Site name change

Discussion in 'Site Feedback' started by DaveC426913, Jan 26, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    This is precisely what I meant when I posted first on this thread.
    There are people, surely with high post count, they have assumed the role of mainstream protectors. Whenever anything deviating, however objective that may be, comes in these people start the derailment process and start their veiled or open attack. You do not have time to see that, you intervene only when the poster at receiving end looses his temper and pays these resident trolls back. The poster goes, these trolls win and this forum looses. Just think objectively, analyse the contributions of likes of paddoboys and origins, you will see why this site cannot have objective discussion.

    Did you notice how Origin pokes sylevester and gets rebuffed time and again, did you see how he responded to my post here, did you notice how origin is attempting to poke SimonsCat, did you notice how origin attempted to derail misli thread and got rebuffed. If not please do that.

    I must tell you, I had two sessions with cosmoquest forum (I do not want to cite, but Paddoboy could not resist), both the threads ran very well with very high number of posts and ran full 30 days, remarkable thing was excellent moderation. No sidey one liners, no nonsense by any poster, even kilopis (>3140 posts) were not spared if they posted nonsense. No complaint to be discussed on the thread, just report only. What happens here, sorry to say mediocres or less have taken the control of science section. The guys feel powerful if they could derail a thread with single word....I call them people with high nuisance value.
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Rajesh, if you do not wish to be here, nobody is forcing you to remain...
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    I have noticed that Paddoboy has 20000+ posts in a span of 3-4 years. So let Paddoboy initiate the discussion on what needs to be done, both of us do not stand a chance infront of him on this score.

    Generally such stands, like you are new, you should learn the tricks of trade first, are taken up by those who lack something. Things are changing. Not much difference between 1200 to 4000 to 20000. Looking at Paddo, I think your contribution is more involved.
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    I see you are a staff member. It is clear that the sense of what I posted has not been conveyed properly.

    Let me try again:
    I come here for some serious discussion, some serious learning.
    Thanks to this place I have two publications.
    I see that many people come here for the sake of posting few catchy one liners. They are distraction and must be curbed.

    SF was my first internet public place when I joined couple of years ago, I have seen it closely and developed some kind of affinity with this place. I feel sad when it (science section) is getting hijacked by peole like origins and paddoboys with absolutely no education. I am surprised why such free hand to these people.
  8. sweetpea Valued Senior Member

    May I recommend...
    The funny thing is, even when there's no one trolling on a thread you still get people like, lets say, The God moaning about others...there was no trolling on the thread quoted below, yet there, the moaning still goes on...
    He can't stop himself, again on that thread...more moaning, but no trolling on that thread.
    Some just love to bitch. Why should such people be taken seriously?
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2017
  9. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    That's your spin on it. A more accurate spin would be that each individual has their own motives for supporting well-executed science, while discouraging crank non-science.

    A thread that starts from ignorance is off the rails before the first post. There are many many posters here who wilfully post their ignorant ideas and dismiss all discussion on the matters.

    90% of the time, long-time posters address the meat of the case, but at some point, having been here long enough, we recognize the nonsense right away.

    Great way to get heard. Tell the moderators they're not thinking objectively, and that if they'd just listen to you everything will go great.
    You do realize that's not objective, right?

    Yes, CQ is a different beast. It does not have the same tolerance for "fringe science" that SciFo does. That too, has its problems.
  10. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    This is a counter-intuitive admission.

    You don't want to curtail the cranks - the ignorant people who post their whimsical ideas and call it science. You want them to have free reign to speak as they wish.

    But you do want to curtail the voices of those who call the cranks out - time and time again, for their ignorance and wilful dismissal of solid science and logic.

    Essentially, you want a ... crank sanctuary?
    Truck Captain Stumpy likes this.
  11. Kristoffer Giant Hyrax Valued Senior Member

  12. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    If your claim is that what Paddoboy and Origin are saying is incorrect, then certainly you can prove it in-thread with solid evidence.
    Truck Captain Stumpy likes this.
  13. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Anyway, this thread is off-topic.

    It's about the preponderance of Trumpian politics. It's been almost the sole subject of content for the last few weeks.

    I'm bored with it; I'm simply saying so.
  14. MacGyver1968 Fixin' Shit that Ain't Broke Valued Senior Member

    I agree. This is supposed to be a science forum, instead it has become a political forum.
  15. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Yep. Unfortunately this will likely continue; as one of the most anti-science president in generations, he is going to be a topic of discussion on science boards across the US.
  16. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Good point. I hadn't thought of it in terms of that connection.
  17. paddoboy Valued Senior Member


    As I'm fond of telling such people, there main objective seems to be simply to ignore any evidence that supports a particular theory, and then attempt to discredit and deride science, as expletive deleted did in the Hulse Taylor Binary Pulsar thread.
    And of course despite his procrastinations, his claimed papers [rajesh] were rejected and invalidated by a professional, while being published in less then reputable sources, while of course his stint over at the other place was filled with warnings, corrections, errors in thinking and as with most alternative nonsense, has now died a painful death.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  18. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    This is the provocative misrepresentation by you, which leads to bad arguments and derailment.

    1. An evidence in support of a particular theory is nothing but observational or experimental confirmation. The main objective of your 'such people" is to explore alternative ways of explaining these observations and experimental results. Whats wrong in that? In fact if moderated properly such discussions can be very insightful. You are one of the main culprits in killing such threads which otherwise could lead to better learning.

    2. I am privy to alternative delted stand on HT binary. He raised a very valid argument, you provoked him to no end, he lost his nerves, in the end you won but this forum lost with his exit. His simple stand was how is that the loss of spin is attributed only to Gravitational Waves? Why not energy loss by other means? You don't have any answer. You just trolled him.

    3. As far as my papers are concerened, I stand by that there are no Black Holes. Before the singularity could form the matter would be released back to universe in the from of energy. The key is the unknown nature of Asymptotic Freedom. At CQ, this thread ran its full life and none of the posters could really kill it. Read about Asymptotic Freedom, and see if it gels with BH singualrity or no. Work on AF got the nobel, not the work on BH. There is nothing beyond Neutron Star. Your attempt to paint my brief visit to CQ in black or red, was really distasteful.
  19. Truck Captain Stumpy The Right Honourable Reverend Truck Captain Valued Senior Member

    may i remind you of the following:
    your post didn't prove anything and doesn't make any compelling arguments

    gonna have to contest this as well: if he "lost his nerve" then the argument would, by definition, have to be predominantly emotional and not one from an evidenciary or scientific perspective.

    more to the point, the evidence simply is.
    full stop.

    if said poster is correct but chose to leave the forum then it is his/her loss, not the forum.
    If the poster is incorrect then it is better to leave and consider spreading misinformation elsewhere.
    the argument in defense of pseudoscience or misinformation is not a victimless crime. see:

    also see:

    irrelevant distraction from the topic
    science doesn't care about where you stand or what you believe - it only cares about what can be proven or demonstrated to be factual

    Science doesn't build upon the studies and evidence because you stand by it or you believe it to be factual, it builds upon those that are validated and proven to be factual

    if you are correct then you need to make the case to the physics community:
    argument supporting your pet belief in a forum among laymen is like attempting to change the national tax laws by talking to the feral dogs locked in a pound
  20. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    If Rajesh is going to derail this thread to serve as his personal soapbox to
    - bash other forum members
    - promote his no black holes idea
    - generally troll and drag the thread to his personal agenda

    then it would be better off closed.

    Rajesh: this is why we can't have nice things.
    Truck Captain Stumpy likes this.
  21. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    It seems worth reminding―

    ―that Sciforums is what its members make it. To the one, sure, I know that sounds trivial, but, to the other, that's kind of the thing.

    Force of Will as "Democracy" ― One of the first moderators installed once upon a time was charged with responding to complaints of profanity. Over time, the membership simply won out by sheer force of will; we kept cussing.​

    It's hard to account for all the history; once upon a time, for instance, we had a rule against drive-by posting, and these days it seems just futile. We have for years said this and that about a "science site", and the "scientific method", but at the same time allowed and in many cases encouraged and even specifically protected vicious and irrational discourse because, well, you know, Politics is politics, and not a "science". And while it's easy to sympathize with the need for diversity, this is also how communities legitimize #AlternativeFacts. And, well, Religion? That's an interesting question, but rejecting the existence of God is pretty much the shape of "rational" discussion about religion at Sciforums. Consider the idea that inventing new definitions of words to replace existing definitions in order to make one's argument feel easier to recite and sound better stylistically is ... well, okay, how is it not fallacious, inappropriate, or otherwise wrong? Suffice to say we have certain conditions by which it is permissible to waste people's time with such potsherds.

    Say what we want about diversity; there are reasons we've kept this irrationality and vice around over the years. Part of it is the fact of human tendency. Part of it is the fact that it's a discussion board with a long history of ridiculous bickering. And part of it is simply political and other such sympathies.

    A practical point worth making is that in the beginning, Exosci and then Sciforums was largely driven by various iterations of the Religion subforum. And it's true, we actually used to have enlightening discussions ... y'know ... every once in a while. After we Americans spun up our war machine, World Events and Politics became more prominent. None of us actually know the real statistical profile today, but at no time has this community made proper science its primary focus.

    For instance, say what I want about the quality of discussion, and it's true that even as a moderator I have my reasons for getting down in the mucky trenches with people, but in the end it's still anyone's choice to post as they do. There is no rule that says I must answer, respond to, or otherwise attend the people who annoy me. Indeed, if I reserve myself from discussion with them, I would have better leverage to put on my mod hat and simply start throwing those people out for deliberate misbehavior.

    But that's never really been how we do things.

    And the problem can, if we keep our descriptions general enough, be the same as it ever was. Nobody needs to go trooping down to the Fringe forum to pick a fight with the potsherds, but they do. Nobody needs to bother responding to the potsherds littering the science subfora, but they do.

    We put up with a certain amount of irrationality and bullshit because, historically speaking, we have been expected to. That standard was never particularly well or firmly inscribed; it can become problematic.

    Meanwhile, though, if I take my green hat off and look at our topic poster, or the next guy in line, or the next one, what are they or anyone else doing to create the "science content".

    But it's true; even I know that dispassionate threads and posts written with an eye to technical accuracy and communicating to intelligent interest instead of base passion pretty much chases the audience away.

    And there is an old circle that looks like a trap in effect; we all take part, and we all have our reasons, but our participation pretty much delegitimizes a certain amount of our subsequent complaint.

    The longer answer has always been that it's any one person's choice to attend, respond, otherwise, or not. This is, of course, a largely unsatisfactory standard, but it's the one we've got.


    The other day someone filed a complaint, and for the most part it was just another complaint. But while the complaint noted certain bullshit, it went about throwing some of its own; it didn't just complain about a member's behavior, it went out of its way to promote another. And, you know, maybe in a discussion of some natural science this other is a fine contributing poster, but the guy I know has a weird fixation on delegitimizing all women everywhere, and goes through incredible stages in which he can transcend fury and become coldly sniffy. It's astounding to see, but think of self-defense. Nobody would say you don't have the right to decide when you're in danger such that you are compelled to defend yourself, right? I mean, I live in a country where we can shoot people to death for rummaging a rubbish bin, or asking directions, or simply being black. And these scared-to-defending-myself explanations pass muster. But a woman? Well, this person, allegedly one of our most reasonable members, would say he, in accosting her, gets to decide how she should feel. And why? Apparently in order to preserve the custom of hitting on random women.

    The only reason that manner of bigotry passes muster is that the staff often feels stayed, functionally expected to handicap discussions in order to not silence voices in the discussion.

    One of the implications is that member contributions have become so poor that we must lower our standards. And we have been doing that, as a matter of policy, for over a decade. Think of it this way: If I know that X is inappropriate, then I must take no action, because in knowing X is inappropriate I necessarily invoke vested interest. Thus the expectation has been that if someone posts something, say, racist or sexist, you are supposed to engage reasonably and rationally. Like virtually any such outlook, this one lacks any functional address of the prospect that one pushing such inappropriate material is not interested in rational discourse.

    And if you say this feels like running 'round in circles, I won't disagree.

    Still, though, it's a long way from where we are to any manner of "science site" or whatever that platitude was about our overriding respect for the scientific method. And I can point my finger at the Administration, but it only ever offends them. And even as we go back and forth about those issues, one factor will remain constant: Sciforums is what its members make it.
  22. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member


    Did I misunderstand you?
    From your OP I thought you are expressing that this forum lacks the good discussion on science, not that I was knowing about your boredom with Trump posts.

    I responded in good faith, because I also feel that quality science discussion is very low here.

    I asked you what you want to discuss or what should be discussed ? You kept silent.
    I posted about the provocation leading to bad blood. You faulted me.
    I posted about unacceptable start of provocations by likes of origins and paddobiys. You started faulting me.
    I posted about some members becoming the expert supporters of mainstream without much knowledge. You thought this was my personal scoring.

    If you feel that you are not interested in pursuing a thread which you started, then ask for closure by all means, but it gives me a feeling that this thread was also one of those lazy threads like lazy one liners and lazy likes by many posters, who actually are the hindrance to the quality science discussion here. You are just not interested in serious things.

    If you hit me (even for valid reasons) and another poster gives you like for that and you accept that, then do you understand what that behaviour signifies? The day who give 'likes' to such posts understand this, this place will improve.

    [PS : If somebody gives me 'like' for my bad behavior or on some insulting post by me or on some smart but hurting one liner.....should I not post my uncomfort on receiving such likes.]. On this site, there are very few 'likes' on the good work, most of the likes are on dirty posts only.
    Last edited: Jan 29, 2017
  23. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    you make couple of misses.

    1. Try taking on paddoboy, try faulting him. Have a first hand experience and get back pl.
    2. Evidence is not period. An observational evidence can satisfy two competing theories. You miss that.
    3. You seem to be unaware about the problems being faced by those who question mainstream.
    leave aside making a presentation to scientific community, it is almost impossible to get your paper presented in any mainstream journal against Big Bang Cosmology.
    4. Your argument against expletive deleted, is not worth commenting. It is uninformed assessment.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page