that stellium is considered a powerful focal point that can penetrate the veil or layers of reality or what we consider reality or vice versa. this isn't something that can be done at will, it just seems to be subconscious. this is not about matter as we define it though. it's like matter that exists simultaneously but of a different property. most charts are not aligned that way. i also have neptune in scorpio in 8th house. even others with that aspect alone have blatantly said they saw apparitions like i did. they were also trying to figure out what was going on. these are just some of it but there are more than usual in my chart. my chart is described as having one foot in this dimension and the other foot in the other or like between a gateway between the divine/paranormal and humans. and this is coincidence? my saturn also conjuncts both my ascendants and that aspect alone is described as someone who did not want to incarnate into this realm and that is exactly something i remember too as a young child by feeling 'different' in some way. it's like i was homesick from being here in a strange land. yes, existing in this universe as if i'm from somewhere else (i don't mean the human flesh part, of course). i have seen things that have happened in the future several times and yet i would be laughed out the room if i told anyone but what am i supposed to do, pretend i'm imagining it? if it was my imagination, it would be easy to dismiss it except it comes to PASS!! then i can't, can i? so science would rather me pretend it's not real just because they can't get a grasp on it yet or don't know what it is or the mechanics behind it.

    if i were a scientist, i wouldn't be cynical or even see these anecdotes as wearisome drivel but actually be highly curious and fascinated about the possibility that there is a whole other dimension of reality yet to be discovered.
    Last edited: Aug 6, 2017
    Magical Realist likes this.
  23. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    I guess what I got most out of your post is that you do not know how to capitalize.
    Kittamaru likes this.

Share This Page