Member Contribution Analysis: A Case Study

Discussion in 'About the Members' started by DaveC426913, Oct 27, 2018.

  1. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,035
    Data does not judge; it merely informs. Only the ignorant fear raw data.
    And there is nothing in the chart that is not publicly available to all.

    Off-topicality is definitely germane to this thread. It has garnered moderation for such more than once.

    Adding these posts to request for re-assignment.
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,395
    The problem here is that you are designating data as "raw" that is completely in pursuit of JamesR's sense of merit (aka "judgment") and that is totally oblivious to the social dynamic of online discussions (what do you get if you have 90% of atheists making 25% of the off topic posts?). And to top it off, you cite it to support your judgement.

    .
    Much like poorly thought questions designed to support one's bias, and a type of willful ignorance regarding how online discussions operate is also in the public arena.

    .
    So who's fault is that?
    Oh wait, we have a graph to show us!!

    .
    Of all the meta-discussions one could choose to engage in regarding this thead, you choose this one ...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,035
    Indeed. That is exactly what the charts says it is, and no more.
    If you've got an issue with a moderator's judgment call, take it up with a moderator.

    Precisely!

    Actually, you chose it, by giving it far, far more attention than I could have alone.
    It's clearly pretty important to you.
     
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2018
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,395
    .
    ... yet you say ....

    The issue is not with the moderation.
    The issue is with your your guile in the name of data fiddling.
     
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2018
  8. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,035
    This is a vacuous assertion.

    The data shows exactly what it says it shows. But of course, before making such an assertion, you have examined the data and identified something you will now show has been fiddled with.

    Otherwise, it is more than vacuous; it is a lie. You wouldn't lie would you? Good. Pony up.

    This data thread of mine is getting quite the attention. Look at all the posts!


    Or, hey - make it all go away by providing evidence that God exists. Then we'll all have egg on our faces.
     
  9. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,395
    You say it doesn't come with an agenda, and then pile on the agenda (because, hey, data has no agenda, right?).


    Um.
    Then you cite the "data" to label "precisely" who's "fault" it is for being "off topic", and this all supports the claim that God is not "real".

    You might need another special chart to keep track of all the type I and type II errors within this schlockery alone ...





    Between dumbing down God to an superfluous state and relegating all discussion about self-imposed limitations of an atheistic agenda to "off-topic", you don't leave too much space for such provisions.
     
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2018
  10. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,035
    I never said that. I never implied it. The data doesn't imply it either.

    The chart is nothing more than an indication of the behavior of a collection of SciFo contributors. Which is exactly what it says it is.
    This thread is a good subject for analysis, for reasons I mention explicitly in the OP.

    And that's why it's a separate thread. And why it's in the 'About the Members' forum, where it belongs. That's how you science.

    You are welcome to analyze the data yourself. That's the beauty of publicly available data.

    If I can actually do that, apparently I have a lot of power. And apparently there's nothing you can do about it?

    I haven't relegated anything. Your criticism is misdirected.

    That ... pretty much sounds like you're saying you've been backed into a corner. What are you asking for? Mercy? Special pleading?
     
  11. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,395
    Repeatedly saying you are not doing it and repeatedly failing to refrain from doing it are two completely different things.

    Which you then proceed to cite to support your agenda. Case in point where you introduced the topic to this thread. If it is so meta that it bears no weight under this OP (as you repeatedly insist, despite constant behavior to the contrary), why the hell introduce it?

    Yet you decided to conjoin it here. How is that for submitting the scientific process to your own pathology?



    Such is the power of schlockery.

    .... and yet you say ...


    Backed in to a corner with what exactly? Your carbon footprint free agenda mongering in the guise of data schlockery?
     

Share This Page