High-jacking my threads

Discussion in 'Site Feedback' started by river, Feb 11, 2021.

  1. river

    Messages:
    16,952
    The high jacking of a thread of mine to " science " where I can't respond .
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. river

    Messages:
    16,952
    Stop high-jacking my threads , to where I can't respond .
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,411
    It sounds like you have a complaint about a moderation action of mine.

    You could send me a private message to me in the thread that contained the explanation for my action in moving your post to the appropriate thread. Alternatively, you could start a thread in the "Site Feedback" forum and we could have a public discussion about it.

    In the meantime, you are "high jacking" a thread about "who stormed the US Capitol" with an off-topic complaint about moderation. Please stop that.
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. river

    Messages:
    16,952
     
  8. river

    Messages:
    16,952
    Stop high-jacking my threads James R . Where I can not respond .
     
  9. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,411
    Okay. This should be quick enough to deal with here, but in future please use more appropriate methods to register your complaints, such as the ones I suggested above.

    As you know, you managed to attract 5 warnings for posting nonsense in our Science subforums, over a period of time. In accordance with our published policies - which you were aware of - you were excluded from posting to those subforums for a temporary period of time. That exclusion period expired. Within a couple of weeks of that expiry, you were back engaging in the same behaviour that got you excluded in the first place. You were aware, at the time, that by doing that you were risking a further - possibly permanent - exclusion from those subforums. Being the kind-hearted fellow that I am, I decided that, rather than excluding you permanently, I would impose a generous 2 year exclusion period, during which you would have time to carefully consider your prior behaviour and how you plan to continue on this forum. That exclusion period is still in effect. I believe it will expire in August this year.

    Lately, I have noticed that you have tried to start a number of threads to post on topics in our Science sections, from which you are currently excluded. In some cases, these have been duplicate threads in forums that you are allowed to post in. In some cases, I have deleted the relevant posts. In others, I have closed your threads and cesspooled them. In yet others, I have moved your posts or threads into the appropriate Science subforum threads, or merged your separate threads with the originals.

    In trying to get around your exclusion, you are trying to circumvent our site rules and my actions as a moderator of this forum. That behaviour, in itself, is a breach of our site rules, for which you could be penalised.

    I have been extraordinarily generous with you, up to the current time. I have cut you a lot of slack. I have imposed light penalties on you when I could have chosen to impose heavy ones. I have even ignored some of your activities, despite being aware of them.

    You haven't even attempted to make an argument that your exclusion period should be reduced or cancelled. Maybe you're aware that with your record of postings on this forum such an argument would be very difficult to support.

    I suggest that your best course of action might be to wait until your current exclusion period expires. Take this time to think carefully about the kinds of things you will post in our Science subforums when you are allowed to do so again, because you failed badly to reform yourself last time, and if you are excluded again it will be permanent next time.

    More generally, you have been issued with a total of 46 official warnings in your time on this forum, many of which have been for the same few kinds of breach of our site rules, over and over. A good argument could be made for banning you from this forum completely, and yet you're still here, for now. It seems you keep doing things that we don't approve of; it's almost like you can't help yourself. If you're really upset, maybe it's time for you to recognise that this just isn't the best place for you.

    You're an adult, I assume. You're in charge of your destiny.
     
  10. river

    Messages:
    16,952
    Your feed back is lacking . I have found in my Life that suddenly people are pissed at me for reasons that they won't communicate until they are pissed . Why I don't know . Why not at the time , don't know . But I wish it was different .

    Highlighted

    Would people rather I leave ?
     
  11. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,411
    Moderator note: I have moved a number of the posts above to this thread from a different, unrelated thread.

    Thanks for starting this separate thread, river.
     
  12. river

    Messages:
    16,952
    It should be interesting . James R .
     
  13. river

    Messages:
    16,952
    You take me out of " science " for what reason ?
     
  14. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,411
    What didn't you understand in the many warnings you received by private messaging whenever warning points were issued to you?

    I'm sorry to hear that.

    On this forum, though, we have a published set of posting guidelines. Mostly, people receive official warnings when another member reports one or more of their posts as being in breach of the guidelines.

    Our warnings system provides an explanation of where the breach occurred and what rule was breached. It does not immediately stop any member from posting as normal on the forum. It is a warning, and you have to accumulate 50 active warning points before attracting a ban.

    Separately, we have a warnings system for posting nonsense and/or pseudoscience to our Science sections, which are reserved for sensible discussions of scientific topics. We have alternative forums for discussing various fringe ideas. The reasons why that separate warning system exists and how it works are also documented in our site policies, which are available to all members in the Site Feedback subforum. That warning system sits alongside the regular warning system. A member has to accumulate 5 separate warnings before being excluded for a period of time from posting to our Science subforums. We allow 5 warnings to give the member an opportunity to learn what is and is not appropriate in the Science sections.

    I do not believe that the many warnings you have received have been communicated inadequately to you.

    None of this has anything to do with anybody being "pissed" at you, by the way. Personally, I would prefer it if you would follow our posting guidelines more consistently than you do, but that does not mean I'm angry at you. I do get a little frustrated from time to time that when I ask you not to do something, in my role as a moderator here, you often seem to struggle to take that on board, and I see no apparent change in your behaviour.

    Again, in your life outside this forum, I'm sorry if people don't adequately explain why they are angry with you.

    Here, official warnings usually follow inappropriate behaviour within a few days, at most, if they are coming at all. Moderators are not here 24/7. We deal with a lot of reports. It can take some time to get to things. Nevertheless, the message you receive with any official warning always contains the text of at least one post of yours that is associated with the warning.

    You'd have to ask "people".

    I'm happy for you to stay, if you can post within our guidelines. If you can't, then probably sooner or later you'll attract enough warning points to start getting automatic bans.
     
  15. river

    Messages:
    16,952
    Make the warnings public .
     
  16. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,411
    We do.

    A moderator note is almost always posted in any thread in which a warning is issued, explaining who the warning was issued to and why.

    Haven't you noticed?
     
  17. river

    Messages:
    16,952
    I have but not often towards my self .

    And really I would rather discussion feed back than a warning anyway . You know , whats the problem with my thinking , theory etc.
     
  18. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,818
    YES.
     
  19. river

    Messages:
    16,952
    Why ? exchemist . What is your problem with me ? Come on , you flee like vapour in the wind when I log on . I noticed . Have the courage to discuss . Be a Man . exchemist doesn't have the balls .
     
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2021
  20. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,818
    Exhibit A:http://www.sciforums.com/threads/has-there-been-an-improved-understanding-of-water.135771/

    There are only two possible reasons for you to ask such a question.

    One reason is that you are so congenitally stupid that you really don't know by now, in spite of all my previous explanations. For example here: https://www.scienceforums.com/topic/29904-does-water-have-a-memory/page/4/

    I quote the most relevant exchange:

    Current, a.k.a river: Didn't remember , figures you would .

    Anyway what I was trying to do is understand water.

    First bring a single atom , not mole of hydrogen , but a single atom of hydrogen , to the point of manifesting a liquid its self. By dropping the temperature to the point of when hydrogen becomes liquid , as a group , or mol. Of. Which is -253°C

    Because if that is possible and so being , then the liquid comes from within the atom. Which then means that the liquidity originates within the atom.

    Yes I am river

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    exchemist: Yes, I remember it, because it brought home to me the futility of talking to you about science of any sort.

    In fact it was for me a seminal moment. I felt I had wasted hours of my time, trying in good faith to teach science to someone, when they were not prepared to make any effort to understand what I was saying. I put you on Ignore and resolved never to waste time trying to teach science to someone as hopeless as you, ever again. Since that time I have carefully scrutinised the replies of interlocutors I do not know well, to gauge whether they seem capable of taking in responses and reacting to them sensibly. If they don't, I bale at an early stage to save myself the time and frustration of talking to an idiot.


    The other possible reason is that you are a troll.

    I suppose, in fairness, you could also be some linear combination of an idiot and a troll.

    You add nothing to this forum. You contaminate perfectly good threads with rubbish. If I'd been a moderator I've have banned you years ago. James is very tolerant, it seems to me.

    If I had to sum you up in a single word, it would be "wanker".

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. river

    Messages:
    16,952
    Ah our water discussion , I knew it .

    Never looked up water research on memory on youtube did you ? No. No surprise . Wanker .

    Your intellectual curiosity is rather confined . Limited . Mine is not .

    I'm sure you will come up with some out dated perspective , understanding of water , but that's you ( like a pond of stilled water , no refreshing stream ) .
     
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2021
  22. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,731
    what confuses me slightly is that you could simply pose your science based thoughts into pseudoscience area & post them as opinions for discussion
    you may find you enjoy a far greater freedom & exploration of content
    though the pseudoscience has quite a high standard of content by my browsing recollection
    that should not dissuade you from being able to post your theory.

    james R
    is my theory correct by site rules ?
     
  23. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,216
    Yes.
    As for anyone "highjacking" your threads at least that way we'd have some chance of rationality in them.
     

Share This Page