Hello R1D2,
Good to meet you.
I don't mean to be too literal here, but do you mean a software upgrade?
And why did the spamming get worse?
Also, what is the exact definition of spamming being used here? It can be applied quite vaguely and broadly at the same time. An original, narrow definition of spam would seem to contradict the idea that it would serve any purpose to display the crossed out posters the front page.
I'm new here, but I've been around the block once or twice. I just want to know who I'm gettin' hitched to, before it goes too far.
---Futilitist
Futilitist
The exact definition of spamming used here in this particular instance are usually people who sell ugg boots or penile enlargements or viagra. I mean if you are interested in such things, I can send you the links that they are filling the threads they start on this site with and trying to 'spam' it into every other thread on this site.
A spammer, by any sense of the imagination, is one who just keeps posting the same thing over and over again (as with the numerous individuals who join forums trying to sell their wares).
I am not as concerned about spam as I am about oppression. The list of crossed out members on the main page creates a very dark first impression. And I have never seen a "Ban List" button next to the "Community" button anywhere before! The folks who run this site should not be surprised by the problems they have here. People tend to rebel against unfair treatment and overly tight control.
It feels a though an iron curtain has descended here. Shhh ... be careful what you say.
Why should you feel concerned that we are oppressing people trying to flood this forum with drug, shoes, handbags, electronic and penile enlargement sales?
I do not know of one forum that allows or encourages spammers to post on their sites, nor do I know of anyone who would view the banning of such spam bots as being akin to oppression.
The list of crossed out members and the ban list shows that the moderators on this site are doing their jobs in making sure members are able to post without their threads and posts being flooded and made to almost disappear in a flood of spam posts.
As for being careful what you say...
If you are able to back up your claims or support your argument with scientific proof without resorting to emotion and ignoring all scientific proof and evidence to the contrary, you should not have much of a problem here or anywhere else for that matter. Here, like other forums, expect people to be able to back up their claims with scientific proof and research.
And the mods are not just similar, they are the very same people on all the forums. The mods are fine with both sides presenting facts and tables. They get upset when you press valid points and do not take their threats as a hint to stop. In other words, don't actually try to win the argument and watch out what you say. I was just banned for quibbling with the mods. Over scientific data.
Hardly.
Most who are banned for such reasons are unable to validate their argument or back up their claims with scientific studies or proof and instead resort to a 'well I think it should be this way or is this way'.. In short, if you cannot back up your claims and you keep pushing that you are right because you believe in your mind you are right and it is clear that you are wrong and the other side has proof that you are wrong and you keep ignoring that proof.. then yes, people get annoyed and they do file complaints and reports and moderators are then forced to act.
There is a simple solution to this of course, back up your claims and do not just rely on emotion and expect to be taken seriously and certainly do not then troll moderators and keep opening threads or bringing other threads off topic because you believe you are right but you are unable to back it up.. We, like all other science forums out there, expect people to be able to back up their claims with links, reports, studies, etc. It is not much to ask for.
I also find it extraordinary that you are a new member here and you are complaining about moderation and banning spammers and attempting to portray a conspiracy theory on this site...
For example, Prometheus was the Judge in the mock trial of iNow. KALSTER was there as a mod. He is an Admin. at the science forum dot com. MarnixR was deeply implicated in the charges I made. SkinWalker owns the science forum dot com. Do you see a pattern here? I do.
It also pays to not see a consipiracy with everything and anything.
Having known SkinWalker for many many years on this site (he moderated here for many years), I actually trust him implicitly. Again, because he respects and expects people to be able to back up their claims instead of relying on a 'believe me because I told you so' style of argument that many who find themselves going up against moderators seem to rely on. I see no evidence that he owns that forum. He, like many of us here, have membership there going back many many years (hell I can't even remember my password for that place anymore). You should also keep in mind that many moderators of science forums are scientists themselves, most holding Phd's in their respective fields and who know when someone is trying to pull the wool over their eyes and they do expect people to support whatever claims they may be trying to make.
There comes a point where people who consistently find themselves banned from numerous forums should possibly start asking themselves if it is them or everyone else that has the problem?
Across all the science sites, these same moderation teams argue with folks like me who are passionate about certain issues. The mods always take the same highly conservative positions. Here are the issues that I have found that the mods hate:
1. Peak oil
2. Social collapse
3. Climate change
4. Arguments questioning concepts of free will
5. Arguments concerning human nature especially, group dynamics
6. Arguments against technological triumphalism
What the hell is going on? Are these places corporate science disinformation sites? This is not a far fetched idea. Most people here think that is what theoildrum.com is. Who really owns these sites?
My advice?
Don't rely on 'woo woo' evidence and rely on respected scientific studies and journals to back up your claims. Or as scheherazade correctly commented. Argue from a point of logic.