Isn't it funny...
- Thread starter Varda
- Start date
- Status
I.23. Propaganda can include material copied verbatim from other websites, books or articles, which demonstrates a clear bias for or against a particular belief. It does not include articles which examine an issue objectively and rationally, looking at both sides of an issue.
E.13. Appropriate supporting evidence or explanations should be posted together with any opinion, especially on contentious issues. Sciforums is not your personal blog, and should not be used to promote your unsupported opinions. Links and references are always welcome, though a convincing argument will often do just as well or better.
----
My vegetarian thread involves much debate on both sides of the issue of meat eating vs vegetarianism.
Regarding clause 21 of the rules, my thread aimed at generating discussion and comments about this issue - which it has. There has been much useful discussion in that thread.
To claim that my thread had "no aim other than to proclaim the superiority of one belief over another" is false.
I have at all times given reasoned arguments in that thread. I have not flamed my opponents. I have at all times given honest replies to objections, and have tried to support my claims with rational arguments.
Despite being called insane and a zealot and a hypocrite and the other usual kinds of insults that these discussions tend to provoke from meat eaters, I have not returned fire and gone ad hominem like some of my opponents. Nor have I requested any sanction against any participant in that thread.
There is as much reason to close my thread on vegetarianism as there would be to close a thread discussing some other controversial moral issue, such as abortion or gay marriage. However, it must be said that the content, tone and direction of any such thread is always an important factor for moderators/admins to consider.
In my opinion, this is an excellent example of the kind of discussion we ought to have on sciforums. If we can't discuss a moral dilemma like this one as mature adults then what are we here for?
E.13. Appropriate supporting evidence or explanations should be posted together with any opinion, especially on contentious issues. Sciforums is not your personal blog, and should not be used to promote your unsupported opinions. Links and references are always welcome, though a convincing argument will often do just as well or better.
----
My vegetarian thread involves much debate on both sides of the issue of meat eating vs vegetarianism.
Regarding clause 21 of the rules, my thread aimed at generating discussion and comments about this issue - which it has. There has been much useful discussion in that thread.
To claim that my thread had "no aim other than to proclaim the superiority of one belief over another" is false.
I have at all times given reasoned arguments in that thread. I have not flamed my opponents. I have at all times given honest replies to objections, and have tried to support my claims with rational arguments.
Despite being called insane and a zealot and a hypocrite and the other usual kinds of insults that these discussions tend to provoke from meat eaters, I have not returned fire and gone ad hominem like some of my opponents. Nor have I requested any sanction against any participant in that thread.
There is as much reason to close my thread on vegetarianism as there would be to close a thread discussing some other controversial moral issue, such as abortion or gay marriage. However, it must be said that the content, tone and direction of any such thread is always an important factor for moderators/admins to consider.
In my opinion, this is an excellent example of the kind of discussion we ought to have on sciforums. If we can't discuss a moral dilemma like this one as mature adults then what are we here for?
what about speculation?
for example:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2814675#post2814675
i provided the links but it's speculation on my part as to what can be made of them.
yeah, the good ol' ad hom. usually happens right before their jaw hits the ground.
to gang bang the free thoughts forum?
When facts have no inherent value ....
The staff is aware of what happens if they enforce rules against any of James' posts.
It's not a lack of balls but, rather, a recognition of futility.
What are we supposed to do? The Administrative outlook is that facts have no inherent value in this community. The staff is still trying to absorb the implications of this huge policy shift.
My recommendation to people is that they simply ignore James' trolling. Nobody is forcing anyone to participate in that useless vegesupremacist flamebait thread.
Gustav said:
The staff is aware of what happens if they enforce rules against any of James' posts.
It's not a lack of balls but, rather, a recognition of futility.
What are we supposed to do? The Administrative outlook is that facts have no inherent value in this community. The staff is still trying to absorb the implications of this huge policy shift.
My recommendation to people is that they simply ignore James' trolling. Nobody is forcing anyone to participate in that useless vegesupremacist flamebait thread.
Oh that is a crack up . I think there is an up tick in sponsors because of the new way things are going . I have seen some rumors of the rhetoric change of the over all site in the last couple months or so. Old timers on this site have hinted at this. So I speculate that traffic has become higher as of late ? Advertising has risen in value and no one wants to quite a winning horse ( Owners don't want to quite doing the things that pay there fucking water bill , how would you like your water shut off ? ) Speculation yes I know . I am a speculator so what do you expect
so is that a no?
what did tiassa's post point out? relevance to your "project"?
as for applying the same standards....sure i am all for it, but first lets establish the precedent, go to sfog with the proposed censure and allow the admins to explicitly endorse james's conduct. then we have case law to cite when they come after us
/chuckle
look....
on the basis of the proposed violations of the tos, i demand the thread be locked and a temporary ban of james until said violations are reviewed.
if there is a no fault finding, the ban could be prematurely terminated and infractions reversed
thats was how it worked for me in my most recent ban, it should thus easily be applicable to others
if you read the thread in question, it appears as if the entire community is up in arms against james's trolling. i have never seen this much opposition to any single member's rhetoric.
do you see that, varda?
how about you put your civic duties as a member of this forum to good use?
i offer you james's head in a platter and you refuse it?
/snort
no one is above the law
while that may not hold for the mods, it is what we, the community, expects.
so go forth, little grasshopper
"Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for I am the baddest mother fucker in the God damn valley"
It is tragic
I'm not certain anyone actually has system permission to execute a suspension against James. However, it's true that by the time a member got around to an argument that, taken in full, requires that black people not be equal to humans, yeah, I admit we start taking notice. But it's James, so there really isn't any point to taking notice, except perhaps to watch a train wreck in slow motion.
That's probably a slight overstatement at least, but even to the degree that people are really pissed off about this flamebait stunt, we have to remember that the fact that it's James feeds the fire.
It holds to some degree for moderators. We've dismissed some by force before.
But it doesn't hold for the administration; at least, that's what the record suggests.
In other words, expect what you will, but don't hold your breath.
I intend to continue letting James embarrass himself, the staff, and this community in general. That decision is made quite a bit easier by the proposition that it's the only realistic choice anyone on staff has.
Gustav said:
I'm not certain anyone actually has system permission to execute a suspension against James. However, it's true that by the time a member got around to an argument that, taken in full, requires that black people not be equal to humans, yeah, I admit we start taking notice. But it's James, so there really isn't any point to taking notice, except perhaps to watch a train wreck in slow motion.
That's probably a slight overstatement at least, but even to the degree that people are really pissed off about this flamebait stunt, we have to remember that the fact that it's James feeds the fire.
It holds to some degree for moderators. We've dismissed some by force before.
But it doesn't hold for the administration; at least, that's what the record suggests.
In other words, expect what you will, but don't hold your breath.
I intend to continue letting James embarrass himself, the staff, and this community in general. That decision is made quite a bit easier by the proposition that it's the only realistic choice anyone on staff has.
this is quite funny and there is not much else you can do . Oh I want to tell stories about a guy named Rich , but you know . It is true ! The powerful have to be given the rope so to speak . You can hand them the rope and then they will do what needs to be done with said rope . No one likes to be laughed at and thought of as a fool .
O.K. I think this has been insinuated . The Thread was started to create controversy as to draw attention . When you entertain good publicity is the same as bad publicity. Branding and traffic is key . Name recognition makes the consumer buy the product .
If something is boring as all get out . Like the hypotenuse of a right triangle , or historic records like a "Deed of Trust from 1812 " for the sale of the left north corner of township what ever section what ever. You get the idea . Who ? What does it matter ? Why do I care .
Now if it is controversial cat fighting with big opinions about daily routines and ruts . Think about how you meat eaters take being told you are the evil bastard earth killing heathens equivalent to a tea party-er
O.K. I think this has been insinuated . The Thread was started to create controversy as to draw attention . When you entertain good publicity is the same as bad publicity. Branding and traffic is key . Name recognition makes the consumer buy the product .
If something is boring as all get out . Like the hypotenuse of a right triangle , or historic records like a "Deed of Trust from 1812 " for the sale of the left north corner of township what ever section what ever. You get the idea . Who ? What does it matter ? Why do I care .
Now if it is controversial cat fighting with big opinions about daily routines and ruts . Think about how you meat eaters take being told you are the evil bastard earth killing heathens equivalent to a tea party-er
Though I would take pleasure in seeing JamesR receive a dose of his own medicine, it has ALWAYS been my stance that all moderation is bad, and all censorship is dumb.
Call me crazy, I was born in a military dictatorship.
Therefore, my personal pleasure aside, it's important for my integrity that I ague in favor of the "open" standard be applied. "If JamesR is not censored, nobody else should", instead of the "if everybody else is censored, so should JamesR".
If it's the best we can get, so be it.
For the reasons stated above. It's temping for me to go in that direction, for sure.
For example, I find that in many occasions, mods posting as members commit infractions that we are accused of. I find my hand reaching for the report button, but then I remember my principles and pull back. I can't curse these tools at one time, and then at another time use them. Maybe, with that explained, you'll understand what I'm doing.
Absolutely. But I don't think that this is a simple case of applying the law to all. I think this is a case of changing the law.
Again, if that is the best we can get... yes
so go forth, little grasshopper
You say hop, and I say... fuck off?
You know I only posted that to remind you to stay cool until your infractions expire, right?
I'd hate to see you go.
sometime in the future, your "vendetta" post will be cited to dismiss whatever concern i am raising at that time. as will the other quote. try to get a clue
you mean what you are not doing.
sure i understand the larger issue about censorship which is why i too am reluctant to make this an issue no matter how tempting it is.
still tho, the thread is still evolving and i haven't got an end game yet so..........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
post #23 by james is nothing but self-serving and hypocritical. it is not as if he is some disinterested observer, now, is he? it is nothing but an indication of pathology when he pronounces a verdict on events where his conduct is called into question.
witness the absolute megalomania when he asserts that others, not him, deserve to be sanctioned.
it is a classic mod troll
you bait
others bite
you ban
varda said:
you mean what you are not doing.
sure i understand the larger issue about censorship which is why i too am reluctant to make this an issue no matter how tempting it is.
still tho, the thread is still evolving and i haven't got an end game yet so..........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
post #23 by james is nothing but self-serving and hypocritical. it is not as if he is some disinterested observer, now, is he? it is nothing but an indication of pathology when he pronounces a verdict on events where his conduct is called into question.
witness the absolute megalomania when he asserts that others, not him, deserve to be sanctioned.
it is a classic mod troll
you bait
others bite
you ban
Let's take a second to note that such is a blanket defense of any and all trolling.
Begs the question of what is considered "useful" discussion.
Trolls presumably find it "useful" when they get the outcome they were fishing for. Doesn't mean they aren't trolling.
Let's note - again - that it would also be false to claim that any troll thread had "no aim other than to proclaim the superiority of" whatever belief. Because the aim of a troll thread is always first-and-foremost to provoke emotional responses and generate opportunities for flaming, snark or other types of blogsmanship. The first-order content is never the sole (or even, major) point of any episode of trolling, any more than placing bait on a hook is the point of fishing.
Indeed, this place has a lot of trouble preventing threads on any controversial issue from descending into trolling.
Kind of says it all, right there.
If that's what you consider "adult" "maturity" then, indeed, you aren't here for anything defensible.
Save the post where I took it back for when that happens.
I think no less of you for pursuing that thread. If we can't have freedom, we may as well have coherence.
However, as Tiassa keeps saying, and as I have said, JamesR will not be reprimanded, nothing will change. JamesR has carte blanche to do as he pleases.
The life of this thread is getting shorter and shorter.
What's sad is that there aren't enough members reading this.
The source you used for your OP is clearly biased against a particular belief, deliberately uses provocative language, and mis-uses terms with very specific meanings and makes them almost... Derisive.
It's one sided, insulting, inflammatory, and factually inaccurate to boot.
- Status