[alpha-rulez] Moderators are not being disciplined enough and are very naughty

[Tom2]

Think that might have been an oversight? Did you, perchance, try to report said insult to see what happened?

It's funny how the simple fact that a moderator can't be everywhere is interpreted to be 'coddling' a particular 'class' of user.

No, examples such as the one I cited are the rule, not the exception. Just flip through the pages in Physics and Math and you'll see what I mean. Very often a moderator is right there responding to the loonies. Their usual MO is to try to engage them in dialog and ask them why they say the things they do. It's as if they want to administer some perverse form of pro bono psychotherapy, when what is really called for is a good swift kick in the ass.

For a recent example, see the last couple of pages of Science and Pseudoscience - A Primer.

 

[James R]

Tom2:

I understand your concerns. However, I ought to point out that the moderators get it from both sides.

You complain that we allow too much pseudoscientific nonsense and nutters who think they can outdo Einstein with zero knowledge of Physics. But others complain that we're closed-minded and only allow "established" physics to be posted, and not outside-the-box ideas and opinions. They complain that their "free speech" is being violated, and that physics is really just a boys' club for the in-crowd, who can't take criticism, and whose ideas are so flimsy that they won't stand up to any challenge.

From my own point of view, I think that as long as I'm getting equal numbers of complaints from both sides, then I'm probably doing ok in terms of moderation. I try to aim for a balance between giving ideas a fair run while at the same time not allowing outright trolling.

I freely admit that my aims for the sciforums Physics forum are not the same as the aims of, say, the dedicated forums at www.physicsforums.com. But why should they be? Why create a duplicate (actually, sciforums was here first, anyway)? physicforums is for serious physics and practicing physicists, and doesn't tolerate any nay-saying of established physics. Fine. It has carved out a niche, and I respect that. If I want to know something about string theory, or have a technical question about quantum mechanics or relativity, my first port of call will be there, not here. But if I want to have my own understanding of, say, relativity, questioned and challenged, I'll probably do better here.

 

[darksidZz]

I seek an understanding of the female relative to my existence...

I must say I care not if employee's, employeers, or anyone I know reads the posts I've made here. I declare I am the god of the universe and exist beyond their knowing, also that I am so utterly bored it matters little who reads my words as long as they do..

 

[Ophiolite]

Yes, you are.

However, when the preference is to protect and coddle the "somewhat less," when you would much rather read the kooks and nutters posts, then perhaps it is time to leave. The science here has all but died and those who made it flourish are all but gone.

Even JamesR posts aren't interesting to read anymore as he now must spend his time dealing with those kooks, nutters and the "somewhat less."

There's really no one left here worth reading. It's little more than a glorified chat room for the "somewhat less" to indulge their idiocies.

But hey, if that's the preference and that's the way you wish the forum momentum to go, then fill your boots...

I'll say very little, sit back and watch you act superior to everyone.

What a bizarre post. My remarks on 'talking bollocks' related, you will recall, to a suggestion that likening ill thought out moderator action to nazi excesses might be valid. I offered the 'bollocks' option as a sop to those who might be offended by the idea. I suggest it remains a valid one - tolerance of small evils allows them to grow, within society at large, to massive evils.

Now having declared, as you are free to do, that that thesis is flawed, you then launch into a strange litanty of observations that have bugger all to do with what I think, or have said, but by implication are put downs of my beliefs. I am not well versed in debating terminology, but that appears very like a quintessential strawman to me.

The science has died you say, and on that we can agree. It was not, however, the death of the science that we were discussing, but the deathbed sickness of impartiallity on the part of some moderators. Might there be a causative connection, for there is certainly a correlation.

I'll say very little, sit back and watch you act superior to everyone.

It's not an act.

 

[Tom2]

You complain that we allow too much pseudoscientific nonsense and nutters who think they can outdo Einstein with zero knowledge of Physics.

But the problem isn't those who merely think "outside the box". I can easily peacefully coexist with the likes of zanket, andrewgray, and 2inq. It's people like CANGAS, MacM, and to a lesser extent Prosoothus and Farsight, that I'm talking about. People who ridicule others for discussing well-established, uncontroversial physics topics (such as the Trilarian threads I brought up) are like a cancer here.

But others complain that we're closed-minded and only allow "established" physics to be posted, and not outside-the-box ideas and opinions. They complain that their "free speech" is being violated, and that physics is really just a boys' club for the in-crowd, who can't take criticism, and whose ideas are so flimsy that they won't stand up to any challenge.

The only two words that come to mind are: So what?

From my own point of view, I think that as long as I'm getting equal numbers of complaints from both sides, then I'm probably doing ok in terms of moderation. I try to aim for a balance between giving ideas a fair run while at the same time not allowing outright trolling.

I know it won't make any difference, but for the record I don't think you're doing a good job, and I do think that you allow outright trolling to run rampant. Outright trolling is all that CANGAS and MacM ever do. And the fact that you're getting equal numbers of complaints from both sides doesn't indicate anything other than both sides are equally unhappy. That's hardly a ringing endorsement.

I freely admit that my aims for the sciforums Physics forum are not the same as the aims of, say, the dedicated forums at www.physicsforums.com. But why should they be? Why create a duplicate (actually, sciforums was here first, anyway)? physicforums is for serious physics and practicing physicists, and doesn't tolerate any nay-saying of established physics. Fine. It has carved out a niche, and I respect that. If I want to know something about string theory, or have a technical question about quantum mechanics or relativity, my first port of call will be there, not here.

I'm not saying that sciforums should be changed into a carbon copy of PF. I'm saying that you would retain more physicists here if they were permitted to discuss their subject without being ridiculed.

But if I want to have my own understanding of, say, relativity, questioned and challenged, I'll probably do better here.

I would imagine that you would probably do better talking to someone who has mastered the subject, no? But I would agree that you would do fine by talking with someone like 2inq. Not because I think he's mastered the subject, but because he asks penetrating questions.

But I think we both know that the cancerous elements I mentioned are of no use in that regard.

 

[URI]

>>> This thread appears to be designed specifically to elicit negative responses from moderators and members alike. >>

negative ?, I though progress was positive...... if the door does not winge, it will not get oil, and must be content.

We all have a right to protest injustice in action, injustice in expression and injustice in suppression.

The mods on this site are guilty of most listed crimes, and it is up to the members to either shut up or protest.

If the mods think they are right, then let them be open to attack.

Take my post (made by forced threat ) in "pseudoscience"...... now locked
(no content... I requested familiarisation of a subject before discussion) and yet I see posts like this everywhere...... now tell me that the mods are not off the rails, when in fact they are resorting to ego and emotion and bias, to justify their persecution.

 

[Stryder]

Your thread was locked by James for a valid reason. A basic rule that has existed at sciforums was that the Starting Post for a thread is suppose to be a post to start people off on discussion. This means writing a little about a subject and putting your own perspective across.

Your post pretty much put down a few keywords and was near enough saying "Go search google on blah blah and make a discussion for me". It was a lazy thread and a thread that couldn't be discussed or debated.

On top of that you could of asked James (via PM) the problem and he could of told you it. You could of even asked to edit the initial thread post in regards to making it meet the correct criteria, but instead you do like other sensationalists raising your critique rather than really addressing the problem. (The problem in this instance being your own vendetta at moderators in general over actually attempting to meet criteria for a discussion here.)

Perhaps you should of been informed to make amendments, however you could easily start another thread but this time include bit more information encouraging discussion/debate while also identifying your view on the subject. Include quotes and references (Just don't plagiarize them)