Discussion in 'Site Feedback' started by DaveC426913, Oct 8, 2017.
Oh brother, aint that the truth! And he has been warned and reprimanded time after time after time.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
There are at least four here that would not last more then a week anywhere else...FACT!!!
Yes I suppose you have a point there. There is more activity on the fringe than in the main sections. I was thinking more of the disruptors and what to do with the cranks. The other forum I subscribe to also has a pseudo section where cranks get put once it is clear they can't support their ideas scientifically.
Not really sure what all the fuss is about.
Don't like Fringe? Don't read it.
Don't like specific posters? Put them on ignore.
Personally I find some of them (like MR) pretty funny at times, with his "LOL! LOL! LOL!" thing when he gets cornered.
No fuss, and I don't like to (and haven't) put anyone on ignore.
I'm just pointing out what is probably the obvious and that is that most discussion would be more on point if the fringe population was discouraged. It affects most every thread and not just those in the fringe.
I do get the point that if you don't like it you are free to go elsewhere. I do tend to drift in and largely out of here for that reason. I get that, perhaps, you like everything as it is. That's a valid point as well.
I think the site would be better if there was less nonsense in the main boards. However, eliminating the fringe would increase, not decrease, the amount of nonsense in the main boards; it serves as a useful "bin" to toss nonsense that is not so bad as to be considered trash, but is not quite science. (IMO of course)
IMO there would be even less of it if the Fringe section wasn't there and if the main section was just moderated with that in mind for a while. Those types would leave and this forum would be like every other forum in that regard where this sort of thing isn't a problem.
As you pointed out earlier, it's even less helpful that have all those sections within the Fringe area as it looks as if that sort of thing is being actively encouraged.
The thread only came to my attention this afternoon - it has been locked, cesspooled, and him an infraction issued for the trouble.
I'm sure that action will be supported by all members that do not harbor any prejudice as has been blatantly shown by certain others.
To quote Kitt: welcome to SciFo.
(The sort answer is: because it has been decreed from on-high - above Mod level.)
I have no idea what that's about.
Sure you do James!
The question is: to what extent should we attempt to educate racists, as opposed to banning them on sight? A lot of racism, after all, arises from ignorance.
It seems a lot of people here want a zero tolerance approach, whereby anybody talking about race in any way is banned on sight. While such an approach would keep sciforums "clean" and pretty, I'm not sure that in the wider scheme of things it is the best approach if we want to make the world less racist.
I looked at that thread. It has rightly been cesspooled and closed. However, it is hard to tell whether the question was asked out of ignorance or malice. Of course, I'm leaning one way rather than the other on that, but for the moment I am adopting a wait-and-see approach.
The clearest expression of the sites purposes and intents are set out in the site Posting Guidelines, which are available in the Site Feedback subforum. There are no hidden agendas on the part of the administration.
No, I don't. If you do, please tell me.
I ... thought it was publicly acknowledged by the mods that the owner had made it clear they do not want undue banning, as it would essentially limit revenue.
There have been multiple discussions about this with mods in the Feedback section.
I was simply riffing on what I thought was policy.
It appears there is more than one side to this story, and I've spoken out-of-turn, so mea culpa.
I don't actually believe anyone is saying we should "ban on sight" anyone talking about race in any way, James. Honestly, I don't think anyone is saying that about any topic. However, we have a few members who seem to exist purely to stir the shit pot regarding certain controversial topics, despite being told time and again that what they are discussing is bound to be inflammatory and requires caution.
The most obvious "hidden agenda" is revenue - the question is, to what end, and what is our mission statement. It doesn't feel like we have one any longer.
Sure...You seem to have a great knack and probably a bias over many months in quickly jumping in to silence or question Jan and MR at every opportunity. And certainly they deserve that rebuffing and debunking, and yet you chose to have let the likes of timojin and river troll all day long, with perhaps the occasional "slap on the wrist" and then off we go again to Jan and MR. Don't either please start going on about reports, because I also have an opinion that depending who the report is from as to whether it gets afair hearing or not. So, no I'm not putting them in, but it is obvious from certain threads where anti science is being discussed, and yet as usual you attend to Jan and MR at let the rest flow. A recent comment against another rather troubled individual in the science and religion an introduction thread also went unnoticed...a comment by one of our members that loves reporting, calling another 'deranged"Are you interested? check it out.
Even handedness James is all that is required and really you have not showed that. I could go on re silly provocative titled anti GR threads, but I'm not sure that you wont turn a blind eye to that also which you have already done anyway..
Particularly with regard to a member that just may have a problem.
The owners have never said anything like that to me. There are certainly some cynics like to believe that the main purpose of sciforums is revenue raising. I don't see it that way, personally.
On the other hand, it is common sense that no forum wants "undue banning". What is due and what is undue is debateable, of course.
The mods don't all hold exactly the same views on these matters. There is debate, and there is some disagreement. Having said that, the disagreement is in the middle-ground, the grey areas rather that at the margins. People advocate drawing certain lines in different places. I think the forum is robust enough to tolerate this level of difference of opinion.
An update: I have been motivated by multiple reports and some of the recent commentary to issue timojin with an official warning for racism.
You're right. That was an exaggeration on my part.
I see that as a problem that will sort itself over time for those members. We have a system of warnings in place that will lead eventually to their long-term or permanent banning.
This feels to me like a discussion that has already been had several times.
Separate names with a comma.