Earth Science Forum Governance

This "minority of individuals" would be me, exclusively, and I will not tolerate more censorship or frivolous assaults from you, "Trippy."

I have reported your actions to other moderators.


Update:

The original title of this thread was "time for climate change deniers to get real" and it has recently been renamed by a moderator in an effort to whitewash the evidence central to the thesis of several posts of mine over a few days time.

It is retaliation and harassment, not capitulation or fairness, which drives this individual to break the rules as a poster, and their abuse their moderator privileges. Else he would've simply conceded the point or left it at a draw, and let the discussion continue to evolve naturally, allow Walking Owl and Dredd to respond (if they even were going to).


Forum Rules, Regulations and Recommendations - - Version 2.3

...

Paranoia, indeed.

Tsk~

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You've edited your post yet again in your continued efforts to disparage me.

Read the rules.

Step down now, you supremely corrupt hack.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Okay, I've let this slide uncorrected for over three days...

You know damn well that is only HALF truth, Trippy- and quit speaking of me in third party terms; I am not "others," "a minority of individuals" or "some people" or whatever fucking trite obfuscation crawls through your head today. Your continued efforts to make all of this look AS IF it was EVER for anybody else's sake or benefit but yours (and at my expense) is as preposterous as it is inexcusable. The more that you try to evade this truth, and the more "nebulous imaginary others" that you pretend to be reacting to, the worse it is for you; for THEY are me, pal, and you better own up to that fact. You picked a fight with ME.

The original title of the thread flew for WEEKS without your notice or concern, or that of any other moderator or admin; it only became an issue when it embarrassed YOU, Trippy. And that happened very soon after my next post; the one that ignored your worthless final capitulation, and instead engaged the other TWO previous posters.

...

You locked the 'deniers' thread for almost a day before then hacking it up deliberately and vindictively; by starting a stupidly-named thread which you attributed to me; which I did not start, and would not have started, in a forum where I would not have posted and in which it does not belong, and which I sure as fuck would NOT have so-ignorantly-named. You cannot possibly justify such hostile disparagement, because YOUR title is a bare-naked non-sequitur to my thesis, oh- but a tidy little strawman representation of your own expressed opinion.

You shoved it all down the 'memory hole' of an irrelevant section, chilling further discussion. Then whitewashed the original name of the thread, hoping to 'astroturf' the very premise with which you disagreed (that the 'denier' meme is epithetic) and to which you reacted allergically and childishly; the very thesis which you denied was a problem.



So your pathetic excuse for moving these "trippified" portions of the orignal thread to a forum where you have no moderator power is complete bullshit; you've had no problems whatsoever fucking with particular posters in the past you don't like (trolling and ad hominem despite the Posting Rules) in "your" forum or any other, and YOU HAD ALREADY RETREATED FROM THE DEBATE:

And there is still no logical reason for you to have moved these particular posts in the first place; especially after you've had your say on the main point(s); and then to a place where you have no authority; other than to disparage ME with your foolish choice of titles. A responsible Mod would've moved the entire thread if it was really in the wrong place to begin with, and, only renamed the thread title if was truly offensive and/or racist. It wasn't, and I am calling you on that, and proving it beyond all doubt.



I never said that the "denier" meme was OFFENSIVE, and neither did anyone else; I argue that it is epithetic (deceptive), wrong, and why.



If you don't have a single complaint to show that the original title IS offensive, then you did this for the reasons I put forward; revisionism; personal vendetta; revenge; censorship.



...8<...




Ben Cubby himself makes a very similar point in the original quoted article, Trippy, if you bother to read it (how we don't need camps of "deniers" versus "alarmists"), and if James R's presentation of that article doesn't belong in the Politics Section, then neither does my rebuttal to it, nor your sham-criticisms.

My thesis is properly characterized as a point of Ethics in the Earth Science debate; ETHICS, Trippy... you know, some of that FAIRNESS shit-

The sort that you may pretend to know, and have yet to practice.



...


It will likely take an admin just five minutes, if that, to properly merge the two "trippied" threads back together and restore the original title: "Time for climate change deniers to get real" - for it is the right thing to do, and who knows- maybe it will Save the Planet...

From BAD forum 'moderation' anyway-

And the consequences thereof.





"A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way" -Mark Twain

 

Seems to have offended your oversensitivities

Wow. I've seen some temper tantrums here before, Qwerty, but this one definitely earns its place in the Hall of Useless Embarrassments. It's hard to see what Trippy might have done wrong, other than tweak your outsized ego on a day we could only wish we had something the equivalent of a Tucks Medicated Pad to offer you for it.

Sorry, dude, but offending oversensitivity is something every moderator does eventually, and of all our high crimes and misdemeanors under the sun, this one just doesn't matter much to us. It is unavoidable, and entirely subject to the whim of the outraged. And while we have, in the past, attempted to devise customized rules in circumstances that won our sympathy, history suggests that is an exceptionally foolish route to follow.

 

Hello

I have explained much of this to James R privately; two counts trolling; two counts of censorship; one count fighting and abuse or moderator status.

Us? Oh, it does indeed, else you wouldn't be trying to have a chuckle at my expense also.

Which is fine only if the outraged is a Moderator or Administrator?

Your opinion of what it and is not foolish means nothing since you also intended to troll and to flame a poster who requested your help, in good faith and on evidentiary grounds, in fixing a specific problem with another moderator.

Show the decency to refrain from such assistance in the future.

Good Day

 

Stop now, while you're simply behind.

So you went public, with an incomprehensible rant, because?

No, no, no. Look, we get crackpot complaints so often around here that the better route is to have a chuckle at the expense of the paranoid and egocentric. Shit, man, if we took it all with deathly gravity, we'd be as crazy and paranoid as the crackpots.

Which is a bit of a non sequitur, but I'll give it a try, anyway: We are the authority figures, you know. We do have a say.

You haven't begun to suffer trolling and flaming by moderators. Like I said, it is entirely subject to the whim of the outraged.

For instance, some years ago, we had an interesting complaint in which a racist sympathizer was outraged that a moderator gave another racist a chance to support his broad generalizations against an entire nation before issuing sanction. The whim of the outraged. We can be assured that, had we simply suspended the other racist, the one would not have shrugged and said, "Well, that's okay, then."

The internet is a strange place where, like politics, you can insult someone by presuming them intelligent. In other words, yes, we have to pick and choose between all the alleged outrages, and yes, as the authority figures at Sciforums, we do have a say in what is genuinely outrageous.

Yeah, well, we're trying. Show us the decency of actually helping us accomplish that, by moving on with life.

Think of it this way: Official policy, according to administrative action against the membership, includes the right to suspend for up to thirty days anyone who finds in our words implications we find distasteful.

By that standard, Trippy would be within his rights to send you.

However, the last time someone tried that route, we had a huge, ugly, public fight about it. One result, or, at least, subsequent development, has been a revision of our suspension standards in such a manner as to preclude such outcomes. However, that does not preclude us from starting the clock.

And we could certainly do that, because, frankly, I've yet to encounter one of my colleagues attesting to your good faith. Indeed, the only outrage here seems to be that you won't let go of this stupid, personal vendetta.

The last thing you really want is widespread scrutiny of your attempt to troll an Earth Science thread with evasion and distraction.

Seriously, if we ever stopped to add up the offenses of your miniature crusade, we might find official justification for sending you on what is, obviously, a much-needed vacation.

 

Hello,

You've wasted even more time insulting and threatening me than it would take to actually undo what has been proven to be unethical behavior from your peer. In the seven years that I have been a member here I have never had any trouble like this or even witnessed such despotic frenzy.

Please fix the threads, and all will be well, and as I told James R, I will take a "vacation" voluntarily if Trippy's errors are corrected. If you can't or won't help then kindly just step aside, for you are needlessly inflaming the issue.

If you cannot even do that then it is pehaps you who needs a vacation.

Edit: PS- Sigh... that was too harsh. I apologize. I appreciate the history lesson, I do. I've been highly critical of "JB" and "Firecross" and other racist trolls here in the distant past as well. I too moderate gaming forums and know how weird and thankless these volunteer positions are, personally.

...

Admin, please recombine the two threads Time for AGW deniers/doubters/skeptics to get real and "The Politics, Language, and the Language of the Politics of AGW", and restore the original title 'Time for climate change deniers to get real'

Thanks

 

go for it
i dare you

qwerty correctly identified james's tt as trollish rhetoric
trippy then did what he does best, blunder about like a bull in a china shop

i would be embarrassed but you lot seem to take pride in shit like this...

nice one buddy boy

 

heh
these meddlesome and needy little mods truly believe crap like that is acceptable conduct. of course, now that you dared voice discontent, they have no choice but to embark on a witch hunt and burn you at the stake.
you see, the mods here claim to smell pedophiles, racists, murderers, theists, crackpots, bad faith........in your case, a climate change denier, a zillion miles away.

/snicker

oh dear
now where is the fun in that?

now just you hold up there, boy!
bells aint here yet

 

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2546916#post2546916

I reported a mod for a failure to substantiate their claims in a science subfora, after demanding another poster to do so. I know this is a little unrelated, but this is just a heads up, because moderators have a tendency to ban those who make legitimate complaints.

 

Wow, record time! I just got a warning:

Wow, isn't it a bit of a concern when even moderators can point out the glaring flaws in the way that posts are moderated on this shithole?

So there you have in folks. In order to meet the standard of proof required by sciforums, you simply need to state that 'evidence is available', or that the claim 'substantiates itself'. Wow, I should try that out on Ethics and Morality, and see what Tiassa has to say.

By the way, I have reported this moderator for abuse of their powers.

 

So you don't understand the term "metastatement"?

Or, apparently, what "self-evident" means.

 

So you don't understand the concept of providing evidence when you claim that evidence exists? Ya know, that thing we refer to as 'substantiating claims'.

Apparently you have no appreciation of how to apply standards of proof fairly and consistently. You should be stripped of your modship, post haste.

 

Evidence that the evidence exists?

Very clever resorting to calls for my removal because you can't actually provide an argument.
Tell me, what does "self-evident" mean?
Or are you going along with Draqon and claiming that there's no such thing as "sick"?
I'm sure the medical profession would be interested to hear it.

 

Um, yes. Generally when one claims that evidence exists, it's appropriate to cite a source so that people know that you aren't talking out of your ass.

I've already provided a coherent argument. Although funnily enough, I shouldn't even need to put forward an argument. Your shit moderation speaks for itself. If the administration did its job and actively reigned in moderators drunk on their power, I wouldn't need to complain.

Why don't you tell me? You're the one who is abusing the term to try and escape the onus of providing evidence to support your claims.

In regards to sexual fetishes, I could argue that 'sick' is merely an arbitrary term that varies significantly between individuals, rendering a useless descriptor.

Ahh, so now you know what the medical profession as a whole thinks. Wow, are you a member of the AMA hive mind?

 

Nope. When one desires to use that evidence it's appropriate to cite the source.

Not really, since you still have to explain what "self-evident" means to you.

How about:

http://www.answers.com/topic/self-evidence
Or maybe:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence
So what does it mean to you? Something quite different, obviously.

Yet the term (loosely) used is still "sick", and adjudged as such. It's regarded in some cases as abnormal psychology: to claim "there is no such thing as sick" is a sweeping generalisation without a factual basis.

As a whole? Nope, but I'm aware of the consensus. And AMA means nothing to me particularly. Or are you considering the American medical profession as the totality?

 

Extra commentary is welcome, and sympathizers have my thanks, but the discussion here need not broaden tremendously. Allow me to add though-

I have recently reviewed many other cases in the SFOG section, some of which have justifiably earned the ire of Mods and other good posters alike; so this kind of crap evidently occurs alot, and can happen to anyone, and then problems languish uncorrected... which is shame, because SFOG evidently has little to do with "empowering the constituency" and more to do with shielding leadership excesses. What else explains the use of this forum as some Cesspit 2.0? You simply can't have this kind of behavior from moderators, and a double standard on posting rules too.

res ipsa loquitur

And the leadership here should indeed care more about their own post manipulation conduct and ethics, for they do more damage to SciFor and to their own credibility than any Poster could.



greetings