Making Sciforums more Successful.!!!

C C said:
It's not even a quote of Blaise Pascal, who it is also occasionally attributed to. Though the unknown forger was probably inspired by the "wager". Hard to say which came first. That it originally had Camus libelously dangling from it, and some opponents tried to right it with another wrong; or Pascal did receive the initial semi-faux acknowledgement before a Righteous Revisionist did some minor remastering with the closing credits.
Click to expand...
Ask yourself how much it really matters.
 
Kittamaru said:
No, it wouldn't make sense... as has been shown repeatedly, there will always be a small group of rabble-rousers who are never happy with the moderators decisions and, if they had that sort of power, would actively overturn every moderator decision just to spite them.
Click to expand...

I gather from that, that as one of the moderators, you feel under attack.
Some of the ordinary members also feel under attack.
Whatever the problem is, it is resulting in some members being banned, and other members leaving, and some members posting less.
There is something wrong.

Yes, you will get people who will moan no matter what you do,
but at the moment there is some real problem, don't you think?
 
Captain Kremmen said:
Yes, you will get people who will moan no matter what you do,
but at the moment there is some real problem, don't you think?
Click to expand...

Yep, the real problem is that the damn moaners won't leave and the moderators are being overly gracious in not banning them.
 
Captain Kremmen said:
I gather from that, that as one of the moderators, you feel under attack.
Some of the ordinary members also feel under attack.
Whatever the problem is, it is resulting in some members being banned, and other members leaving, and some members posting less.
There is something wrong.

Yes, you will get people who will moan no matter what you do,
but at the moment there is some real problem, don't you think?
Click to expand...

Yes, there certainly is a real problem. I know you have been reading the 9/11 video thread where I tried to defend Kittamaru's OP, only to be persecuted as ignorant when I thought another moderator was being ignorant for dismissing the 72-minute video after misunderstanding the first five minute of it he had watched. The moderator and another 'more scientific-than-thou' chap, actually wrote several arrogant and hedging posts to condemn me further rather than actually watch the video (which would have taken them less time than writing to me). They kept asking me to explain certain incidents in the video that would need no explanation if they had only watched it all the way through. They pretended that the issue was that I was hedging questions when the real hedging was them refusing to watch the video before commenting on it. Finally even Kittamaru asked why I would not answer their questions -questions about the less than five, nearly 18 minutes, or particular two-minutes and twenty seconds they had watched. At no time would any of these three agree to actually watch the video - even the one who had originally posted it.

Yes, there certainly is a real problem. The problem is presumption and inability to back down and admit bias, and then to still claim to be upholding their gods of science and objectivity.
 
origin said:
Yep, the real problem is that the damn moaners won't leave and the moderators are being overly gracious in not banning them.
Click to expand...

What is it that people are moaning about?

Do you think that the site would be better off without some members?
 
origin said:
Don't sweat it! I only wish my life was so easy that how this forum was run was one of my top 20 concerns.
Click to expand...

I see Sciforums as bein more of an interactive game than an actual concern.!!!

The more varied the players the more interestin the game... so for me... the more accommodatin Sicforums is to diferent views... the beter.!!!
 
Arne Saknussemm said:
[...]They kept asking me to explain certain incidents in the video that would need no explanation if they had only watched it all the way through. They pretended that the issue was that I was hedging questions when the real hedging was them refusing to watch the video before commenting on it. [...]
Click to expand...

On occasion, like perhaps this(?), a video has to be watched rather than described because it's purely the dynamic visual content which is pertinent. But when otherwise, that's why I'd prefer isolating / posting a quote from the transcript of a video lecture or interview over referencing a part of it by: "You just sit through the first eleven minutes till you get to where ___ is talking about ___ or ___ is happening. Or try jumping ahead and maybe you'll hit the right spot after a few attempts. Oh, you're one of those people who keeps Flash, etc, disabled 90% of the time because of security issues. Well, darn..."

If there is no link to a transcript provided (which is probably the case 99.999..% of the time on places like YouTube), then it's pffttt!! to utilizing the thing even indirectly (i.e., a forum merely supplies recreational needs, it's not a bloody job where spending _x_ minutes / hours personally transcribing footage is obligatory). AFAIK, I have never watched a single video submitted to SF. So that "gotta ambulate the ambulation" stuff, or whatever the applicable cliche adage is ;), would become my ball and chain in reverse, anyway.
 
C C said:
On occasion, like perhaps this(?), a video has to be watched rather than described because it's purely the dynamic visual content which is pertinent. But when otherwise, that's why I'd prefer isolating / posting a quote from the transcript of a video lecture or interview over referencing a part of it by: "You just sit through the first eleven minutes till you get to where ___ is talking about ___ or ___ is happening. Or try jumping ahead and maybe you'll hit the right spot after a few attempts. Oh, you're one of those people who keeps Flash, etc, disabled 90% of the time because of security issues. Well, darn..."

If there is no link to a transcript provided (which is probably the case 99.999..% of the time on places like YouTube), then it's pffttt!! to utilizing the thing even indirectly (i.e., a forum merely supplies recreational needs, it's not a bloody job where spending _x_ minutes / hours personally transcribing footage is obligatory). AFAIK, I have never watched a single video submitted to SF. So that "gotta ambulate the ambulation" stuff, or whatever the applicable cliche adage is ;), would become my ball and chain in reverse, anyway.
Click to expand...

Well, you're right. Good suggestion. I want to say just one thing and wash my hands of the whole kerfuffle: it was not I who posted the video in question. I was merely astonished that it could be dismissed so abruptly. (soto voce: let us not speak of this ever again...)
 
Arne Saknussemm said:
...video after misunderstanding the first five minute of it he had watched...
Click to expand...
You keep asserting this, you have yet to demonstrate it. I even went to the trouble of explaining in detail why I thought the introduction was wrong. Source

Arne Saknussemm said:
...They kept asking me to explain certain incidents in the video that would need no explanation if they had only watched it all the way through...
Click to expand...
I haven't asked you to explain anything from the video, I have only asked you to explain your opinion. (E.G.)

Arne Saknussemm said:
They pretended that the issue was that I was hedging questions when the real hedging was them refusing to watch the video before commenting on it.
Click to expand...
This is an outright lie, and you know it.

I haven't refused to watch the video.

The only thing I have had to say on the matter is:
1. The introduction is off-putting. Source.
2. I would probably watch it at a later date regardless of my opinion of the introduction and regardless of your behaviour or demands. Source

Add to my list of reasons why I haven't watched it in its entirety yet Dealing with Arne (hey the sauce that's good for the goose is good for the gander right?) and some graphics card issues that I've been having...

Arne Saknussemm said:
At no time would any of these three agree to actually watch the video - even the one who had originally posted it.
Click to expand...

Trippy said:
At some point I probably will force myself to sit through the entirety of the video ... that will be at a time when I am not under workplace stress and actually have an hour to sit down and watch, well, anything.
Click to expand...

Arne Saknussemm said:
I've read over all four pages of this thread carefully...
Click to expand...

lie verb \ˈlī\
1: to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2: to create a false or misleading impression

Arne Saknussemm said:
Yes, there certainly is a real problem. The problem is presumption and inability to back down and admit bias, and then to still claim to be upholding their gods of science and objectivity.
Click to expand...
I'm fairly sure that, especially when you insist on making comments like this that it's trivially demonstrable where the bias lies.
 
Arne Saknussemm said:
Well, you're right. Good suggestion. I want to say just one thing and wash my hands of the whole kerfuffle: it was not I who posted the video in question. I was merely astonished that it could be dismissed so abruptly. (soto voce: let us not speak of this ever again...)
Click to expand...

And in your astonishment at this perceived slight, you went as far as insulting people.

You're probably right, it's probably best we never speak of this again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top