realitycheck and farsight ban

[occidental]

This is an open question to the moderators;

Was RealityCheck actually permanently banned for expressing this opinion?:

Today, 04:08 PM #53
RealityCheck
Banned
Posts
800

So the objectively observed and experimentally proven 'mod-troll' combo 'pattern' continues, despite all that has been pointed out to you/everyone about same in open forum. I had already effectively withdrawn from posting for a few weeks, but this was too blatant and disheartening of human nature and scientific integrity to let pass without observation of the facts in open forum.

This is again a jack-booted, egoistic, elitist power trip intrusion made even more egregious by lack of proper full and open justification before expediently proceeding to ban so as to deny common right of self-defence. Another blatant case of abusing the rules to make unsupported accusations of 'lying' etc etc from mod-trolls having personal bias/baggage and prejudice and double standards. A perfect illustration of the oft-observed intimidatory/personal censorship/tactics to skew/shut down the open discourse and obligingly satisfying the troll-mod agenda.

Do better. Much.

and farsight, with an established reputation for spewing factually unsupported ideas, was only given a 3 day suspension?

Was RealityCheck really on such thin ice that by expressing his opinion on what he considered heavy handed moderation warranted his permanent removal from the forum? I may not have always agreed with RealityCheck, but I thought he was a reputable contributor. This seems unfair, especially when you consider the leniency this forum has given to others less worthy(like gustav and farsight).

I hope this permanent ban is reconsidered.

 

[Read-Only]

This is an open question to the moderators;

Was RealityCheck actually permanently banned for expressing this opinion?:



and farsight, with an established reputation for spewing factually unsupported ideas, was only given a 3 day suspension?

Was RealityCheck really on such thin ice that by expressing his opinion on what he considered heavy handed moderation warranted his permanent removal from the forum? I may not have always agreed with RealityCheck, but I thought he was a reputable contributor. This seems unfair, especially when you consider the leniency this forum has given to others less worthy(like gustav and farsight).

I hope this permanent ban is reconsidered.

My observation on RealityCheck is that he had been consistently "adding to his rope" until there was finally MORE than enough to hang himself.

The same was true of others here (that I won't name) as well.

 

[prometheus]

As you have identified, a permanent ban for that post alone would be excessively harsh. We of course don't take a single post into account when deciding on ban duration. We don't have complete freedom over bans - we have the ban cycle that we follow, with the exception of spammers and particularly unpleasant posters.

RealityCheck and farsight are both cranks that clog up the physics and maths forum and no doubt others as well with their opinions on science, that are passed off by them as fact. The difference between RealityCheck and farsight is that for the most part (unless he's inviting you to arm wrestle him) farsight is well spoken and polite. RealityCheck is a boorish troll who does all he can to undermine the moderation of the forum. Take a look at his posting history for the past few months and you will see he contributes little more to the forum than crackpot physics and whining about moderation (and he's now taking it upon himself to look for things to complain about - it isn't just a case of feeling hard done by when he is banned, this post was in response to farsight's ban. He was not involved in that thread prior to this post). That is why he has progressed through the ban cycle faster than farsight has. Another reason is that farsight is quite a sporadic poster - many months can pass by between flare ups, so memories fade and infraction points expire.

 

[R1D2]

Surprise, surprise. With all the spammers getting banned I can't get into the banned folder like I used too. Maybe from all those spammers I don't know. But I didn't see this information till now. Thanks for posting it Occidental. There have been some weirdness going on. But I agree RealityCheck spewed forth enough rope for a mod's perma ban.

 

[occidental]

As you have identified, a permanent ban for that post alone would be excessively harsh. We of course don't take a single post into account when deciding on ban duration. We don't have complete freedom over bans - we have the ban cycle that we follow, with the exception of spammers and particularly unpleasant posters.

RealityCheck and farsight are both cranks that clog up the physics and maths forum and no doubt others as well with their opinions on science, that are passed off by them as fact. The difference between RealityCheck and farsight is that for the most part (unless he's inviting you to arm wrestle him) farsight is well spoken and polite. RealityCheck is a boorish troll who does all he can to undermine the moderation of the forum. Take a look at his posting history for the past few months and you will see he contributes little more to the forum than crackpot physics and whining about moderation (and he's now taking it upon himself to look for things to complain about - it isn't just a case of feeling hard done by when he is banned, this post was in response to farsight's ban. He was not involved in that thread prior to this post). That is why he has progressed through the ban cycle faster than farsight has. Another reason is that farsight is quite a sporadic poster - many months can pass by between flare ups, so memories fade and infraction points expire.

Thanks for the reply prometheus. Im not disagreeing with your assessment of RealityCheck as much as questioning your application of the site rules and your justification for permanently banning him. You refer to the ban cycle, which is what I was alluding to when I asked if he was on such thin ice. You claim he posts more so he moved through the ban cycle faster. I see from his post history that he had a 3 day ban around september, which would imply he had 0 points before then, or that he had more points but the moderator granted some mercy. But nowhere between that time and now does he seem to have a 14 day or one month ban. Are you saying this was his 4th point in 4 months but he wasnt given the corresponding temporary bans?

If he deserved a temporary ban for posting off topic then thats what he should get. I dont understand how he progressed to a permanent ban based on that post and his apparent infraction record. Am I missing something?

 

[KilljoyKlown]

Surprise, surprise. With all the spammers getting banned I can't get into the banned folder like I used too. Maybe from all those spammers I don't know. But I didn't see this information till now. Thanks for posting it Occidental. There have been some weirdness going on. But I agree RealityCheck spewed forth enough rope for a mod's perma ban.

Yes it does look like the mods are taking turns on banning spammers, a regular tag team. Do we have any idea when this avalanche of spamming will start to abate a bit?

 

[Bells]

Yes it does look like the mods are taking turns on banning spammers, a regular tag team. Do we have any idea when this avalanche of spamming will start to abate a bit?

Hopefully soon.

The owners of this site are looking into it and trying to find a solution that works.

And at the moment it isn't so much taking turns are just first in first served. Thankfully all the posts they are making are no longer visible to members or guests, so we are able to contain and delete them all without anyone seeing them.

 

[Bells]

Surprise, surprise. With all the spammers getting banned I can't get into the banned folder like I used too. Maybe from all those spammers I don't know. But I didn't see this information till now. Thanks for posting it Occidental. There have been some weirdness going on. But I agree RealityCheck spewed forth enough rope for a mod's perma ban.

I am getting a lot of server lag as well when I try to access the ban list.

I would imagine that you are correct, that it is because of the sheer volume of spammers who have been banned.

As for RealityCheck, I had a quick look and he had quite a few infraction points and warnings leading into this ban.

 

[occidental]

As you have identified, a permanent ban for that post alone would be excessively harsh. We of course don't take a single post into account when deciding on ban duration. We don't have complete freedom over bans - we have the ban cycle that we follow, with the exception of spammers and particularly unpleasant posters.

RealityCheck and farsight are both cranks that clog up the physics and maths forum and no doubt others as well with their opinions on science, that are passed off by them as fact. The difference between RealityCheck and farsight is that for the most part (unless he's inviting you to arm wrestle him) farsight is well spoken and polite. RealityCheck is a boorish troll who does all he can to undermine the moderation of the forum. Take a look at his posting history for the past few months and you will see he contributes little more to the forum than crackpot physics and whining about moderation (and he's now taking it upon himself to look for things to complain about - it isn't just a case of feeling hard done by when he is banned, this post was in response to farsight's ban. He was not involved in that thread prior to this post). That is why he has progressed through the ban cycle faster than farsight has. Another reason is that farsight is quite a sporadic poster - many months can pass by between flare ups, so memories fade and infraction points expire.

I posted a response to this last night, received a notice that it would be reviewed by a moderator before being posted, and then it was never posted. Odd.

So youre claiming RealityCheck received 4 points or infractions in 4 months. I see from his posting history he had a 3 day ban back in september. But I dont see any time in his recent posting history where he received anything more than a 3day ban. When did he receive a 14 day or a one month ban?

 

[prometheus]

I posted a response to this last night, received a notice that it would be reviewed by a moderator before being posted, and then it was never posted. Odd.

I presume you mean post #5 above? It's visible now, so less of the conspiracy theory nonsense please.

So youre claiming RealityCheck received 4 points or infractions in 4 months. I see from his posting history he had a 3 day ban back in september. But I dont see any time in his recent posting history where he received anything more than a 3day ban. When did he receive a 14 day or a one month ban?

Believe it or not, RealityCheck managed to acquire 6 (six) infraction points in his time here. In order they were for:

Restarting a closed thread
Trolling and restarting another closed thread
Trolling
Creating a sockpuppet to evade a ban.
Insulting other member
Trolling / off topic posting

The first one has expired, but the other 5 are still active. In retrospect the mods were lenient with RealityCheck, as he could have been permanently banned for creating his sock puppet, and after he reached 4 infractions. I find it quite surprising that people complain about how draconian the moderation is here, when if you go somewhere like physicsforums the moderation is far far more stringent. I think RealityCheck would have lasted about a week there, not the 4 months he lasted here.

 

[occidental]

I presume you mean post #5 above? It's visible now, so less of the conspiracy theory nonsense please.



Believe it or not, RealityCheck managed to acquire 6 (six) infraction points in his time here. In order they were for:

Restarting a closed thread
Trolling and restarting another closed thread
Trolling
Creating a sockpuppet to evade a ban.
Insulting other member
Trolling / off topic posting

The first one has expired, but the other 5 are still active. In retrospect the mods were lenient with RealityCheck, as he could have been permanently banned for creating his sock puppet, and after he reached 4 infractions. I find it quite surprising that people complain about how draconian the moderation is here, when if you go somewhere like physicsforums the moderation is far far more stringent. I think RealityCheck would have lasted about a week there, not the 4 months he lasted here.

Conspiracy theory nonsense? I took the message I received at face value, that my post was being reviewed by a moderator, and after waiting overnight I posted again. From what I now understand, this forum has a flaw in the software. Why do you feel the need to accuse me of claiming some conspiracy theory? Was that intended as an insult? I think it was an inflammatory thing to say and totally uncalled for, particularly for a moderator.

As for the rest of your post, I never complained about "how draconian the moderation is here". Im also not interested in how you claim other forums would have handled something. I asked if a particular poster was on such thin ice that he deserved a permanent ban here, as that has been a relatively rare thing at this forum and I wasnt aware he had been banned so many times in the past 4 months.

And your statement about him lasting only 4 months here is just factually inaccurate. He was a member here since December of last year.

And after all that, you still didnt answer my question.

Im done with it, this is my last post on the subject.

 

[kwhilborn]

I will state that, without a doubt Realitycheck was most likely the most eloquent with the English language. I will miss that.

Almost any post you choose at random reads like stanzas from Shakespeare.

I am unsure about the ban, his reasoning, or even his science views on some topics.

However, If I were grading language skills; his would be in the top percentages.

I look forward to reading his books. Good Luck Realitycheck in your future writing.

I will miss gems like...

This is again a jack-booted, egoistic, elitist power trip intrusion made even more egregious by lack of proper full and open justification before expediently proceeding to ban so as to deny common right of self-defence.

Look up "Literary license". It is a well used form to convey urgency. A literary/imperative device. Your empty pedantry will not distract from the essence and urgency of the original message regarding your immediate need for a better character and mindset. Stop your petty malicious emptiness and trolls, for your own sake if for no other reason. Quick!

Easy analogy...a 'water-ocean':currents/waves in the water-ocean ARE WATER still, differentiated from the 'fundamental water-ocean' context/nature only by the behaviour of 'solitonic' and 'flow' local water-ocean 'features' which have a dynamics of their own in their secondary 'solitonic/flow' context interactions as they arise/evolve/subside in the water-ocean which is always there and never 'displaced' but only 'differentiated' in localized regions of higher solitonic/flow dynamics.

and hundreds more as good.

Sad face

 

[origin]

I will state that, without a doubt Realitycheck was most likely the most eloquent with the English language. I will miss that.

Almost any post you choose at random reads like stanzas from Shakespeare.

Shakespeare just rolled over in his grave and puked.

 

[prometheus]

Re reading my previous post I realise I come across as a complete douchebag - my apologies.

Conspiracy theory nonsense? I took the message I received at face value, that my post was being reviewed by a moderator, and after waiting overnight I posted again. From what I now understand, this forum has a flaw in the software. Why do you feel the need to accuse me of claiming some conspiracy theory? Was that intended as an insult? I think it was an inflammatory thing to say and totally uncalled for, particularly for a moderator.

We have had a couple of people (RealityCheck included actually) trying to claim the bug in the post approval system is actually a technique to censor people. Just recently there have been another set of threads posted complaining about is. You did not do what I said you did so I apologise for claiming such.

As for the rest of your post, I never complained about "how draconian the moderation is here". Im also not interested in how you claim other forums would have handled something. I asked if a particular poster was on such thin ice that he deserved a permanent ban here, as that has been a relatively rare thing at this forum and I wasnt aware he had been banned so many times in the past 4 months.

Well, the answer to the question was yes - he had 5 active infractions meaning he could have been perma banned at the last infraction never mind this one. If that isn't thin ice I don't know what is.

And your statement about him lasting only 4 months here is just factually inaccurate. He was a member here since December of last year.

Again, my apologies. He has accrued all of his infractions in 4 months.

And after all that, you still didnt answer my question.

See above, The long and the short of it is if you are temporarily banned 4 times in three months then you can be considered for permanent banning.

Im done with it, this is my last post on the subject.

Please feel free to ask if there are any more questions. I'll try not to be such an ass hole next time.

 

[Farsight]

and farsight, with an established reputation for spewing factually unsupported ideas, was only given a 3 day suspension?

They aren't factually unsupported ideas. I'm forever referring to evidence and experiment, and the ideas typically go back to guys like Einstein, Maxwell, Minkowski, and so on.

...RealityCheck and farsight are both cranks that clog up the physics and maths forum...

I'm not a crank. My posts are factual and well-supported. I refer to evidence and Einstein etc, as above.

I see a reference to the owners of this forum above. Who are they, and/or how can they be contacted regarding governance of this forum?

 

[origin]

I'm not a crank. My posts are factual and well-supported. I refer to evidence and Einstein etc, as above.

Well I have to beg to differ on that. You have been shown where you are in error and you typically either ignore the information of dispute it.

I see a reference to the owners of this forum above. Who are they, and/or how can they be contacted regarding governance of this forum?

Pretty easily. Go to the bottom of the page and click 'contact us'.

You know, if you don't like it here you are free to leave...:shrug:

 

[Farsight]

Would you care to demonstrate I am in error? Perhaps a link to a relevant thread? Didn't think so.

I tried the contact us, I got no reply.

So, anybody, who are the owners of this forum and how can they be contacted? Before we get into a situation where it's last one out please turn off the lights.

 

[PhysBang]

Would you care to demonstrate I am in error? Perhaps a link to a relevant thread? Didn't think so.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=farsight+physics+error

 

[prometheus]

Happy memories...

 

[elte]

Happy memories...

It's a rich planet but it's getting ecologically poorer fast.