Member Contribution Analysis: A Case Study

[DaveC426913]

Yes.
No data called in support an agenda opinion here.

Data does not judge; it merely informs. Only the ignorant fear raw data.
And there is nothing in the chart that is not publicly available to all.

Off-topicality is definitely germane to this thread. It has garnered moderation for such more than once.

Adding these posts to request for re-assignment.

 

[Musika]

Data does not judge; it merely informs. Only the ignorant fear raw data.
.

The problem here is that you are designating data as "raw" that is completely in pursuit of JamesR's sense of merit (aka "judgment") and that is totally oblivious to the social dynamic of online discussions (what do you get if you have 90% of atheists making 25% of the off topic posts?). And to top it off, you cite it to support your judgement.

.

And there is nothing in the chart that is not publicly available to all.
.

Much like poorly thought questions designed to support one's bias, and a type of willful ignorance regarding how online discussions operate is also in the public arena.

.

Off-topicality is definitely germane to this thread. It has garnered moderation for such more than once.
.

So who's fault is that?
Oh wait, we have a graph to show us!!

.

Adding these posts to request for re-assignment.

Of all the meta-discussions one could choose to engage in regarding this thead, you choose this one ...

 

[DaveC426913]

The problem here is that you are designating data as "raw" that is completely in pursuit of JamesR's sense of merit (aka "judgment")

Indeed. That is exactly what the charts says it is, and no more.
If you've got an issue with a moderator's judgment call, take it up with a moderator.

So who's fault is that?
Oh wait, we have a graph to show us!!

Precisely!

Of all the meta-discussions one could choose to engage in regarding this thead ...

Actually, you chose it, by giving it far, far more attention than I could have alone.
It's clearly pretty important to you.

 

[Musika]

Indeed. That is exactly what the charts says it is, and no more.

.
... yet you say ....

Precisely!

The issue is not with the moderation.
The issue is with your your guile in the name of data fiddling.

 

[DaveC426913]

The issue is with your your guile in the name of data fiddling.

This is a vacuous assertion.

The data shows exactly what it says it shows. But of course, before making such an assertion, you have examined the data and identified something you will now show has been fiddled with.

Otherwise, it is more than vacuous; it is a lie. You wouldn't lie would you? Good. Pony up.

This data thread of mine is getting quite the attention. Look at all the posts!


Or, hey - make it all go away by providing evidence that God exists. Then we'll all have egg on our faces.

 

[Musika]

This is a vacuous assertion.

You say it doesn't come with an agenda, and then pile on the agenda (because, hey, data has no agenda, right?).

The data shows exactly what it says it shows. But of course, before making such an assertion, you have examined the data and identified something you will now show has been fiddled with.

Um.
Then you cite the "data" to label "precisely" who's "fault" it is for being "off topic", and this all supports the claim that God is not "real".

You might need another special chart to keep track of all the type I and type II errors within this schlockery alone ...

Or, hey - make it all go away by providing evidence that God exists. Then we'll all have egg on our faces.

Between dumbing down God to an superfluous state and relegating all discussion about self-imposed limitations of an atheistic agenda to "off-topic", you don't leave too much space for such provisions.

 

[DaveC426913]

Then you cite the "data" to label "precisely" who's "fault" it is for being "off topic", and this all supports the claim that God is not "real".

I never said that. I never implied it. The data doesn't imply it either.

The chart is nothing more than an indication of the behavior of a collection of SciFo contributors. Which is exactly what it says it is.
This thread is a good subject for analysis, for reasons I mention explicitly in the OP.

And that's why it's a separate thread. And why it's in the 'About the Members' forum, where it belongs. That's how you science.

You are welcome to analyze the data yourself. That's the beauty of publicly available data.

Between dumbing down God to an superfluous state

If I can actually do that, apparently I have a lot of power. And apparently there's nothing you can do about it?

and relegating all discussion about self-imposed limitations of an atheistic agenda to "off-topic",

I haven't relegated anything. Your criticism is misdirected.

you don't leave too much space for such provisions.

That ... pretty much sounds like you're saying you've been backed into a corner. What are you asking for? Mercy? Special pleading?

 

[Musika]

I never said that. I never implied it. The data doesn't imply it either.

Repeatedly saying you are not doing it and repeatedly failing to refrain from doing it are two completely different things.

The chart is nothing more than an indication of the behavior of a collection of SciFo contributors. Which is exactly what it says it is.
This thread is a good subject for analysis, for reasons I mention explicitly in the OP.

Which you then proceed to cite to support your agenda. Case in point where you introduced the topic to this thread. If it is so meta that it bears no weight under this OP (as you repeatedly insist, despite constant behavior to the contrary), why the hell introduce it?

And that's why it's a separate thread. And why it's in the 'About the Members' forum, where it belongs. That's how you science.

Yet you decided to conjoin it here. How is that for submitting the scientific process to your own pathology?

If I can actually do that, apparently I have a lot of power. And apparently there's nothing you can do about it?

Such is the power of schlockery.

I haven't relegated anything. Your criticism is misdirected.

.... and yet you say ...

That ... pretty much sounds like you're saying you've been backed into a corner. What are you asking for? Mercy? Special pleading?

Backed in to a corner with what exactly? Your carbon footprint free agenda mongering in the guise of data schlockery?