RealityCheck: moderators are trolling and treating me unfairly

[RealityCheck]

My first reaction If I was a moderator would be to immediately move it to pseudoscience.
why?
The Hypothesis is not worded in a way that minimises confusion, and ambiguities and the question is unable to be answered in a way that would serve you or the rest of the community.
So I would ask posters respondants to suggest a better way of puting forward your hypothesis and questions so that they can be answered and dealt with adequately.



What say you?

Again, just caught this on my way out.

Like many of my posts/ideas, they are just off the top of my head. This is not a peer review journal. Spontaneity and substance, not form, is the essence of informal discourse of new ideas/perspectives/hypotheses not yet formalized for peer review journal submission. And people have more than just one idea/hypothesis, and unless they are professionals whose whole time of day is spent 'polishing up' their submissions, then most posters on internet forums like these do not have the luxury or opprtunity to present a fully fledged and polished article. If they did, they would not be here to discuss ideas informally and off-the-cuff, would they? They would be in the 'professional' sites which prom et al 'prefer' irrespective of the science/merits of anything presented at such sites as this no matter how 'unprofessionally' or 'unfinished' and unpolished it may be.


Gotta go, QQ. G'night!

.

PS: Good idea there, QQ! Perhaps the site should introduce a cadre of mods/helpers who would look carefully at any even slightly promising idea/hypothesis etc and throw it open to a process of 'refinement' of the initial post/presentation? That would certainly help everyone and maybe help a new idea get through the awkward 'ugly duckling' initial stages. Good thinking there, QQ. Kudos again! G'night.

.

 

[prometheus]

But, since past decisions/warnings by you/AN etc are the very point and part of the pattern of mod-troll combination which has caused the problems we are now discussing, how can you then have recourse to those very examples involving the problems with your actions rather than any fault of mine? The framing was obvious. The outcome predictable. The pattern/combination as usual. So how can you use that very problematic thing for you to justify your error then and now? Inadmissable at best; more proof for my case at worst (for you). I wouldn't attract attention to your past actions in this vein if I were you, mate.

I take this as a threat.

There really is no problem here, other than you being extremely vocal in complaining about my conduct. As I've proven in the past, when I'm correctly called out I apologise but nothing you have said has convinced me that my conduct has been deficient. As I said before, take it to an admin if you have a problem with me.

And like I pointed out before when you said that no science could ever come out of a science forum, your negativity and dismissive approach in the first instance effectively disqualifies any claim to scientific objectivity/judgements on your part when doing moderating, since you are obviously not aware of the internet potential and sites like these in particular. Your own and AN's et al preconceptual attitudes and biased readings make all your inputs/modding suspect deserving of more than a second look by someone not so negative and dismissive of everything you expect to find/come from this internet forum.

Look, you signed up to the forum rules when you joined. Physics and maths is a forum that is for discussion of physics and maths, not any old thought that comes into your head. MacGyver has pointed out that it's hardly censorship if you can post exactly the same content on another board with no problems.

Also, I'm still yet to see any examples of forums being used as a venue to conduct scientific research, despite all the faux outrage that I could possibly think that. I'm afraid the evidence is against you here - take a look at arxiv.org and you will see many many papers from people all over the place, collaborating by visiting each other, working in the same place, communicating by email and skype etc but I've never seen one that credits some forum somewhere for starting it all. I have said before on here somewhere that the only science to which amateurs make a genuine contribution to astronomy, so it's not impossible to do something truly scientific without the background, but the reality is that science is hard, so the people that make breakthroughs and develop our understanding are the ones who have been fully immersed in it for years and years, not the ones who post an idle thought on the internet.

Your obvious elitist preference for ONLY (oops!!, I meant only) professional sites moderated by professionals for professionals etc etc, just makes it obvious that you think only professionals should be discussing ideas and amateurs/outsiders 'not allowed' (even though some amateurs/outsiders may be brilliant and more perspicacious of the next advance than you who have 'studied' to become 'professional' but yet miss the obvious potential of the internet for everything under the sun).

I'm more than happy to discuss science with people that don't understand it inside out, take a look at my posting history. There are plenty of things I don't know about physics and the physics that I work on, never mind the science I don't work on, so it would be pretty arrogant if I took the view you accuse me of. What I can't abide is when people like you come along and say, "Hey, I've come up with a theory of everything in an afternoon," or "gravity explained," or something else you could not possibly have done. It's an insult to people working on science that you think you can pick up a pop science book and revolutionise the field.

Not a great qualification/attitude for a mod in a science discourse site, is it, to be s dismissive and disdaining of the very people/discussions/hypotheses/OPs which you then pretend to be 'moderating' but actually kneejerking and encouraging same in trolls and spoilers because you don't really care for 'internet forum science' open to 'the rabble'?

Some ideas are so bad they are worthy of disdain. Science can be a rough and tumble sometimes. If you want a pat on the head, paint a picture of your house and give it to your mum.

Mate, how can you be so certain that nothing has ever come of exchanges/discussions on forums like this? Are you some divine being with all-seeing/all-knowing powers? How do you know where the initial 'seed' of an idea was plantd that eventually came out into 'professional circles' for you to crow over? It could have come from anywhere and anybody nowadays, simple because 'it's in the air' more now than ever before the internet. Don't become an elitist exclusionist who would dismiss the very source of new ideas just because they are not 'in' with your crowd. OK?

Show me an example and I'll say it's possible. I suppose you could invoke the monkeys and typewriters analogy, that there are so many quacks out there making up stuff one of them is bound to come up with something right. Believe me, the odds are astronomical. Take a look here

This is not a peer review site of professionally presented work. It is an ideas exchange/discussion site. Else it would be a peer-review journal, not a discussion forum. Yes?

Hypotheses presented for general discussion is not "launching new science". While others may be trying to do so, I can only speak for myself. I presented hypotheses and asked questions and posed challenges. That's it.

I only want to hear all sorts of perspectives on the OP/ideas and then discuss them accordingly. That is a necessary prelude to the formal scientific process/review which comes later down the line when someone is trying to 'launch new science' and must then stand the scrutiny accordingly.

Until then, I just want to discuss hypotheses and ideas openly and without fear or favour being attached to what respondents could have contributed without unnecessary kneejerking and prejudicial/premature action by the mod-troll pattern which starts up irrespective of the science/merits involved?

I hope I have made clear the difference between whomever's actual crank/pseudoscience attempts etc and my own genuine wish to discuss new ideas/observations/interpretations in science without being trolled and accused of trying to 'launch new science'? Others must speak for themselves. I can only speak for my part.

It sounds to me like this is exactly what the "on the fringe" section was created for.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

And like I pointed out before when you said that no science could ever come out of a science forum, your negativity and dismissive approach in the first instance effectively disqualifies any claim to scientific objectivity/judgements on your part when doing moderating, since you are obviously not aware of the internet potential and sites like these in particular.

Would you care to give an example of scientific research which has been published in a reputable journal where the authors were all laypersons who met on a science forum? The internet has been around for years and years now, this forum itself is more than a decade old. Can you provide an instance where viable scientific work has been done by people like yourself thanks to forums like this?

Your own and AN's et al preconceptual attitudes and biased readings make all your inputs/modding suspect deserving of more than a second look by someone not so negative and dismissive of everything you expect to find/come from this internet forum.

Are you deliberately being ridiculously over the top or is it an accident? All of out inputs are deserving of a second look? It's one thing to say "I don't think your decisions about what is or isn't allowed on this forum should be allowed to continue without review" but it's an entirely different thing to say all our inputs, all our posts with opinions and comments, should be reviewed. That's calling into question our rights to have opinions! You complain you're having your views censored and yet you demand ALL of our inputs are reviewed?

I hope to god you're being deliberately ridiculous because that is moronic.

Your obvious elitist preference for ONLY (oops!!, I meant only) professional sites moderated by professionals for professionals etc etc, just makes it obvious that you think only professionals should be discussing ideas and amateurs/outsiders 'not allowed' (even though some amateurs/outsiders may be brilliant and more perspicacious of the next advance than you who have 'studied' to become 'professional' but yet miss the obvious potential of the internet for everything under the sun).

Not a great qualification/attitude for a mod in a science discourse site, is it, to be s dismissive and disdaining of the very people/discussions/hypotheses/OPs which you then pretend to be 'moderating' but actually kneejerking and encouraging same in trolls and spoilers because you don't really care for 'internet forum science' open to 'the rabble'?

None of us have said that. In fact I specifically said that forums like this serve a good use to allow laypersons to discuss things and I wished more people did it!!

You've got from whining about perceived injustices to just flat out lying. Well done, you've demonstrated precisely the kind of person you are. Go you.

Mate, how can you be so certain that nothing has ever come of exchanges/discussions on forums like this? Are you some divine being with all-seeing/all-knowing powers? How do you know where the initial 'seed' of an idea was plantd that eventually came out into 'professional circles' for you to crow over? It could have come from anywhere and anybody nowadays, simple because 'it's in the air' more now than ever before the internet. Don't become an elitist exclusionist who would dismiss the very source of new ideas just because they are not 'in' with your crowd. OK?

Good luck. No hard feelings, mate!

Cheers!

This set of fake platitudes you always spew doesn't make up for clear and deliberate lying. Saying 'mate' and 'no hard feelings' doesn't absolve you of being clearly dishonest. In the computer game Mass Effect someone makes a comment "Why is it when someone says 'With all due respect' they really mean 'Kiss my ass'". That's precisely how your vapid pleasantries appear. You aren't actually being polite, you're just shrouding dishonesty and misrepresentation in platitudes in the hopes it'll mask the frankly disgraceful amount of dishonesty you're spewing.

If Prom and I thought no one outside of professional scientists should discuss things on forums like this why would we be moderators of such a forum and allow laypersons to post? Why haven't we banned or blocked all but half a dozen posters from the main maths/physics forum? Because we want people to discuss science. But we want people to discuss it using rationality, honesty and not be wilfully ignorant. Requesting people who want to discuss science follow the basic mentality of the scientific method is not being unreasonable. Your complaints about our supposed desire to prevent all non-professional discussion are ****ing ridiculous.

As someone else said, you appear to have a massive chip on your shoulder about all of this. And rather than raising yourself to a minimal level of competency and honesty you're just digging yourself deeper. Your clear willingness to lie illustrates that clearly. Well done on sinking even lower. You must be so proud

 

[Quantum Quack]

Again, just caught this on my way out.

Like many of my posts/ideas, they are just off the top of my head. This is not a peer review journal. Spontaneity and substance, not form, is the essence of informal discourse of new ideas/perspectives/hypotheses not yet formalized for peer review journal submission. And people have more than just one idea/hypothesis, and unless they are professionals whose whole time of day is spent 'polishing up' their submissions, then most posters on internet forums like these do not have the luxury or opprtunity to present a fully fledged and polished article. If they did, they would not be here to discuss ideas informally and off-the-cuff, would they? They would be in the 'professional' sites which prom et al 'prefer' irrespective of the science/merits of anything presented at such sites as this no matter how 'unprofessionally' or 'unfinished' and unpolished it may be.


Gotta go, QQ. G'night!

.

PS: Good idea there, QQ! Perhaps the site should introduce a cadre of mods/helpers who would look carefully at any even slightly promising idea/hypothesis etc and throw it open to a process of 'refinement' of the initial post/presentation? That would certainly help everyone and maybe help a new idea get through the awkward 'ugly duckling' initial stages. Good thinking there, QQ. Kudos again! G'night.

.

then I would highly recommend you start with the pseudo science forum to get your questions and hypothesis worked out to a level that it can be seriously looked at. Other wise it's like engaging a Medical doctor in idle gossip about someones health... not going to happen

 

[Gustav]

:Shrugs:
On the one hand they're successful because they're strictly moderated and have a narrow focus.
On the other hand, what use is a hypothesis that can produce no testable predictions?

Or, let me put it to you another way. If I produce an Aether theory without understanding General Relativity, how can I legitimately claim that my Aether theory produces a better match to experiments than relativity.

We have Alternatives Theories and Pseudoscience sub-fora. What harm in asking or otherwise encouraging people to discuss their Alternative Theories in the Alternative Theory sub-forum? Equally, if your alternative theory can't stand up to scruitiny by people with an understanding of the state of play of the mainstream, what makes anyone think it's going to be easier to get it published?

there is nothing there that i disagree with
that stuff has been resolved a long time ago
the only thing i address is a particular sequence of posts in a particular thread and some posts by prom in this thread.

rc tediously belaboring his initial protest is merely opportunistic and somewhat entertaining

oh and i totally appreciate that folks like alpha, prom and others spend time with us here in sci
its people like them that will probably save our sorry asses from some grisly fate

 

[AlphaNumeric]

the issue with Zero Point Theory wont go away just because it fail to conform to your ideology. In this instance it will only go away if it is dealt with properly and fails to cut it using the scientific method as a basis of assessment.
So far that method has revealed many possibilities for it's predictive capacity and I am still looking for something that with tangibly provide science with a chalenge to discount. So that when that theory is formalised it will be appropriate reading for pesons such as yourself.

There is no 'issue with ZPT' because you haven't presented an issue, other than in your own understanding. You've not bothered to find out what role zero plays in mathematics or to understand basic logic and instead declared a paradox because you cannot grasp something. You are not the yardstick by which something's validity is measured. You cannot present a reasoned justification for your supposed paradox so there's nothing to discuss in any scientific manner. Now of course if you want to continue making vapid assertions you can do so with all the other hacks, whining about aether or their 'a new light in physics' or the aliens who speak to them in their dreams, but don't for a second think you're doing anything remotely scientific.

All of this whining from you and RC and some others is very much like the creationists in the US. They whine because no one takes their degree mill obtained PhDs seriously. They whine because they are rejected from journals due to lack of evidence or reason. They whine because they see the respect and dues given to scientists, who spend decades diligently working on something, collating evidence, testing models, and they want some of that. It's the reason people like Farsight et al try to convince people they have 'explanations' for things, because you realise there's something people think is good about being competent at science. Unfortunately, just as creationists make the mistake of thinking if they can call one another Dr they will be taken seriously, you think if you can be allowed to spew your nonsense you'll be taken seriously. It isn't the letters after my name or the journal publications or the citations or the invited talks I've done which makes my work science, it's my work which makes my work science. The time, the effort, the learning, the picking yourself up when you've made a mistake and trying again. That is what makes science have the respect it does and unfortunately you all want to play scientist by putting on a white coat but you then don't understand why you're still not taken seriously and not allowed to play with the big kids. Science got where it is today by having standards. Whining about the standards because you failed to meet it doesn't mean we should remove the standards.

When any of you can present reasoned, informed, coherent argument for your positions then you'll be taken seriously. Until then you're only just above Mazulu and he's only below you because he thinks aliens and god talk to him directly. That's a mental illness and I don't think any of the rest of you are mentally ill, just perhaps lacking in a few relevant capacities.

 

[RealityCheck]

Good morning, prometheus. I have an hour's wait for my ride into town, so I thought I'd drop in while I wait....and I saw this from you....

I take this as a threat.

There really is no problem here, other than you being extremely vocal in complaining about my conduct. As I've proven in the past, when I'm correctly called out I apologise but nothing you have said has convinced me that my conduct has been deficient. As I said before, take it to an admin if you have a problem with me.



Look, you signed up to the forum rules when you joined. Physics and maths is a forum that is for discussion of physics and maths, not any old thought that comes into your head. MacGyver has pointed out that it's hardly censorship if you can post exactly the same content on another board with no problems.

Also, I'm still yet to see any examples of forums being used as a venue to conduct scientific research, despite all the faux outrage that I could possibly think that. I'm afraid the evidence is against you here - take a look at arxiv.org and you will see many many papers from people all over the place, collaborating by visiting each other, working in the same place, communicating by email and skype etc but I've never seen one that credits some forum somewhere for starting it all. I have said before on here somewhere that the only science to which amateurs make a genuine contribution to astronomy, so it's not impossible to do something truly scientific without the background, but the reality is that science is hard, so the people that make breakthroughs and develop our understanding are the ones who have been fully immersed in it for years and years, not the ones who post an idle thought on the internet.



I'm more than happy to discuss science with people that don't understand it inside out, take a look at my posting history. There are plenty of things I don't know about physics and the physics that I work on, never mind the science I don't work on, so it would be pretty arrogant if I took the view you accuse me of. What I can't abide is when people like you come along and say, "Hey, I've come up with a theory of everything in an afternoon," or "gravity explained," or something else you could not possibly have done. It's an insult to people working on science that you think you can pick up a pop science book and revolutionise the field.



Some ideas are so bad they are worthy of disdain. Science can be a rough and tumble sometimes. If you want a pat on the head, paint a picture of your house and give it to your mum.



Show me an example and I'll say it's possible. I suppose you could invoke the monkeys and typewriters analogy, that there are so many quacks out there making up stuff one of them is bound to come up with something right. Believe me, the odds are astronomical. Take a look here



It sounds to me like this is exactly what the "on the fringe" section was created for.

Mate, can you elaborate on precisely where and what nature of "threat" you 'read' into my post? None was intended, so it would be helpful if you could specify it clearly so that we can clear up any misunderstanding there, whether unintentionally implied or inferred. Thanks.

The 'process' doesn't work. Ineffective. Unsatisfactory. Hence the open forum discussion as a last resort. The premature action to close threads while ignoring the troll/spoiler posts which cause the problems is not 'moderating' but 'copping out'. If you cannot see that removal of the trolls and their posts would have solved the problem without needing to close the threads and so give trolls/spoilers a victory in manipulating the system, then you still are avoiding the true cause of all this. Nothing personal, but enough was enough. Just remove the trolls and spoiler posts and you won't hear another peep out of me. Fair enough?

Are you saying there are no new ideas in physics and maths worth considering/discussing under that section? And how pray tell can one tell whether a new idea is worth discussing under that section if the discussion is not allowed to proceed fairly and without trolls and spoilers getting the OP/thread aborted before one can make a proper judgement to move it to another section? Premature and preconcieved mod actions do not help to assertain the actual merits if they just kneejerk and assume even before it has been properly discussed. It's not a crank/insane idea we're talking about here (those can be moved without delay), but perfectly legitimate and logical hypotheses and ideas which may deserve at least a modicum of fair debate without trolls and spoilers before moving it to another section and/or closing it. Reasonable?

And what you ask is unreasonable. I already pointed out that "who can tell" where the seeds of an idea came from that eventually made it into the professional literature. If you knew your science history you would know that many ideas are 'in the air' and all sorts of minds may be entertaining the new idea and discussing it informally at all sorts of odd places/venues. There are many examples in history of science where an 'innocent remark' and/or 'passing thought' voiced by someone not directly involved in the problem has led to advances. There is no 'right place/venue' for ideas to arise and be 'seeded'. It takes all kinds of amateur, professional and outsider perspectives to sometimes break the impasse. That is what 'eureka moments' and 'left field' inputs are all about. How many times in history has elitism and arrogant ego prevented an idea/person from getting a fair hearing right away instead of it being delayed for years before it is 'rediscovered' by someone else later? Read your science history, and your question there will answer itself.


Why are you strawmanning me and my posts? People like me? I never presented something as "THE THEORY" of anything. If others have, that's their lookout. All I ever do is look out for new and unusual perspectives from others while asking questions myself and making hypotheses based on known scientific discoveries/observations, and ask for others to contribute/discuss if they are interested to do so. So you do me an injustice right there, mate. Please don't make generalized statements 'painting' me with the same brush you may or may not have just cause for painting others with. Thanks.

And if you are fallible and your knowledge is incomplete after all as you just now admitted (kudos for that), then why is it you come all high and mighty so certain about something which has not even been fairly discussed yet...and so proceed to give the trolls and spoilers a victory by closing a thread down before any proper assessment/discussion has been done? You have more than once acted precipitously while reeking of certain infallibility to damage a potentially good discussion before it has been properly commenced/treated. That is the problem. And it is disingenuous for you to admit fallibility while merrily closing threads seemingly at the behest of the trolls and spoilers who have prevented you from really looking at the facts of the matter before you just 'comply' with the troll/spoiler agenda by closing a thread without first removing the troll/spoiler 'noise' so that we can determine the merits of the OP properly and without preconclusionary kneejerking because you haven't time or are not being paid to pay proper attention before acting precipitously. Change that negative/careless attitude/attention towards 'mod' duties/actions and this problem will not recur to bother you or me. Thanks.


Of course some ideas are so bad etc. But it is the art of a fair mind to act with discernment and not just kneejerk because you can't spare the time and trouble to distinguish such bad ideas and the potentially useful/good idea/hypothesis. Preconclusionary and negative attitudes do not make for good discernment/moderating process. It is in fact counterproductive to both. And in the history of science there are ample cases where exactly such careless attitude and preconclusionary 'opinion' in a professional has made him miss the next big idea, and so delaying its implementation and leaving it to its eventual 're-discovery' later on. That is science at its worst, when personal negativity/carelessness in a so-called professional actually stymies advances/ideas and delays proper consideration. Naturally in professional circles there must be the 'rough and tumble' you speak of. But in the informal discourse here and elsewhere, there should be no professional jealousies and reputations at stake. Just good natured free discourse of ideas. Anything else is counterproductive to everything a site such as this stands for. It is not a professional journal etc, it is for anyone off-the-street to come and discuss potentially important ideas/perspectives. If it's obviously 'bad', then no fuss discussion will tell. Then it can be moved etc without any complaint. But a fair hearing and informal discussion is the minimum one should expect from courteous and mindful 'guardians' and the general member here. Trolling and spoiling only muddies the waters and so makes it difficult for you and admin to do the necessary without incurring anger because you may be giving credence to trolls instead of to genuine members who just want to discuss something on its merits yet to be determined after that discussion is allowed properly. Fair enough expectation?


How was Einstein and other ground-breakers 'received' even by the 'professional' body when he first mooted his ideas and before the discussion proper had got under way (over many years) and his ideas finally vindicated? The arrogant disdain and dismissal works ok when an idea is shown to BE bad....but until it is shown to be 'bad' it should be allowed to be discussed if the idea/hypothesis is based on actual scientific discoveries/observations in the past/new literature. Otherwise how will we know just how 'bad' or 'plausible' it may have been?

And I have agreed that a bad thread/idea should be moved to the relevant section. But only after fair hearing without the trolls and spoilers affecting and possibly prejudicing your judgement in each case? If you just assume that the trolls are right and so just write off an idea/thread before you actually took the time to look and see without preconclusionary/negative attitude of mind, then of course you will assume it IS a fringe idea etc even before it has been aired properly. That's no way to informally discuss new ideas which may be potentially useful in the rare case where it may turn out to be a 'gem among the dross'.


Again, mate. I know how difficult a job it is to 'mod' such a site; but if we ignore the obvious shortcomings in any 'system', then we will just degenerate into irrelevance and possibly actually do active harm if some idea 'passing through here' is unfairly quashed and so must await 'rediscovery' later on. The delay may be acceptable to some. But why should it be if it can be prevented by just a little more positivity and care in moderating?

It is a little price to pay for a possibly big payoff for the science overall. Again, nothing personal. I do like you but there are some things more important than personal likes and dislikes. This is one of them. You have a hard job (unpaid and limited time as it is), so why make it harder when just a little more notice of what genuine posters point out about the troll/spoiler manipulation of the busy mods to get a thread closed even before proper discussion has been allowed without all the noise and malice that the trolls etc bring into something which should be courteously discussed and, if appropriately, also courteously dismissed and moved accordingly?

No threats or disrespect of any kind intended, mate. Just observing what is what. Your reaction is yours to make. I made mine known. I leave it to you and other mods/admin to decide what is to be done for the betterment of cience as well as this site. It could be excellent if just a little more targeted and discretionary care and attention is applied where and when it's needed in lieu of the apparent negativity and kneejerking which only benefits the troll agenda.

Thanks for taking my comments on board, prometheus. No hard feelings. Cheers!

.

 

[RealityCheck]

Would you care to give an example of scientific research which has been published in a reputable journal where the authors were all laypersons who met on a science forum? The internet has been around for years and years now, this forum itself is more than a decade old. Can you provide an instance where viable scientific work has been done by people like yourself thanks to forums like this?

Are you deliberately being ridiculously over the top or is it an accident? All of out inputs are deserving of a second look? It's one thing to say "I don't think your decisions about what is or isn't allowed on this forum should be allowed to continue without review" but it's an entirely different thing to say all our inputs, all our posts with opinions and comments, should be reviewed. That's calling into question our rights to have opinions! You complain you're having your views censored and yet you demand ALL of our inputs are reviewed?

I hope to god you're being deliberately ridiculous because that is moronic.

None of us have said that. In fact I specifically said that forums like this serve a good use to allow laypersons to discuss things and I wished more people did it!!

You've got from whining about perceived injustices to just flat out lying. Well done, you've demonstrated precisely the kind of person you are. Go you.

This set of fake platitudes you always spew doesn't make up for clear and deliberate lying. Saying 'mate' and 'no hard feelings' doesn't absolve you of being clearly dishonest. In the computer game Mass Effect someone makes a comment "Why is it when someone says 'With all due respect' they really mean 'Kiss my ass'". That's precisely how your vapid pleasantries appear. You aren't actually being polite, you're just shrouding dishonesty and misrepresentation in platitudes in the hopes it'll mask the frankly disgraceful amount of dishonesty you're spewing.

If Prom and I thought no one outside of professional scientists should discuss things on forums like this why would we be moderators of such a forum and allow laypersons to post? Why haven't we banned or blocked all but half a dozen posters from the main maths/physics forum? Because we want people to discuss science. But we want people to discuss it using rationality, honesty and not be wilfully ignorant. Requesting people who want to discuss science follow the basic mentality of the scientific method is not being unreasonable. Your complaints about our supposed desire to prevent all non-professional discussion are ****ing ridiculous.

As someone else said, you appear to have a massive chip on your shoulder about all of this. And rather than raising yourself to a minimal level of competency and honesty you're just digging yourself deeper. Your clear willingness to lie illustrates that clearly. Well done on sinking even lower. You must be so proud

Hi AN.


Nothing is 'fake', mate. It's an "Aussie' way. No pretense like some. OK?

And as for all the other 'stuff' you posted, please allow me to refer you to my last post above to prometheus.

Therein the matter concentrates on the issues in question, and personalities and opinions like you post are neither here nor there if we are actually going to get to grips with the issues and solve them objectively and not just continue personalized tit-for-tat exchanges.

I have observed and explained all that I wanted to on this matter. It is up to whomever it concerns to act accordingly once the actual issues are recognized and dealt with to the best of everyone's ability, for the sake of courteous science discourse and for the sake of this site and its members now and in the future, so that all the potential can be realized and not just some of it.


Thanks for your interest though, AN. No hard feelings. You know that's not 'fake' by now. OK?

For the greater good. Cheers!

.

 

[RealityCheck]

then I would highly recommend you start with the pseudo science forum to get your questions and hypothesis worked out to a level that it can be seriously looked at. Other wise it's like engaging a Medical doctor in idle gossip about someones health... not going to happen

Hi QQ.

With respect (really), it appears that the 'goal posts' are moving there.

The Issue which started all this was the now self-evident trolling, and the mod inattention/action which appears to serve the the trolls agenda rather than the site's and its members expectation to courteous discussion without the noise and sabotage by the trolls etc.


In other words, even if an OP/thread is opened in any other section as suggested, the trolls will still be at work to spoil and sabotage. And there the mods will be even less inclined to stop the trolls and delete the noise.

So it's a lose-lose proposition either way unless the mods are not manipulated by the trolls who spoil threads and get a thread shut down unfairly and sometimes with damaging consequences all round.

Like some have observed already, it really doesn't matter where a discussion may initially take place; BUT if the trolls are still given carte blanch to sabotage and troll to death there too, what then?

And if the thread is in an 'outlier' section, the mods are even less interested in controlling the trolls there (usually because once a thread is in these other sections, the 'stigma' is already on it and the kneejerking and inattention to merit is even more pronounced. So the outcome is even more unfair 'by default' even before any real discussion occurs (without troll, noise etc).

So where is the advantage from just 'shifting' the problem instead of actually tackling the causes of same.

Then maybe the other section discussions will be just as good and fair as they should all be. The trolls will not like it. Tough.

The mods/admin will be less stressed and so will the members if 'a stitch in time' is applied as needed (removing trolls/spoils from a thread wherever it raises its ugly head) instead of just making excuses for not dealing with the trolls and then blaming the victims.

That's about it for today, mate. I have to go out soon. My ride is on its way. Cheers until we speak again. And thanks again for your evenhandedness in all this. Your attitude and behaviour is quite refreshing all round, I assure you! Let's hope and trust your example catches on!

Bye.

.

 

[RealityCheck]

there is nothing there that i disagree with
that stuff has been resolved a long time ago
the only thing i address is a particular sequence of posts in a particular thread and some posts by prom in this thread.

rc tediously belaboring his initial protest is merely opportunistic and somewhat entertaining

oh and i totally appreciate that folks like alpha, prom and others spend time with us here in sci
'b]its people like them'/b] that will probably save our sorry asses from some grisly fate

Let's not forget that there have been times when 'outsiders' needed to come to the aid of "people like them" which has saved their "sorry asses" from stagnation in the professional status quo. History, not opinion. So again, it takes all kinds, and it the height of foolishness to dismiss with disdain something just because 'the source' is not to one's professional standard or liking.

And I have tried not to belabour my initial protest. The responses which tried to excuse/avoid dealing with them created all the 'belabouring'.

If the point is made, then no more responses from anyone are necessary on this issue. Let's just get on with fixing it and establish a proper courteous atmosphere and process without the trolls being given a free pass to spoil and sabotage as they have been doing so obviously and for so long.

That's it. I won't say anything more about this unless someone else attempts to avoid the issue and continue to cast the victim as the bad guy instead of the trolls.

No sweat! Cheers!

.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

The premature action to close threads while ignoring the troll/spoiler posts which cause the problems is not 'moderating' but 'copping out'. If you cannot see that removal of the trolls and their posts would have solved the problem without needing to close the threads and so give trolls/spoilers a victory in manipulating the system, then you still are avoiding the true cause of all this. Nothing personal, but enough was enough. Just remove the trolls and spoiler posts and you won't hear another peep out of me. Fair enough?

And you continue with your dishonesty. The thread in question was more than 50% about your perceived injustice and more than 33% posts by you complaining about other people. There wasn't anything in the thread which could be saved but the question itself was fine and that's why I said you could open a new thread if you wanted. You seem to repeatedly completely ignore the fact I said that, instead whining discussions are being prevented. Pack it in with that particular line of dishonest misrepresentations else it'll amount to trolling on your part, you've been told more than once.

Are you saying there are no new ideas in physics and maths worth considering/discussing under that section? And how pray tell can one tell whether a new idea is worth discussing under that section if the discussion is not allowed to proceed fairly and without trolls and spoilers getting the OP/thread aborted before one can make a proper judgement to move it to another section? Premature and preconcieved mod actions do not help to assertain the actual merits if they just kneejerk and assume even before it has been properly discussed. It's not a crank/insane idea we're talking about here (those can be moved without delay), but perfectly legitimate and logical hypotheses and ideas which may deserve at least a modicum of fair debate without trolls and spoilers before moving it to another section and/or closing it. Reasonable?

That's why I said you could start a new thread.

This revisionist history mentality you have is pretty dishonest of you.

And what you ask is unreasonable. I already pointed out that "who can tell" where the seeds of an idea came from that eventually made it into the professional literature. If you knew your science history you would know that many ideas are 'in the air' and all sorts of minds may be entertaining the new idea and discussing it informally at all sorts of odd places/venues. There are many examples in history of science where an 'innocent remark' and/or 'passing thought' voiced by someone not directly involved in the problem has led to advances. There is no 'right place/venue' for ideas to arise and be 'seeded'. It takes all kinds of amateur, professional and outsider perspectives to sometimes break the impasse. That is what 'eureka moments' and 'left field' inputs are all about. How many times in history has elitism and arrogant ego prevented an idea/person from getting a fair hearing right away instead of it being delayed for years before it is 'rediscovered' by someone else later? Read your science history, and your question there will answer itself.

Again with the misrepresentations!! He didn't say "No science ever came from informal discussion", he said they hadn't come from forums like this from people like yourself.

I really can't tell if you're being deliberately obtuse or are just, to be blunt, thick. You were given an opportunity to start a new thread, you ignored that offer and now make out it was never made. You exaggerate and twist what Prom and I have been saying about science from forums. If you're being deliberately obtuse then quite frankly you don't deserve to post here. If you're simply not getting it then you're demonstrating that you have a problem with understanding people and thus call into question the various complaints you've made about the moderators, since you would obviously have comprehension problems.

Why are you strawmanning me and my posts? People like me?

The hypocrisy meter just went to 11.

Please don't make generalized statements 'painting' me with the same brush you may or may not have just cause for painting others with. Thanks.

Practice what you bloody preach!

And if you are fallible and your knowledge is incomplete after all as you just now admitted (kudos for that), then why is it you come all high and mighty so certain about something which has not even been fairly discussed yet...and so proceed to give the trolls and spoilers a victory by closing a thread down before any proper assessment/discussion has been done? You have more than once acted precipitously while reeking of certain infallibility to damage a potentially good discussion before it has been properly commenced/treated.

This is ridiculous, you seem to have serious issues with utterly misrepresenting what went on.

And it is disingenuous for you to admit fallibility while merrily closing threads seemingly at the behest of the trolls and spoilers who have prevented you from really looking at the facts of the matter before you just 'comply' with the troll/spoiler agenda by closing a thread without first removing the troll/spoiler 'noise' so that we can determine the merits of the OP properly and without preconclusionary kneejerking because you haven't time or are not being paid to pay proper attention before acting precipitously. Change that negative/careless attitude/attention towards 'mod' duties/actions and this problem will not recur to bother you or me. Thanks.

Obviously it will recur to bother you because you aren't describing what actually happened, you're describing some warped vision of it which you've concocted.

Whether you're being a deliberate troll by completely misrepresenting or ignoring what has been said to you and what events have occurred or you don't have sufficient comprehension skills to understand pretty simple things. I pointed out in a post earlier today how you've lied, just flat out lied, and you seem to have no qualms continuing to do so. Do you realise you're doing it or have your drunk your own kool aid and convinced yourself what you've been saying is accurate? If this is how you 'remember' previous instances with moderators both here and on PhysForums then it becomes very clear that you really are the common denominator in all of this because any slight injustice you feel you've been hit with you warp and twist into something completely unrealistic and exaggerated. Several things you've said about Prom or myself or our actions are demonstrably false, yet you've said such things more than once so it's not like it was an accident. Are you resorting to this dishonest exaggeration and misrepresentation because you have a massive chip on your shoulder about the fact you've managed to accomplish nothing pertaining to science (despite you trying to do that collaborative theory of everything on PhysForums years ago which was laughably naive) and you're looking to blame others for your short comings? That isn't a rhetorical question. I want you to explain how you have concluded we, the maths/physics mods, decreed your topic was not allowed when I explicitly said you could start a new thread. Explain how you concluded we only thought discussion about science should be done between scientists when I explicitly said I wished more lay persons would discuss science. Explain how you concluded Prometheus saying "No layperson discussion on a forum like this has lead to the authoring of a published paper in a reputable journal by the laypersons involved" meant "No informal discussion ever between anyone outside of professionals has produced such scientific work". Explain how you concluded we believed scientific discussion should be only between professionals when we visit, contribute to and moderate a forum whose reason d'etre is to facilitate laypersons discussing science.

Please explain how you reached such conclusions because they are so ridiculous and dishonest a representation of Prom and myself that it's disgusting.

 

[Trippy]

In other words, even if an OP/thread is opened in any other section as suggested, the trolls will still be at work to spoil and sabotage. And there the mods will be even less inclined to stop the trolls and delete the noise.

Is it trolling? Or is it fair comment/valid criticism?

How many times have we seen posters who regard any criticism of their work as trolling?

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Let's not forget that there have been times when 'outsiders' needed to come to the aid of "people like them" which has saved their "sorry asses" from stagnation in the professional status quo. History, not opinion. So again, it takes all kinds, and it the height of foolishness to dismiss with disdain something just because 'the source' is not to one's professional standard or liking.

And it's the height of detestable dishonesty to repeatedly misrepresent what Prom and I have said, despite being corrected on it. Let me make this very very clear.... You are a liar. You have not been forthcoming with the truth. You have not said something accurate. You have misrepresented us. You have distorted facts. You have not correctly represented what we said. You have lied.

 

[RealityCheck]

And you continue with your dishonesty. The thread in question was more than 50% about your perceived injustice and more than 33% posts by you complaining about other people. There wasn't anything in the thread which could be saved but the question itself was fine and that's why I said you could open a new thread if you wanted. You seem to repeatedly completely ignore the fact I said that, instead whining discussions are being prevented. Pack it in with that particular line of dishonest misrepresentations else it'll amount to trolling on your part, you've been told more than once.

That's why I said you could start a new thread.

This revisionist history mentality you have is pretty dishonest of you.

Again with the misrepresentations!! He didn't say "No science ever came from informal discussion", he said they hadn't come from forums like this from people like yourself.

I really can't tell if you're being deliberately obtuse or are just, to be blunt, thick. You were given an opportunity to start a new thread, you ignored that offer and now make out it was never made. You exaggerate and twist what Prom and I have been saying about science from forums. If you're being deliberately obtuse then quite frankly you don't deserve to post here. If you're simply not getting it then you're demonstrating that you have a problem with understanding people and thus call into question the various complaints you've made about the moderators, since you would obviously have comprehension problems.

The hypocrisy meter just went to 11.

Practice what you bloody preach!

This is ridiculous, you seem to have serious issues with utterly misrepresenting what went on.

Obviously it will recur to bother you because you aren't describing what actually happened, you're describing some warped vision of it which you've concocted.

Whether you're being a deliberate troll by completely misrepresenting or ignoring what has been said to you and what events have occurred or you don't have sufficient comprehension skills to understand pretty simple things. I pointed out in a post earlier today how you've lied, just flat out lied, and you seem to have no qualms continuing to do so. Do you realise you're doing it or have your drunk your own kool aid and convinced yourself what you've been saying is accurate? If this is how you 'remember' previous instances with moderators both here and on PhysForums then it becomes very clear that you really are the common denominator in all of this because any slight injustice you feel you've been hit with you warp and twist into something completely unrealistic and exaggerated. Several things you've said about Prom or myself or our actions are demonstrably false, yet you've said such things more than once so it's not like it was an accident. Are you resorting to this dishonest exaggeration and misrepresentation because you have a massive chip on your shoulder about the fact you've managed to accomplish nothing pertaining to science (despite you trying to do that collaborative theory of everything on PhysForums years ago which was laughably naive) and you're looking to blame others for your short comings? That isn't a rhetorical question. I want you to explain how you have concluded we, the maths/physics mods, decreed your topic was not allowed when I explicitly said you could start a new thread. Explain how you concluded we only thought discussion about science should be done between scientists when I explicitly said I wished more lay persons would discuss science. Explain how you concluded Prometheus saying "No layperson discussion on a forum like this has lead to the authoring of a published paper in a reputable journal by the laypersons involved" meant "No informal discussion ever between anyone outside of professionals has produced such scientific work". Explain how you concluded we believed scientific discussion should be only between professionals when we visit, contribute to and moderate a forum whose reason d'etre is to facilitate laypersons discussing science.

Please explain how you reached such conclusions because they are so ridiculous and dishonest a representation of Prom and myself that it's disgusting.

Open a new thread. Why? Do you think my life revolves around making up for you and prom not doing your job right in the first place? You have the power to delete the troll/spoiler noise in the thread concerned and LEAVE IT OPEN so that the proper flow of ideas/exchanges can continue. A new thread may lose continuity of thought/input and be counterproductive to the extent that anyone who may have been interested to contribute to the original thread would now be intimidated either into silence or hesitancy of honest response to the OP as put.

That was the whole thrust of the issue. The precipitous closing and interruption of treads because the trolls wanted it and the mods obliged even though they could have easily removed the troll etc posts and left the OP and potential genuine respondents get on with a sane and courteous discussion of the merits.

Thanks for your understanding.

.

 

[RealityCheck]

And it's the height of detestable dishonesty to repeatedly misrepresent what Prom and I have said, despite being corrected on it. Let me make this very very clear.... You are a liar. You have not been forthcoming with the truth. You have not said something accurate. You have misrepresented us. You have distorted facts. You have not correctly represented what we said. You have lied.

I have misrepresented nothing. Your own construction is based on your own preconclusions.

I already pointed out that simply closing a thread did the damage, and no amount of skirting that issue or allowing other threads to be opened was cause for any gratefulness on the part of the victim of that trolling and unfair closure.

And why risk opening another thread just to set oneself up for more censure down the line? I already got a three day suspension from prometheus for just opening an 'overflow' and 'status report thread for the purpose of answeing posts which was denied me when the original thread was also closed precipitously, as usual.

As AlexG and rpenner pointed out, it is an OFFENSE (sorry, QQ) punishable by ban etc.

Consistency is everything. Either the trolls are allowed to get a thread closed nd the victim is banned tc. Or the victim is forced to open another thread and the same mod-troll risks continue only this time with the added risk of 'starting another thread' frame-up and repetition of the same fate.

I have no quarrel with you or prom personally. I made that clear. The problems are the trolls and the mods inaction when they sabotage a thread in order to get you to close same.

How simply can it be put? NO lies necessary.

Just get rid of the trolls when a thread is legitimate discourse, as in my threads which you closed because of the trolls. If you just do that simple thing instead of all this palaver and excuses and blaming the victim, then you wouldn't have to hear from me on this ever again.

The solution is there. Just use it fairly and with attention.

Nothing more or less is asked for. End of story. No more need be said by anyone. Yes?


Cheers mate!

.

 

[Quantum Quack]

There wasn't anything in the thread which could be saved but the question itself was fine and that's why I said you could open a new thread if you wanted. You seem to repeatedly completely ignore the fact

@RealityCheck,
Is what AlphaNumeric stating true ? That he offered you to start a thread again ?
Can we establish this as an accepted fact?

 

[Syne]

PS: Perhaps we could allow a thread starter to determine who will be allowed to respond to his thread? That way any obvious trolls and spoilers will have been prevented from intruding from the get-go? That power to determine the respondents should not extend to the power to delete replies from those respondents. That way a happy medium may be struck between excluding known spoilers and trolls, and including everything that a genuine respondent/debater has to offer to the OP/discussion? Your thoughts, QQ, anyone?

You can very easily determine who responds to your threads, by simply posting in the fringe forums here. Personally, I do not read those forums, nor do I continue to post to any thread moved to the Cesspool.

But even better, if you would grace others with the answers that you insist on waiting indefinitely for, maybe you could discuss your own contribution to the continuing discussion instead of dodging any such contribution with off-topic complaints of people simply expecting you to contribute to your own threads. Conversation, in any medium, is all about give and take. This requires that all parties continue to contribute. Starting a discussion to then play moderator of facts you have not demonstrated any facility with is not a contribution. Neither is complaining incessantly when there is a report button and mods to PM already in place to keep that sort of disruption isolated.

For example, in the thread under discussion, RPenner had made a very good summary of a good number of poster's opinions. People did let you know that they were expecting some reply to that post from you. Instead, you launched into speeches about your intent, being trolled, and anything but give any impression that you ever intended to answer it. And not restarting the thread when clearly invited to makes it seem like you never intended to.

 

[RealityCheck]

Is it trolling? Or is it fair comment/valid criticism?

How many times have we seen posters who regard any criticism of their work as trolling?

That's for the mods to judge.

But when the obvious trolls and spoils were actually pointed out to the mods concerned, and their only response was to oblige the trolls and close the thread before proper courteous discussion was complete, who you gonna call?

And Just because someone else does not accept fair criticism does not mean everyone automatically should be put in the same mold by kneejerking to that conclusion even before the discussion is allowed properly.

And I trust you are not claiming that all trolls are legitimate?

So it's a question of discernment on the part of the members and the mods. Once the difference is made obvious and reportd, and pleas are made for the mods to act accordingly but they do not and instead close the thread, then what's the point of splitting this particular 'hair'?

The trolls are obvious. The valid criticism is obvious but sometimes not quite related to the point being made by the other person, and so may sometimes be a preconclusionary kneejerk response which has no bearing on the actual OP point in question.

Frustration then ensues on both sides when the trolls move in and muddy the waters some more and create so much noise and distraction and misundrstanding that the discussion is effectively killed. With the usual consequences for all concerned except the trolls. Not good.

Thanks for your interest and trouble in this, Trippy.

Really, I have to go now. Bye everyone.

 

[RealityCheck]

@RealityCheck,
Is what AlphaNumeric stating true ? That he offered you to start a thread again ?
Can we establish this as an accepted fact?

I have already answered that. He did. I did not take it up because of past experience and because it did not answer the original problem of threads being closed unfairly in the first instance.

No repetition of a thread is going to solve the problem of the trolls etc who will only move into the new thread if the mods don't take heed of the reason why they closed the original thread: the trolls which they ignored in favour of closing the thread instead.

How does starting another thread with the trolls still 'in business' help solve the problem. It only extends their rnage to new pastures unless the mods can clear up the trolls in the original thread and let the discourse flow as intended instead of constantly being aborted as described.

Some of us have little time/health/energy to spare for just going though the motions anew when the original would have done. I don't know about you, QQ, but there is a limited amount of time etc for people in my circumstances....and I don't wish to waste it on continually pleading for mods to do their job in the first instance instead of just creating endless repetition of the problems when they could be so quickly and effectively solved as already suggested in the first instance.



Bye for now!

(logging off now)..

 

[Quantum Quack]

@RC: Thank you for your confirmation that you were offered an opportunity to start your thread again.

Maybe due to your naitvity with internet forums or whatever you fail to realise that when a moderator offers you to start your thread again he is making certain concessions that indicate "a preparedness to work with you" to solve the issue that forced thread closure. The question is why have you not taken up the offer and volunteered to help solve an issue that is endemic to all public forums on the net.
In the 10 years or so of membership here I have only ever personally witnessed a Moderator make such an offer maybe 3-4 times. It is a very rare thing for a moderator to offer IMO
and for AlphaNumeric, of all people, to offer such a thing is indeed rather amazing [chuckle]

I don't know about you, QQ, but there is a limited amount of time etc for people in my circumstances...

now where have I, opps!, I mean WE, seen this excuse used before...