Member Selective Banning from Posting in Threads

I think there should be a modification to the ignore list script so that the posts from a person on your ignore list are made completely invisible (rather then a post saying "this person on you ignore list, If you wish to see the post click here" this could allow others to see the offenders post at there will, but allow you to not even be aware of those posts existence… well not aware until someone replies to them or starts quoting them.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm 100% sure that if brought in this feature will be missused.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That is the problem with the current "Ignore" option. Not only do others continue to see unchecked responses. that is you simnply allowing distortion to prevalid but that also others will respond to such posts and by "Reply" their comments become exposed to you as well.

I think an extension of the "Ignore" function where the thread starter could put that offendor on "Ignore" to ALL and could perhaps further select to allow or not allow others to see the post would be quite flexable.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Would there be a tendancy of some to abuse such a power. Most likely. There would be those that simply blocked opposition to their views. However,
that does not preclude such a poster having been wrongfully blocked from opening their own thread to carry forth their own view on the issue.

The good aspect of such a system I think out weighs the negative.

1 - Any blocked poster could still respond but in a seperate thread started for his rebuttal. Other members would then be able to choose which line of thought that were most comfortable with.

2 - It would stop the distraction in any one thread and the counter thread if opened could and most likely would block the original blockers from posting. That should eliminate or at least mitigate the personal attacks and name calling and enhance remaining on topic.

3 - Moderators would still have the obligation to insure that such oppositional posts were being conducted in a reasonable manner - i.e. - Devoid of personal slanders and unwarranted personal comments but actually addressed the issues scientifically or at least in proper tone.

4 - The bottom line I believe is that even the abuse of such system would be preferrable to the current situation where personal attacks are the modius operandi of several members and where issues never really get discussed.

It is disheartening to see that such supposedly educated and professional people feel their only response must be an arrogant, egotistical, authoritative positon of "If you don't agree with me you are an ignorant, lying asshole," etc.

 

How about this compermise: there could be a option below banish were we put a member on forum ignore; that person is on the ignore list of all members. Of course only a supermod could do this.

 

That idea would work, but would once again require coding.... I doubt anything comes out of this at all. On a side note, I thought this was how banning currently worked. You can still read all you want, just not post.

And this is a perfect example of why the system would not work. Yuriy pointed out almost imediately that the system didn't deal in anyway with compresibility (or any of the other attributes it supposedly as). MacM never actually answered, and just said that the ether didn't need to be compressible.... yet the paper he was trying to support said very clearly that it WAS compressible. Knowingly or not, MacM's statement was a lie/distortion of what the paper actually said. I invite you to actually read the thread before you vote:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=42429

Mind you that MacM has started dozens of similar threads, just about all of which misrepresent what the research in question actually says. In every single case his distortions are pointed out, but he rarely (if ever) actualy admits it... and continues to promote his warped version of the research.

Give him and others the power to block anybody who points out and argues about their errors the power to block, and you might as well take Sci out of the name.

 

I never said anything would come out of this, the chances Porfiry would do something because of this are astronomically small.

MacM, how about this why don't you just ask a mod to delete the offenders post?

 

Generally the posts which make fun of him come after the posts which point out his mistake. No mod I know is going to delete the first.

The final post before he claimed to put me on ignore and start this thread was:

He'd ignored this question through the entire thread, and when he didn't have any excuses to make himself right, he stuck his head in the sand.

Even if JamesR or another mod deleted the personal attacks on MacM, the thing that set him off would still remain. If this was inacted, MacM would just 'ban' people from his thread who pointed out the mistake... and then he'd go back to claiming he was right.

 

The difference with the forum ignore is that the ignored member does not know everyone is ignoring him. Banished people know they are banished, and they usually come back with a vengeance!

 

Lol. Would be an interesting experiment to see how long someone would talk to themselves...

 

That wouldn't happen. I also want to point out that I have been here two years and I have consistantly, and still respond to any poster that posts useful information. I have responded to James R when he has opposed everything I say. This is not about having to answer tough questions. This is about abuse and deliberate efforts to slander and supress topics.

The offendors game plan has worked. James R closed one thread, and the topic never got properly discussed, just because of the abuse. Yuriy seems to want to dictate what properties an Ether must have. Those are clearly unknown and experimental data that produced a correct result without certain properties claimed by Yuriy to be required would suggest that it is Yuriy and the property requirement that is in error, not the experiment.

That was the situation and that was my response.

Further more. The point would be that there were errors in Einsteins original work. Suppose people had shit canned Relativity when it was discovered that the universe was not static but expanding. Einstiens own admitted greatest error.

Finding something in a text which could be an oversight or mis-statement, when the paper is based on 18 years of data collection and produces a correct result, is not refutting the work. It is knit picking and finding excuses.

But even that could be dealt with in a proper atmosphere but being called a liar, idiot, fool, etc, etc, and refusing to actually discuss any merits of such work is not refuting such work.

Hell, we even had a long arguement over a year ago when I found Brian Greene had mis-stated a principle of Relativity in his "Elegant Universe" dealing with String Theory.

Should we not then trash can all his work? He clearly doesn't understand Relativity (or so it would go had I or one of my references made such a screw up). But they defended him for weeks. I finally prevailed by bringing in outside physicists which agreed with my appraisal.

The point is there are two standards. One for Relativists and another for those that oppose Relativity. Brian Greene or Einstein himself can have errors but others that have spent years collecting data and write a report which has something unclear, much less grossly wrong, and it is all over you are an idiot., etc. The results of the experiment bedamned, it never even gets looked at.

The paragraph where Yuriy pointed out n>m, that is a mismatch in operators in two formulas was entitled "Short Description". I take that to mean "Generally" and means they deliberately had not included each and every detail.

 

Electric Fetus is a PRON artist. SCIFORUMS is a PORNO SITE and GoofyFish is the owner of it. So who do U wana blame.

MACM Imagine what will happen to JamesRs threads.

 

c20 and avatar. in theory, this will not be used to block out opposing ideas, it will be used to block spam. but i spose im prob being naiive thinking itd work

 

That wouldn't concern me. Infact, I just realized that he now operates in the simular manner I have suggested. He has at least twice deleted my post from his thread claiming it was off topic because I had made a challenge.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

That I believe was the abuse mentioned ealrler above.

 

I did not know Goofyfish own the site! Also who are you talking about me or goofyfish because this is all new to me.

 

Raw has his undies in a bunch over your avatar. Just ignore it.

:m: Peace.

 

Well maybe, but then would'nt I be a porn artist not a "pron" artist?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

If a post is not connected to the thread topic it can be deleted as "Off-Topic" in many cases I have tried to split such posts off into new or other threads, and in most cases I have left off-topic post be as there are so many of them, but I get complaints about it no matter what action I take.
In the volunteer work of moderator we can never be right: someone will always object to any act we do. We are demonized and slandered, and many hate us as if we were politicians. In most cases the rate of objection is greatly exaggerated for the abuse/decisions made by the moderator… except in Xev’s case perhaps.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Well no... you haven't. You only ever give lip service, rarely actually answering a question. The few times you do answer you are generally corrected... and then you try and back out of your previous statement. Your GED thread is a very good example. Yuriy made a very simple question... what about compressibility? You flipped saying that he was making stuff up and trying to drag you off topic... at which point the thread went down the shitter.

The fact is that you were wrong, and compressibility WAS an issue. If you would have actually read your own link and answered the question the thread would have stayed civil (until you started to lie and distort again... which inevitably happens in your threads).

Liar - countless times
idiot - complete inability to read YOUR OWN links. Inability to remember what your previously claimed your theory said... etc etc.
fool - posting a link to any geocities site that agrees with you, and taking that as scientific evidence

Yet another reason you are a liar, idiot, and fool. Almost every single time you post a link, sombody is guilable enough to try and discuss it with you. As your GED thread showed perfectly, you never actually address the person's questions... and when you do it is stuff that you made up or distorted from what the work actually says,

This falls under the 'idiot and liar' category. Your question to us was ill-posed and ill-defined. Your 'outside physicist' said nothing contray to the argument at the time.

Your mistakes are extremely basic, and you still make them after you've been explained what the mistake was. Look at how many damn Twin Paradox posts you have. The issue has been explained to you by dozens of people hundreds of times.

You can take it however you want. The simple fact is that other relevant equations were nowhere to be seen. Your flying off the handle about the compressibility is another example.

You didn't actually go back and look at waht Yuriy pointed out... you completely ignored him and sayed he was trying to divert you. I suppose we can add paranoid to the list.

 

It's computer porn where there all wear glow in the dark outfits....

Like your last three posts

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

(and mine one)

 

Explain?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Exactly, if the supermods want they could delete them, cite them as off-topic as their excuse and they would be 100% correct in their actions, no legitimate objection could be made.