Moderator for the Cesspool?
- Thread starter Athelwulf
- Start date
- Status
I would vote for Lou, but it say to keep a loose reign on the threads. like only the sickening ones. thats my comment for today. :m:
Intelligent posts should be censored from the cesspool, and thrown unceremoniously into the righteous end of the pool. So yes, we need a vigilant cop, who will enforce strict silliness here.
tiassa said:
blabla.
At least I have a PhD.
You'll find I don't differ much with you on this issue.
If I were to become cesspool moderator, my goal would be to transform the cesspool into a place you don't want your thread to end up. A kind of hell for sciforums. A punishment for inadequacy.
I have a dream, that one day users will be sweating over the content of the thread they are creating, hoping dearly that it makes the cut and avoids being cesspooled.
My dream encompasses your desires, by being the most horrible moderator at sciforums.com, I will in effect whip sciforums into shape.
People are animals tiassa, they behave in the way that gives them the greatest reward, we can whine about the problems with sciforums untill the cows come home, but that won't get us anywhere. To remove mediocrity (and sub-mediocrity) we need to make the act of producing it unappealing to the users by punishing them when they do. Right now it is being rewarded. The rats are having their little inane discussions unchecked down in the sewer and gaining pleasure from them. A moderator with a keen eye could put an end to that.
I will allow, disgusting, bizarre, unethical discussions to remain as long as they are worthwhile real discussions. Threads like "playboy bunny" will be raped and then closed to ensure those involved are deterred from behaving in that manner again.
The board will essentially be cleansed of crap, and probably crappy people once they realise nothing they are capable of typing is good enough. Inappropriate threads will filter down to the cesspool, the surreal humour spurious is talking about and other disgusting or wrong content (which is still intelligent) will find a home, that which truely opposes the "intelligent community" concept to the extreme, will be flushed.
Discussions about stereotypically infantile topics don't need to be infantile. I think thats what spurious was getting at. Not simply that infantile behaviour is automatically genius and hilarious.
One of the most intelligent, original, thought provoking tv shows I ever saw involved vomit, feces, and people eating both of those things.
The headlining act at a spirituaity festival was the unveiling of a bowl of spaghetti that looked like jesus christ. Someone got high at the rastafarian booth and then ate the spaghetti jesus before it was revealed to the public, so that person was forced to vomit. Then there was a vomit jesus, which was worshipped. The lights cut out and the vomit jesus is gone, and a man is standing there with vomit all over his face. And everyone's like "what the hell is wrong with you?" and he's like "hey you didn't make a big deal about the girl who ate the spaghetti". After being asked to vomit it back out he explains that he was born without the ability to vomit and so he shits it out whilst commanding people to kick him in the stomach. Then he looks at it and is like "this beautifull thing came from me?" and everyone worships the fecal jesus. Then the lights cut out and the fecal jesus is gone, there's a big uproar again but this time a man who looks suspiciously like jesus appears on the stage and everyone goes silent. He explains that you won't find jesus in spaghetti, or vomit or feces, and that jesus is in all of our hearts. To which everyone looks kind of ashamed over how they've been acting. This jesus character kisses the man who was running the spaghetti jesus display and leaves shit marks on his face, then looks around nervously with a big beard of feces, revealing that he's just some nut who ate the fecal jesus.
And he is then chased around the neighbourhood while benny hill music plays and the credits roll. Is this not brilliant? Just because there's lots of shit and vomit and ridiculousness?
Too bad nobody likes you.
*Bows down to Lou*
I think he has my vote when a moderator for the cesspool would be installed.
I think he has my vote when a moderator for the cesspool would be installed.
Tiassa,
I think you greatly underestimate the need for SF to have a cesspool. You can have an “intelligent” conversation on any topic including “how to wipe your ass” or “why muslims or jews should be killed”. Who are you (or anyone else for that matter) to judge something to be not “intelligent”. Just look at some topics posted in the philosophy section – there’s a fine line between intelligence and stupidity. I welcome all stupid, racist, and “unintelligent” posts properly moderated to control language and personal attacks. Sciforums should be a microcosm of the real world and not be a segregated group of the “intelligent” elite. We scientists learn more from observation than from instruction. I’d like to witness and judge “shit” first hand.
Also, no one person, moderator, or god should make the decision to dump any thread into the cesspool. Threads should be voted into the cesspool.
I think you greatly underestimate the need for SF to have a cesspool. You can have an “intelligent” conversation on any topic including “how to wipe your ass” or “why muslims or jews should be killed”. Who are you (or anyone else for that matter) to judge something to be not “intelligent”. Just look at some topics posted in the philosophy section – there’s a fine line between intelligence and stupidity. I welcome all stupid, racist, and “unintelligent” posts properly moderated to control language and personal attacks. Sciforums should be a microcosm of the real world and not be a segregated group of the “intelligent” elite. We scientists learn more from observation than from instruction. I’d like to witness and judge “shit” first hand.
Also, no one person, moderator, or god should make the decision to dump any thread into the cesspool. Threads should be voted into the cesspool.
No, thats not abrupt enough. I like the idea of people "finding" that their thread has been cesspooled. I see potential there. But what the cesspool actually harbours needs to be more specific, and straight up crap needs to be removed from the site outright, via the cesspool.
(the thread "playboy bunny" really needs to be seen by those not sure of exactly what straight up crap is, it's really something)
OMG, I just got an idea. Every single playboybunny-esque thread could be merged together to form 1 sticky thread named "how not to be".
"That has already been accomplished without a moderator."
I find amusing the idea of a moderator whose sole duty is to mock and insult those whose posts are moved to his board.
Myself, I'd sooner we'd just deleted the cesspool and closed all threads that would be sent there. Anyone who started more than three cesspool-sent threads within x amount of time would be banned.
But Lou's idea is good. If we have a cesspool, he should mod it.
I find amusing the idea of a moderator whose sole duty is to mock and insult those whose posts are moved to his board.
Myself, I'd sooner we'd just deleted the cesspool and closed all threads that would be sent there. Anyone who started more than three cesspool-sent threads within x amount of time would be banned.
But Lou's idea is good. If we have a cesspool, he should mod it.
If I were to become cesspool moderator, my goal would be to transform the cesspool into a place you don't want your thread to end up. A kind of hell for sciforums. A punishment for inadequacy.
I don't know about that. I prefer sleezy bars to nice bars.
i think it would be a travestly of justice to not place me as moderator in the cesspool.
let me put it this way:
i read everything in there.
i make most of it.
i know what is trully awful.
i dont have a dream, cause dreams are idilliyc (which is what the cesspool should not be), i dont want to transform the pool into somewhere you cant spend a minute in, otherwise why not just delete everything and be done with it... i can however, use my excessive skill, and absence of discretion, to maintain a good level of disgust and overall tarnish to the place that would give the correct atmosphere. i do not believe. i do not believe the purpose of the pool should be to throw up into, it should be to piss about in, to enjoy yourself, and not be constrained by people wanting to have a proper discussion, or something awful like that.
i can be fair, unfair, biased or not, and frankly kick lous ass at anything he says he can do. times a million.
and yes, this speech is shoddy, but im running for the pool. this is what the essence of the pool is. i feel the heartbeat of the beast.
VOTE LU, HELL... sorry HE'LL MAKE THE CESSPOOL THE PLACE YOU WANT IT, (OR DONT AS THE CASE WILL BE-- SIC...dam
^^^ see the goodness???
let me put it this way:
i read everything in there.
i make most of it.
i know what is trully awful.
i dont have a dream, cause dreams are idilliyc (which is what the cesspool should not be), i dont want to transform the pool into somewhere you cant spend a minute in, otherwise why not just delete everything and be done with it... i can however, use my excessive skill, and absence of discretion, to maintain a good level of disgust and overall tarnish to the place that would give the correct atmosphere. i do not believe. i do not believe the purpose of the pool should be to throw up into, it should be to piss about in, to enjoy yourself, and not be constrained by people wanting to have a proper discussion, or something awful like that.
i can be fair, unfair, biased or not, and frankly kick lous ass at anything he says he can do. times a million.
and yes, this speech is shoddy, but im running for the pool. this is what the essence of the pool is. i feel the heartbeat of the beast.
VOTE LU, HELL... sorry HE'LL MAKE THE CESSPOOL THE PLACE YOU WANT IT, (OR DONT AS THE CASE WILL BE-- SIC...dam
^^^ see the goodness???
dsdsds said:
Whatever.
Theoretically, yes.
A moderator.
Indeed there is.
What would you prefer? A legion of forty moderators or a massive sweepstakes in which maybe a hundred people take a permanent vacation in the first round?
"Properly moderating" every post will require more human resources than we presently have, largely because we have long-accepted that people are or will be stupid from time to time, and they have the right to be.
Start an SFOG petition, then, to change the motto from "intelligent community" to "Celebrate your stupidity!"
What would you like to observe? The coddling of the stupid? There are "laboratories" designed specifically for that.
So apply to be a moderator next time it comes up. Of course, there's nothing preventing you from reading topics and having an opinion as it is.
Think about that logistically.
I mean, between "witness" and "judge", ought there not come some notion of "think"?
Here's a simple question: If the majority of people in your home decided it should be so, would you accept them skipping the bathroom and just squeezing one off on the carpet?
I'm aware of the need for the Cesspool; I was around when it was created.
We were caught off-guard, I admit, when the throngs rushed to celebrate their own shittiest aspects. However, having realized the degree of outright idiocy worshipped and aspired to by so many of our members, we have taken some measures against it. The next measure--suspending posting in the Cesspool, pretty much will render it useless so that we might as well get rid of it.
In the meantime, it seems that the dung beetles aren't happy unless the whole world is shite. And this is Sciforums, an/the "intelligent community". This is not Poopyworld, "the land of a million lowly aspirations".
For instance, watch what comes next.
(Expletive)-worship?
Airavata
I agree, entirely. But that's part of the larger problem. Had I my druthers, and the human resources to accomplish it, that line would never have come up because the discussion would never have reached that far.
• "I'm fucking fed up with him chasing away all the fucking scientists."
• "That has nothing to do with our social skills. It has to do with not being interested in discussing science in kindergarten."
• "Could you even imagine that 2 trained biologists agree because they were right and you were wrong?"
The above come from within the first fifty or so responses to the recent topic contesting WCF's moderator position.
It all adds up to a mere appeal to authority: PhD = correct.
Spurious even follows those remarks up by posting an irrational argument:
• "how interesting . . . . Your answer to complaints is to do an IP search instead of looking at the validity of the complaints."
What he finds "interesting" has absolutely nothing to do with the point he's responding to. Nothing whatsoever.
Having advised Spurious that his response was disingenuous, he asked if that was an assumption. I provided what seemed like a rational response, to which he responded:
• "aren't we in an ad hominem attack mode today"
His response to reiteration of the points he overlooked was:
• "Don't bother. You bore me."
He continues to flee any rational discussion in favor of his attitude problem:
• "The case is presented in the beginning. Unlike you I don't feel the need to reiterate the same point over and over until the other person gives up.
get a mouse with a scroll wheel and scroll to the beginning of the thread."
Spurious concedes in that argument that he is either unwilling or incapable of addressing the rational arguments in the topic. He insists on the initial case without giving any consideration to the valid counterpoints. To this trained scientist, rational argument of fact is not part of what he does.
He even continues, responding to WCF's observation of Spurious' fears that WCF is chasing away scientists:
• "I don't fear anything. You scare scientists away."
I mean, there's two lies right there: he has expressed a fear that WCF is chasing scientists away from Sciforums, and right there he has felt the need to simply reiterate a point without demonstrating his case, which is the behavior he projects onto others in order to maintain his anemic--nearly ghostly--argumentative position.
• "I was of the opinion that you should stop being an asshole towards every scientists that comes to this forum."
You know, maybe if he could make a more substantial case about this, he wouldn't have to reiterate it over and over in the hopes of convincing someone without any real evidence. Most unscientific, indeed.
And when challenged on his argumentative position and approach, what does the "trained scientist" say?
• "I really don't give a fuck about argumentation."
Additionally, that post concedes that he's not even reading what he's responding to. (Check the content of the quote bloc.)
Spurious seems to be undergoing a legitimate phase of questioning his identity, as shown in his August topic about "Higher moral standards for scientist(s)".
This topic is intriguing in this aspect because it characterizes the problem Spurious appears to be having: He wants to stand on the credibility of his education and degree while behaving and arguing in a manner that does not reflect it. It's sort of the equivalent of an argument we hear about police or clergy: we're supposed to respect them even when they're disrespectful or even downright villainous. Some police officers get away with murder, yet it is somehow offensive to raise the issue even when it's legitimate? We are supposed to see the clergy as virtuous, but as The Vatican has shown, it is considered impolite by some to inquire about the truth. Police officers are supposed to uphold the law; clergy are supposed to maintain virtue according to God. In both cases, this is the credibility of their authority. A scientist? If a scientist wants to be respected for his or her scientific credentials, the scientist ought to maintain the respectability of being a scientist. Irrational arguments and horsepucky are certainly human, but if one then demands that shite to be respected because they're a "trained scientist"?
Give me a freakin' break.
So Spurious enters this topic:
• "I'm getting a bit fed up with the intelligence argument. Humour is a clear sign of intelligence. Surreal humour even more so."
Now, that's a very vague generalization, as I pointed out with my "genius" chicken joke. Not all humor is intelligent. I even went so far assert an overstatement of the content in the Cesspool (e.g. humor), and in my next post, provided a list of topic titles and invited advice on how those topics represent "a clear sign of intelligence" and even argued how I think they don't.
Faced with a rational argument, Spurious once again shows his scientific credentials:
• "blabla. At least I have a PhD."
Again, a childish appeal to authority in order to avoid rational consideration.
Hence, we arrive at the stinger you noted, Airavata. As I noted to Spurious,
Now, I won't pretend it's not a hard shot. I won't pretend it's not aimed at the jewels. But neither will I pretend that the line lacks legitimacy in the face of the standard he's set for his PhD. Standing on his credentials as a "trained scientist", Spurious has shown a hatred of rational discussion and expects his PhD to be given carte blanche respect.
The real question is whether the school that awarded him the degree taught him such contempt for the rational, hatred of the observable, and disrespect for communication, or whether they simply failed to teach him against it?
If what he shows is the credibility of his PhD, I think what I wrote is absolutely fair and very possibly correct.
Now, does that mean the discussion has not degraded on that point? I don't see how it does indicate a lack of degradation. However, to what degree would you propose we award credibility to those who claim specialized training but refuse to show any of it while celebrating its antithesis?
So the larger problem is a matter of how to keep things from getting "out of hand". As the recent uproar over a couple of bannings indicates, people get very unhappy if moderation enters the fray before things get out of hand.
So what happens if we do enter the fray before things get out of hand? Well, personally, I would respect people's right to profanity, but would stomp down on intellectual dishonesty. Because it's the dishonesty that inflames the passions of otherwise-intelligent posters. And Sciforums has always permitted that frustration and intensity. However, it's a difficult routine for some, and what they want is the right to have no point whatsoever and go about spraying shite on the walls.
The real challenge is to prevent the intellectual dishonesty that clamors for so much respect in order to drag topics down to frustration. But that would upset the masses even more than asking them to be coherent or give a reasonably convincing appearance of intelligence.
I admit, I actually enjoyed slamming Spurious' PhD on that occasion. Really, had he not made it such an issue, or at least not made such a point of screaming like an an angry illiterate, such a stinger would never have come about. When circumstance presents an opportunity like that, and the reality of the stinger outweighs the distortion, one should seriously consider taking the opportunity.
So while I agree with you, Airavata, I must also use your point as a springboard to the general reminder that the task is to keep things from sinking to the level of warranting the Cesspool. I would call the idea of a Cesspool moderator a proposal for a "Minister of Vice", but such titles are usually intended for the fight against vice, and not its elevation to intellectual legitimacy.
Airavata
I agree, entirely. But that's part of the larger problem. Had I my druthers, and the human resources to accomplish it, that line would never have come up because the discussion would never have reached that far.
• "I'm fucking fed up with him chasing away all the fucking scientists."
• "That has nothing to do with our social skills. It has to do with not being interested in discussing science in kindergarten."
• "Could you even imagine that 2 trained biologists agree because they were right and you were wrong?"
It all adds up to a mere appeal to authority: PhD = correct.
Spurious even follows those remarks up by posting an irrational argument:
• "how interesting . . . . Your answer to complaints is to do an IP search instead of looking at the validity of the complaints."
Having advised Spurious that his response was disingenuous, he asked if that was an assumption. I provided what seemed like a rational response, to which he responded:
• "aren't we in an ad hominem attack mode today"
• "Don't bother. You bore me."
• "The case is presented in the beginning. Unlike you I don't feel the need to reiterate the same point over and over until the other person gives up.
get a mouse with a scroll wheel and scroll to the beginning of the thread."
He even continues, responding to WCF's observation of Spurious' fears that WCF is chasing away scientists:
• "I don't fear anything. You scare scientists away."
• "I was of the opinion that you should stop being an asshole towards every scientists that comes to this forum."
And when challenged on his argumentative position and approach, what does the "trained scientist" say?
• "I really don't give a fuck about argumentation."
Spurious seems to be undergoing a legitimate phase of questioning his identity, as shown in his August topic about "Higher moral standards for scientist(s)".
This topic is intriguing in this aspect because it characterizes the problem Spurious appears to be having: He wants to stand on the credibility of his education and degree while behaving and arguing in a manner that does not reflect it. It's sort of the equivalent of an argument we hear about police or clergy: we're supposed to respect them even when they're disrespectful or even downright villainous. Some police officers get away with murder, yet it is somehow offensive to raise the issue even when it's legitimate? We are supposed to see the clergy as virtuous, but as The Vatican has shown, it is considered impolite by some to inquire about the truth. Police officers are supposed to uphold the law; clergy are supposed to maintain virtue according to God. In both cases, this is the credibility of their authority. A scientist? If a scientist wants to be respected for his or her scientific credentials, the scientist ought to maintain the respectability of being a scientist. Irrational arguments and horsepucky are certainly human, but if one then demands that shite to be respected because they're a "trained scientist"?
Give me a freakin' break.
So Spurious enters this topic:
• "I'm getting a bit fed up with the intelligence argument. Humour is a clear sign of intelligence. Surreal humour even more so."
Faced with a rational argument, Spurious once again shows his scientific credentials:
• "blabla. At least I have a PhD."
Hence, we arrive at the stinger you noted, Airavata. As I noted to Spurious,
Too bad they didn't teach you anything before they gave it to you.
Now, I won't pretend it's not a hard shot. I won't pretend it's not aimed at the jewels. But neither will I pretend that the line lacks legitimacy in the face of the standard he's set for his PhD. Standing on his credentials as a "trained scientist", Spurious has shown a hatred of rational discussion and expects his PhD to be given carte blanche respect.
The real question is whether the school that awarded him the degree taught him such contempt for the rational, hatred of the observable, and disrespect for communication, or whether they simply failed to teach him against it?
If what he shows is the credibility of his PhD, I think what I wrote is absolutely fair and very possibly correct.
Now, does that mean the discussion has not degraded on that point? I don't see how it does indicate a lack of degradation. However, to what degree would you propose we award credibility to those who claim specialized training but refuse to show any of it while celebrating its antithesis?
So the larger problem is a matter of how to keep things from getting "out of hand". As the recent uproar over a couple of bannings indicates, people get very unhappy if moderation enters the fray before things get out of hand.
So what happens if we do enter the fray before things get out of hand? Well, personally, I would respect people's right to profanity, but would stomp down on intellectual dishonesty. Because it's the dishonesty that inflames the passions of otherwise-intelligent posters. And Sciforums has always permitted that frustration and intensity. However, it's a difficult routine for some, and what they want is the right to have no point whatsoever and go about spraying shite on the walls.
The real challenge is to prevent the intellectual dishonesty that clamors for so much respect in order to drag topics down to frustration. But that would upset the masses even more than asking them to be coherent or give a reasonably convincing appearance of intelligence.
I admit, I actually enjoyed slamming Spurious' PhD on that occasion. Really, had he not made it such an issue, or at least not made such a point of screaming like an an angry illiterate, such a stinger would never have come about. When circumstance presents an opportunity like that, and the reality of the stinger outweighs the distortion, one should seriously consider taking the opportunity.
So while I agree with you, Airavata, I must also use your point as a springboard to the general reminder that the task is to keep things from sinking to the level of warranting the Cesspool. I would call the idea of a Cesspool moderator a proposal for a "Minister of Vice", but such titles are usually intended for the fight against vice, and not its elevation to intellectual legitimacy.
Last edited:
I agree that deciding when to apply mod force is a tricky question - subjective. The Cesspool is anyway a place for decadents; threads i mean, so shifting them there and then editing or altering them should be okay.
This line is quite classic I must admit.
This line is quite classic I must admit.
- Status