Removal of Tiassa as moderator

Status
Not open for further replies.
I disagree. There are members who are interested in aspects of science and have posted on it.

And this is the part you don't get: I understand that you have an opinion, but you don't seem to understand there are facts.

If you disagree that Sciforums is not a science site, take it up with the Administrator. He's had years to declare otherwise and change course, but thus far has chosen to not. But I've alraedy handed you evidence of where this discussion was even several years ago; insisting on your opinion despite the evidence to the other kind of makes the point about your reliability.
 
And this is the part you don't get: I understand that you have an opinion, but you don't seem to understand there are facts.
If you disagree that Sciforums is not a science site, take it up with the Administrator. He's had years to declare otherwise and change course, but thus far has chosen to not.
That 'SciFo is not a science site' is an opinion.
Disagreeing with that - choosing to see 'SciFo as a science site' - is also an opinion, and does not have to be "taken up with an Adminsitrator", notwithstanding specifc requests for changes. If anyone wants the site to cater more toward science, it behooves them to offer specific, actionable feedback - but that's another thread.
The Admin doesn't have to declare or redeclare anything.

But I've alraedy handed you evidence of where this discussion was even several years ago;
"Evidence" in such a case is highly subjective. (one man's evidence is another man's rhetoric.)

There is no litmus test that turns blue when dipped in a science site.

insisting on your opinion despite the evidence to the other kind of makes the point about your reliability.
Having an opinion that is contrary to someone else's does not make a point about anyone's "reliability".

You know what does speak to someone's character? Insisting that one's own view is objectively fact, and that anyone who has a different view is somehow "unreliable". And that's where you cross a line.

You know what that is? That is bullying. Knock it off please.
 
Last edited:
That 'SciFo is not a science site' is an opinion.
Interestingly, most of science could be said to be "opinion", until the point it is supported by so much evidence that it is no longer just an opinion. This would seem to be the case with Sciforums: it is no more a "science site" than it is a "religion site", or a "philosophy site", or "UFO site" etc. That is what the actual facts would seem to have a reasonable person conclude.
Disagreeing with that - choosing to see 'SciFo as a science site' - is also an opinion, and does not have to be "taken up with an Adminsitrator", notwithstanding specifc requests for changes. If anyone wants the site to cater more toward science, it behooves them to offer specific, actionable feedback - but that's another thread.
Given where the site currently is, and more importantly why it is where it is, one really should be taking it up with the Administrator, or at least the moderation team (although they would seem to be guided by the Administrator in how and where to enforce).
The Admin doesn't have to declare or redeclare anything.
I assume that the Admin sets the rules. The current Admin also chooses (at least going forward) the moderating team to enforce the rules, how to enforce them, and where. The flow of this site would thus seem to be rather dependent upon the Admin, would you not agree. The positioning of this site, it would seem, is determined to a strong degree by the Admin. If people want this site to be a "science site" then the Admin is the person who can put things (rules, people etc) in place to achieve that. If people want this site to be a more general and free discussion site of pretty much any topic then, again, it is the Admin who can put things in place to achieve that. Or not change things, as the case may be.
Whether one proposes specific, actionable feedback is neither here nor there. Indicating a preference for direction of travel should be sufficient, with the Admin then making changes to arrive there in due course, if that is where they want to go. They can decide for themselves how to get there if they want, or look for ideas from among the membership (although there is no need for that).
"Evidence" in such a case is highly subjective. (one man's evidence is another man's rhetoric.)
But facts are still facts. What they want to use those facts for, what they deem as as "evidence" for, is up to them.
There is no litmus test that turns blue when dipped in a science site.
Sure. This site could be considered a "science site" that barely discusses science and instead has members more willing to discuss philosophy, religion, UFOs, internal squabbles etc. But then that would be like calling a health site a "chocolate site" because they happen to have threads to discuss chocolate, wouldn't it? Or do you think having allusions to "science" in the web address is somehow sufficient?
Having an opinion that is contrary to someone else's does not make a point about anyone's "reliability".
At some point even die-hards have to acknowledge the current status of the site. Just because the forum "rules" give primacy to the scientific method only means something if that is actually adhered to in the discussions, and enforced by the moderation team. But it isn't. In the science forums perhaps, but then when the science forums make up such a small part of the traffic it rather relegates the adherance to "science" to a side-bar. At some point the facts of this site have to be recognised. And when they are not, does that not speak to reliability?
You know what does speak to someone's character? Insisting that one's own view is objectively fact, and that anyone who has a different view is somehow "unreliable". And that's where you cross a line.
Ignoring the obvious, ignoring the wealth of data, ignoring what is in front of your eyes, also speaks to character. Please don't forget that.
You know what that is? That is bullying. Knock it off please.
It's nothing like bullying. All Tiassa is doing is being assertive about, and confident of, the information available, and coming to a conclusion about your character as a result. That speaks, as far as he is concerned, to the worth/reliability of your "opinion", which you admit is all you have, right?
Either way, accusations of bullying are not helpful in the slightest, and demean legitimate cases of it. To accuse him of bullying here is to say that any negative thought/conclusion we make about someone is bullying. And that, frankly, is absurd. I get that this is hate-on-Tiassa week/month/year/decade/millennium, and I get that you may not like what he says, but not liking what he says doesn't make it bullying. Or maybe you think I am also bullying you here?
 
Interestingly, most of science could be said to be "opinion", until the point it is supported by so much evidence that it is no longer just an opinion.
To be clear, we are all entitled to our opinion. Tiassa is; I am, and so is Pinball. We can all even disagree. I'm not objecting to Tiassa having his viewpoint on what the site is or isn't.He can assert it as confidently as he wishes.

Pretending there is an objective line that divides what are unequivocally science sites from unequivocally non-science sites, and that Tiassa alone knows where that line is, OK that's all a little self-aggrandizing, but still not worthy of a Point of Order.

(In fact, Tiassa's demotion can be seen as a pretty strong indicator that he does not have his finger on the pulse of the site, and is not in sole possession of the relevant facts about what the site might or might not be. His demotion would better to be taken as a sign that he is out-of-touch with what the site is or isn't, else he would not have been removed.)

Regardless, impugning a member's character because he doesn't see it the same way - that's a step too far. Members should not be shut down for having opinions about things which have no right or wrong answer.

Again, there is no litmus test that will turn blue when this site is dipped in it.

All Tiassa is doing is being assertive about, and confident of, the information available, and coming to a conclusion about your character as a resPjnbult.
Pinball's character, to be exact.

That speaks, as far as he is concerned, to the worth/reliability of your "opinion", which you admit is all you have, right?
He is trying to shut someone down for having the temerity to have a different opinion about a matter that is only opinion in the first place - that is an attempt to bully someone into silence.

It would be like me impugning your character for deigning to disagree with me that "the best colour is teal".
After all,
"Here's what you don't get."
"I've given you all the evidence."
"if you don't agree with me, it speaks to your reliability."

It's OK to shut someone down when they speak falsehood or gibberish.
It's not OK to shut someone down by impugning their character when they speak their opinion on something that is as mercurial as "is this a science site"?

At some point even die-hards have to acknowledge the current status of the site. Just because the forum "rules" give primacy to the scientific method only means something if that is actually adhered to in the discussions, and enforced by the moderation team.

At some point the facts of this site have to be recognised. And when they are not, does that not speak to reliability?
What "facts", exactly? What "facts" will cause the litmus paper to turn blue?

There is no need to answer this. The point is made. Whether a site (that has multiple science fora) "is" or "is not" a science site is a question that has no definitively objective answer.


Either way, accusations of bullying are not helpful in the slightest,
It is helpful if it gets such behavior to stop.

That's all that needs to be taken away from this, really. The rest is rhetoric.
 
Last edited:
Some "socialization" occurs among the members and they tend to get along to one degree or the other. That's rarely the case with James or Tiassa, wouldn't you agree?

.... Most of us get along with each other to one degree or another. Tiassa and James seem to get along with no one.
That's just your own bias. You hold grudges against both Tiassa and myself, so it's no surprise that you want to pretend that neither of us gets along with anybody else. The problem's obviously nothing to do with you - it's all our fault. Because, like, it couldn't possibly be you, could it?
 
I think participating is fine, just not dominating it. The Crypto thread is a good example. All the talk about ridiculous standards of revealing vested interests such as "did someone pay you to say this", "how much crypto do you have" "you have a vested interest because comments on this forum may move the price of Bitcoin". All that is just beyond the pale.
You're still shipping your baggage around about that? Sarkus recently told me that he's over it, although it doesn't seem like he is. Have you two been sharing your gripes about it, or something? Or is it just a coincidence that you suddenly want to dredge up that piece of ancient history again?
 
You're still shipping your baggage around about that? Sarkus recently told me that he's over it, although it doesn't seem like he is. Have you two been sharing your gripes about it, or something? Or is it just a coincidence that you suddenly want to dredge up that piece of ancient history again?
Why don't you let it go. Do you get along with anyone on this forum, other than Dave? You still shipping that baggage around?
 
Last edited:
Sure. This site could be considered a "science site" that barely discusses science and instead has members more willing to discuss philosophy, religion, UFOs, internal squabbles

That part I do agree with but it does not mean it has to stay that way unless members want it to.
I discussed threads with a member early doors, lack of interaction and activity on the science sub forums. I was not here at the beginning or seen the changes over the years.

I do not think there is anything wrong with trying to jump start that part of the site.
If members are not as interested then so be it.

I will at the very least feedback on the Tegmark paper a little.
 
Sarkus recently told me that he's over it, although it doesn't seem like he is.
I'm fairly sure that it is against site rules, James R, to reveal matters discussed in PM, is it not (without the other's permission, at least)? Please apologise for this lapse on your part, and please refrain from doing so again. Or are we to now assume that the contents of PMs are free to use in public as we see fit?

To then use that private discussion to make public insinuations about me is, as you have previously acknowledged, also to be frowned upon, is it not? Please also apologise for this lapse on your part, and please refrain from doing so again.

Thanks
 
Yes, I noted my error in referring to "you". Apologies for that slip.
Yes I'm the dodgy one ;)

Easy solution for me is I stick to threads I like, it's no issue at all.
I am interested in Biblical scholarship too and will even venture into politics if Trump does something crazy and someone posts a thread on it.
"A bit of everything site" is interesting enough (with a dash of Biology, a slither of physics, a morsal of chemistry and lashings of mathematics of course)
 
Last edited:
Well, some of that looks weird although I spotted a bass drum peddle.
I spelt morsal wrong, that is what happened.
It is not as bad as the time I spelt Planck wrong on a physics site.
That was a rough time.
I thought you might be from Canada which might explain the wrong spelling(they are so close)
I see from your profile that you aren't .So you get nuls points this time.

Edit "nuls points" is not even french it seems.
https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/nul-points.2541685/
 
Interestingly, most of science could be said to be "opinion", until the point it is supported by so much evidence that it is no longer just an opinion. This would seem to be the case with Sciforums: it is no more a "science site" than it is a "religion site", or a "philosophy site", or "UFO site" etc. That is what the actual facts would seem to have a reasonable person conclude. [...]

It may only be a "correction site" with respect to the science. Since most activity in the latter area seems spurred by eccentrics challenging established explanations, knowledge, and theories.

There seems very little interest in discussing and evaluating new science developments, except when an individual (again) deemed a "crank" wields or borrows such as part of their agenda.

Additionally, the potential "workshop" function of a science forum seems absent or threadbare. Although there may have been a semiregular stream of "students" passing by in the past aided by pedagogic members long vanished. But having a flux of eager novices is arguably up to extraneous factors (i.e., beyond a site's control).
_
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top