Request for Input - Warnings, Bans, and Rules

[Seattle]

That would require a mission statement... Something I've been asking about for a while, and never really gotten a straight answer too.

Maybe the mission statement is to provide a forum for whimsy and nonsense to balance out the cold, hard reality of other sites? Or, to provide a site with limited viewership and contribution where moderation will not be required to any great degree?

 

[Kittamaru]

Maybe the mission statement is to provide a forum for whimsy and nonsense to balance out the cold, hard reality of other sites? Or, to provide a site with limited viewership and contribution where moderation will not be required to any great degree?

If that's the case, then our rules are in dire need of updating... Which is fine, just needs to be done.

 

[James R]

Judging by the lack of response to the poll here, most members aren't too concerned about the warnings/ban rules.

 

[Seattle]

Judging by the lack of response to the poll here, most members aren't too concerned about the warnings/ban rules.

Seven people responded. That's about half of all active posters. I'd say more people didn't respond because there is already another poll where half responding said to leave everything alone and half said to remove the fringe section and religion.

I don't think anyone actually thinks anything is going to be done anyway so that's the larger reason.

 

[Magical Realist]

Judging by the lack of response to the poll here, most members aren't too concerned about the warnings/ban rules.

The poll is quite clear. Now are you mods actually going to start doing your jobs and moderate ad homs and insults like you're supposed to?

 

[river]

To me , the insults , the , character assassinations , prevalent in many threads is a disappointment to me .

Rather than discussing the content , ideas etc . Of the thread ; it becomes a defensive position , by the theorist .

I think that this site can be a better .

I think that rather than attacking , which seems is the attitude of the science community as a whole , that this site can be an example of not taking the attack position .

Rather , take the attitude of , explain further . With calm and thought .

 

[Kittamaru]

To me , the insults , the , character assassinations , prevalent in many threads is a disappointment to me .

Rather than discussing the content , ideas etc . Of the thread ; it becomes a defensive position , by the theorist .

I think that this site can be a better .

I think that rather than attacking , which seems is the attitude of the science community as a whole , that this site can be an example of not taking the attack position .

Rather , take the attitude of , explain further . With calm and thought .

On has to ask, though - when multiple requests for evidence and/or explanation go unanswered; when multiple attempts to show why a thought process is demonstrably flawed results in the other party simply going "lol nope" and restating their position as fact; when attempts to engage in rational discussion result in the other party, backed into a corner, utilizing fallacy, personal attacks, and other "poor debate" tactics... what is the "science community" to do?

I guess they could simply disengage entirely (which, in general, seems to be what is happening, given the number of science-minded folk that have simply given up on SciFo) and leave the "theorists" to their hollow victories?

 

[exchemist]

On has to ask, though - when multiple requests for evidence and/or explanation go unanswered; when multiple attempts to show why a thought process is demonstrably flawed results in the other party simply going "lol nope" and restating their position as fact; when attempts to engage in rational discussion result in the other party, backed into a corner, utilizing fallacy, personal attacks, and other "poor debate" tactics... what is the "science community" to do?

I guess they could simply disengage entirely (which, in general, seems to be what is happening, given the number of science-minded folk that have simply given up on SciFo) and leave the "theorists" to their hollow victories?

I think that is right. It is supposed to be a discussion forum and for that one needs people with a reasonable capacity to have a discussion. That requires not only an ability to address issues rather than personalities, but also an ability to take in the points made by their interlocutors and respond to those points. Without both of these, there is no discussion but merely a reiteration of starting positions. Individuals who have proved themselves incapable of either have only themselves to blame for the low repute in which they are held.

The best discussions are those in which several parties actually learn from each other and a more nuanced synthesis of ideas emerges at the end. These are quite rare on this forum but not unknown.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

I was thinking about the banning of people today and how banning forever, except spam, is not in my view the best idea.
One of the country pubs I used to go to take their pool competition prize money would ban folk cause they got drunk and abusive forever... The folk they banned spent lots if time and money at the pub and progressively the pub saw less and less custom such that the publican sold it...coincidentally he sold it to a chap I know who drinks at a pub in Sydney.. He said he could not believe the number of people that came into the pub saying they had been banned and were happy he had bought the place. He was very happy to see the turnover greatly improve after it got around the place had changed hands.
He will ban folk but only for a short period so he does not lose their custom.
I still believe such a policy would work here..in fact I would remove all permanent bans an invite banned members back.
Look at Timojin for example...the number of threads he started should count for something.
Sure he got out of hand but ban him for a month, delete objectionable posts but keep him around, same for the god, ...you could make a list.

Alex

 

[Seattle]

I was thinking about the banning of people today and how banning forever, except spam, is not in my view the best idea.
One of the country pubs I used to go to take their pool competition prize money would ban folk cause they got drunk and abusive forever... The folk they banned spent lots if time and money at the pub and progressively the pub saw less and less custom such that the publican sold it...coincidentally he sold it to a chap I know who drinks at a pub in Sydney.. He said he could not believe the number of people that came into the pub saying they had been banned and were happy he had bought the place. He was very happy to see the turnover greatly improve after it got around the place had changed hands.
He will ban folk but only for a short period so he does not lose their custom.
I still believe such a policy would work here..in fact I would remove all permanent bans an invite banned members back.
Look at Timojin for example...the number of threads he started should count for something.
Sure he got out of hand but ban him for a month, delete objectionable posts but keep him around, same for the god, ...you could make a list.

Alex

I disagree, but only in part. I think, other than for spambots, that it's not necessary to ban for life unless it is just too much work for the moderators not to do so in specific cases.

However, what should be done, is to clearly set the "rules" so that people like Timojin don't exist in their present form or rather I should say, with their current behavior.

I don't think it should just be about how much someone posts. If that were the case we would welcome spambots. If you want to clean up the forum you need to change the behavior of just a few posters. If that were done I'm sure that ultimately you would bring in many more posters.

What should be encouraged is posters who are reasonable and thoughtful people. There are 4 or 5 regular posters who effectively limit all intelligent discussion that is attempted here.

If you look at the threads in "new posts" on a daily basis, it's hard to find anything after while where it's worth the effort to respond. The same ridiculous threads are started by the same few people, year in and year out.

 

[Kittamaru]

What should be encouraged is posters who are reasonable and thoughtful people. There are 4 or 5 regular posters who effectively limit all intelligent discussion that is attempted here.

I would agree 120% on this... unfortunately, every time this has come up for discussion, it has been shot down by "the powers above" in the interest of allowing those prolific posters to continue to post... which is, as you have seen, curtailing the discussions that many of the folks looking for a place called "sciforums" are after.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

I disagree, but only in part. I think, other than for spambots, that it's not necessary to ban for life unless it is just too much work for the moderators not to do so in specific cases.

However, what should be done, is to clearly set the "rules" so that people like Timojin don't exist in their present form or rather I should say, with their current behavior.

I don't think it should just be about how much someone posts. If that were the case we would welcome spambots. If you want to clean up the forum you need to change the behavior of just a few posters. If that were done I'm sure that ultimately you would bring in many more posters.

What should be encouraged is posters who are reasonable and thoughtful people. There are 4 or 5 regular posters who effectively limit all intelligent discussion that is attempted here.

If you look at the threads in "new posts" on a daily basis, it's hard to find anything after while where it's worth the effort to respond. The same ridiculous threads are started by the same few people, year in and year out.

I can't say I disagree.
However even if stuff posted that is repetitive I suppose we could accept that if folk can be respectful.
Certain folk try and use this place as a platform to voice their anger and frustration about all sorts of things and that is tiresome.
Perhaps they are incapable of pleasant commentary but I would like to think gentle guiding could help.
I find one gets better results by staying calm and collected and not biting.
River was having a bad day recently but rather than rip into him or report him I felt concerned for him.
Although not a christian I think there is virtue in "turning the other cheek" and "love your fellow man" and to try and foster positive emotions and avoid negative emotions.
So many are ready to attack when patience would see a better result.
One can point out say that another is coming over as raciest or sexist politely rather than taking an abusive tone which is no way to change someone's approach or attitude.
I think we could do better.
Earlier I often failed to practise what I now preach but in reflection feel I was in some cases following the lead of others.
The best way to avoid a fight is to simply walk away and here that is easy really.
So if someone says something rude walk away rather than make my initial mistake and come back swinging.
Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

I would agree 120% on this... unfortunately, every time this has come up for discussion, it has been shot down by "the powers above" in the interest of allowing those prolific posters to continue to post... which is, as you have seen, curtailing the discussions that many of the folks looking for a place called "sciforums" are after.

The powers above see numbers thru the door as important, and they are important.

My reason for suggesting a ban for only a month is to retain members.
But in addition to bans I think members could not bite with anger.

If you post non mainstream in an offensive manner your post gets deleted and you get restricted would seem a reasonable approach.
Alex

 

[Seattle]

I agree that is the best approach but it doesn't seem to change any of the posters in question. This whole forum is about tedious repetition. Look at a thread between Jan and Sarkas. Go away for a year or two and come back. The thread will have continued just the same.

River has never started a "normal" thread nor engaged in meaningful dialog.

If the powers that be are looking for volume, this is the wrong forum for them. The volume is pretty low for a forum that has been around this long, largely due to the type of posters that we are talking about.

 

[Bowser]

So, I would like to ask the membership - how should things proceed? Do we tighten up the punishments a bit, removing the ability to pretend this is just a game of Grand Theft Auto and waiting for points to expire before breaking the rules again? Do we change the rules and enforce nothing but basic civility? Somewhere in between? Perhaps we leave things as they are? Or, do you have another suggestion altogether? Let us know!

The last thing you need here is a bubble.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

I changed my vote to "Leave things as they are"... which is... James R is the boss an i will trust him to run thangs which ever way is best for Sciforums.!!!

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Walk softly and carry a big stick.
Alex

 

[sweetpea]

So, apparently choices 1 and 2 are not already covered by site rules? If they aren't, combine both and implement.

 

[Kittamaru]

So, apparently choices 1 and 2 are not already covered by site rules? If they aren't, combine both and implement.

They are mutually exclusive - site rules, right now, have standards for evidence (standards that are loosely enforced, but they do exist) as well as a few other points to ponder. Choice 2 would abolish all those and turn this into "just another discussion board".

 

[sweetpea]

They are mutually exclusive - site rules, right now, have standards for evidence (standards that are loosely enforced, but they do exist) as well as a few other points to ponder. Choice 2 would abolish all those and turn this into "just another discussion board".

Sorry to be flip here, but when I was told ''we're not just a science forum '' by James, I took that to mean "just another discussion board".
I was puzzled by your two poll threads, until I realised you might be trying to bury the ''spook sections'' to promote a rational general discussion site. Anyways, I hope folks get what they want here, those that don't can easily up anchor.

Have not voted because I already know from a PM to a mod that this place is ''we're not just a science forum.'' In other words... lots of room for more jaw jaw jaw. I wonder where rpenner went and why?