Abuse of Power by Kittamaru

Status
Not open for further replies.
Beer w/Straw said:
My opinion aside... Wont the forum software automatically ban someone eventually?
Click to expand...

All bans are handled by the forum software based on the number of active infraction points - moderators actually cannot (to my knowledge) issue bans directly, except using the "spam" function, which is only available on user accounts less than, I believe, a week old.
 
If you can't say anything good about a person do not say anything.
So I will have to say that The God is a consummate troll. He has managed to post over 3,400 anti-science, insulting and condescending posts designed only to inflame people and yet he is still here. He has done a spectacular job of trolling Sciforums for (well look at this) exactly 2 years....Bravo!

3 days is nothing for The God, he will come back refreshed and ready to go.
 
This thread is about Kitt's reason for infracting you. It is not an opportunity for you to re-open your case from the contentious thread in question, from which you have been banned.

You were not infracted because of the topic of discussion itself; you were infracted for your disrespectful, abusive behavior toward other members, including utterly off-topic shots at both Kitt and JamesR.
 
Kittamaru said:
All bans are handled by the forum software based on the number of active infraction points - moderators actually cannot (to my knowledge) issue bans directly, except using the "spam" function, which is only available on user accounts less than, I believe, a week old.
Click to expand...
Really?? Do I understand this correctly - that Mods cannot ban members (except by issuing infractions) ?

That explains a lot. So it's not the Mods having too light a touch with vexatious members (as I suspect many have thought, including me) - it's the software, which is controlled by the owners. Is that right?
 
DaveC426913 said:
Really?? Do I understand this correctly - that Mods cannot ban members (except by issuing infractions) ?

That explains a lot. So it's not the Mods having too light a touch with vexatious members (as I suspect many have thought, including me) - it's the software, which is controlled by the owners. Is that right?
Click to expand...

We could circumvent the ban pattern by issuing additional points, I believe - though there has been some strangeness with the system in that regard (sometimes bans don't appear to initiate at the right time, though that could just be me misremembering the points levels required). We DO have the option of issuing a permanent ban (basically, lumping a hundred or more points set never to expire) - however, no, we cannot directly, via administrative control panel, ban a member. Moderators are also incapable of removing infraction points once issued (that is something only administrators can do, to my knowledge).
 
I think James R was properly going to give me ban one time but just gave me an infraction instead.
 
Beer w/Straw said:
I think James R was properly going to give me ban one time but just gave me an infraction instead.
Click to expand...
At the risk of derailing this thread - while I've seen you bomb threads with irreverent comments, I don't recall you ever disrupting or attempting to divert a thread.
 
How often do the owners show up to do maintenance? Can administrators modify the database or access the core code? There are many things broken here, like some folks can't add or change avatars or signature lines, but others can. What's up with that?

I know you guys don't get paid, but sometimes the shit gets a little too deep.
 
Dr_Toad said:
How often do the owners show up to do maintenance? Can administrators modify the database or access the core code?
Click to expand...
My understanding is that is outside their scope, permissions and skillset.
I've mentioned some minor buggy issues with display, and even provided CSS solutions, but was told there's nothing that can be done.
 
Dr_Toad said:
How often do the owners show up to do maintenance? Can administrators modify the database or access the core code? There are many things broken here, like some folks can't add or change avatars or signature lines, but others can. What's up with that?

I know you guys don't get paid, but sometimes the shit gets a little too deep.
Click to expand...

We (moderators) have no access to the back end whatsoever. I don't know if James has access to the control panel functions, but I don't believe he has access to the database itself (eg, via SQL or whatever language we use)
 
Beer w/Straw said:
I'd think an administrator would insta-ban a sock.
Click to expand...

If we can prove it is a sockpuppet, Moderators can do that - we can use the "spam" function on the account, if it was recently created. If not, best we have is to issue the 100+ point infraction to issue the permanent ban.

Problem is, if we are wrong, well... we have no way to undo it until an Administrator happens along :)
 
origin said:
Is it my imagination or has this thread just recently become more civil?? :wink:
Click to expand...

As it should be. If there's some problem to solve or a goal to be achieved, people tend to quit entertaining themselves with "banter" and get it done.
 
sweetpea said:
How do the mods decide the number infraction points to issue?
Click to expand...

Typically depends on the severity of the infraction - a "warning" can be issued at 0 points, a typical infraction is 10 or so, and repeat offenders can see that ramp higher as/if needed. There is often discussion in the back room among one another if there is question about it.
 
Kittamaru said:
Indeed I can - it's a red herring and has nothing to do with the original premise of what was being discussed. This was already explained to you.
You initially posted this here:
http://sciforums.com/threads/if-pho...led-into-blackhole.159765/page-7#post-3471892

To which it was, yet again, explained to you:


Thus, your argument is a red herring and contributes naught to the discussion at hand. You THEN diverged into:



To which it was attempted, several times, to explain to you that the need for a third body to cause capture (as opposed to a strike or a pass through) is a requirement due to conservation of momentum.



This appears to have come from here:
http://sciforums.com/threads/if-pho...led-into-blackhole.159765/page-7#post-3471900

Further pointless argument from you, as explained here:
http://sciforums.com/threads/if-pho...led-into-blackhole.159765/page-7#post-3471904

The discussion was already had - you are arguing for orbital capture, and then attempting to "proof" it using examples that would NOT result in orbital capture (such as target strike).



Yet again, you demonstrate your inability to post without including attempted insults.





Yes, the fault with what you just said is that you are, apparently, unable to ascertain why the fuel spent by Apollo 11 is important and changes the scenario entirely, or how there is a requirement for a third body to interact.


And these are further red herrings, and have little to do with the discussion at hand.


And once again, you resort to insults and ad hominem because you are incapable of making a scientifically valid point.



The greatest failure I see here is that you have been allowed to remain at SciForums when all you seem capable of doing is hurling insults at those you disagree with (see your multiple examples above). I also notice you fail to even acknowledge your attempted deceptions regarding what was said by whom, or when.

You are, to be blunt, a disingenuous troll that gives every appearance of only coming around to disrupt intelligent conversation with obfuscation and red herring. Not only that, but you incessantly derail the discussion at hand with subjects that are, at best tangentially connected, in an apparent effort to justify your positions (as you have done here).

Furthermore, you have, yet again, provided not one iota of evidence to support your claims - I guess you expect us to take you at your word alone? Guess what - that's not going to happen, and that isn't how science works.

If you have a problem with backing your claims with evidence, I suggest you take your posts elsewhere - perhaps Twitter or Facebook?
Click to expand...

This is bad, very bad attempt by you to silence others, and within minutes you banned me.

You can do anything to defend your stand, that is continued abuse of Power.

I will respond on that thread with DaveC, Origin, mine and Sarkus posts in quote. You will see what Sarkus wrote (correct initial conditions for escape which I was emphasizing) and what your troll friends wrote.
 
DaveC said:
1] Since the body entered the well from outside, it already has all the energy it needs to exit the well.
Click to expand...


The God said:
Pt#1 may not be correct in general.

For an object not to hit the central mass, both the incidence angle and speed are important and matters. If the object has exited (of course without gain of momentum) that means...

1. It entered with a speed sufficient to escape it from the well.

2. It entered at an angle so that the trajectory inside was such that it exited without striking.
Click to expand...

Sarkus said:
......Ignoring atmosphere, assume the smaller body enters the sphere of influence of the larger with a speed of V, with V necessarily being in excess of the escape velocity....
Click to expand...

Bold is mine in Sarkus and my post. Both of us are talking about the initial conditions wherein speed of entry > escape velocity at that moment. If a body enters with speed higher than escape velocity and an angle not leading to strike then only it will escape. Where is the inaccuracy, Kittamaru? You have miserably trolled me and abused your power.


Now, as I have been saying it all boils down to initial conditions, all examples like apollo fuel burning or third body assist or any other force is just to create the suitable capture conditions. In fact the configuration of 3-body capture (2 bodies capturing a third body) as being pushed by your friends is most unstable with a huge possibility of ejection of the lighter of the pre existing 2-bodies. Well that is too complicated for your friends.


I am giving you link Kittamaru, try reading it....Prof H B Perets is an authority on this subject, do not let your troll friends to come and say that this is an arXiv paper...


https://arxiv.org/abs/1202.2362 said:
Abstract
........Finally, although rare, two FFPs or brown dwarfs can become bound and form a FFP-binary system with no stellar host.
Click to expand...

They are two body getting in orbit without stellar host, thanks to initial conditions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top