Not only members.
Sciforums has *seriously* fallen apart
- Thread starter Clarentavious
- Start date
I will not get tired of playing this card.
I rest my case.
In essence a number of posters join each year from their High schools and Colleges. They post when they are in class, they post when they are out of class, however when they get qualified and get to the point of looking for work they tend to move on.
This is a continuous cycle, it's occurred every year since I've been on this forum and with each year typically the same type of threads are produced. (Only in recent years a lot of flame feasters have been baiting the forums members to be disgruntled with such accounts.)
When you see this cycle because you've been here, you get use to it, which is why some of us tend to get a little bit annoyed at the constant slamming of the site or it's members/moderators. (You antagonists [Generally addressing others that read the thread] I'm addressing know who you are, you aren't the first to do it and you won't be the last.)
This forum has however suffered many changes, when Porfiry had it, the last years he did at least, it suffered a lot of neglect. He appeared once in a while to get the database back up when a crash occurred, the main reason though is because obviously he had greater commitments to attend to than just the forum.
With the current Administration we have someone hands on to keep this place up and running rather than just ending up a broken dead-end site where the members all left because of continuous outages.
The problem is that people have been so impressionable by what they've read and who they choose to accept arguments from rather than making their own intellectual observation from a perspective of indifference.
This is a continuous cycle, it's occurred every year since I've been on this forum and with each year typically the same type of threads are produced. (Only in recent years a lot of flame feasters have been baiting the forums members to be disgruntled with such accounts.)
When you see this cycle because you've been here, you get use to it, which is why some of us tend to get a little bit annoyed at the constant slamming of the site or it's members/moderators. (You antagonists [Generally addressing others that read the thread] I'm addressing know who you are, you aren't the first to do it and you won't be the last.)
This forum has however suffered many changes, when Porfiry had it, the last years he did at least, it suffered a lot of neglect. He appeared once in a while to get the database back up when a crash occurred, the main reason though is because obviously he had greater commitments to attend to than just the forum.
With the current Administration we have someone hands on to keep this place up and running rather than just ending up a broken dead-end site where the members all left because of continuous outages.
The problem is that people have been so impressionable by what they've read and who they choose to accept arguments from rather than making their own intellectual observation from a perspective of indifference.
Yep, and the members suck because any with an original thought are inevitably weeded out by moderators/admins.
Why wouldn't sciforums degrade into error-filled small talk by teenagers?
People aren't banned for making posts like that, people are banned for being contraversial or potentially offensive to someone. So there's a darwinian selection in favour of bland inoffensive mediocrity.
Don't get me wrong, good posters can happen to be inoffensive and not contraversial, but the contraversial and offensive posters bring out the best in them.
Without them the good posters leave or stop posting because they are bored.
It's an ecosystem, predators that tear apart prey might seem unpleasant at first glance, but a deeper understanding reveals that everything goes to shit without them.
If you genuinely want to fix the board, let people say whatever the fuck they want.
It's that easy.
These nothing posts dominating the board currently are like weeds, given a foothold due to a lack of thick grassy discussion.
I remember when sciforums was a glistening meadow of sweet free open thoughts. Many disgusting and offensive, but that just comes with the territory of an environment that nurtures quality posts.
You have to let people speak their minds, feel free to spill whatever is inside them out, if you want the place flowing organically.
People don't get inspiration from restraint and censorship. And uninspired posts aren't interesting to anyone.
If it's in the backs of people's heads that what they say could get them banned they have to clumsily slap together a fake sterile string of words.
No one is going to stick around to do that, except for those so simple that their thoughts never transcend the boundaries of what's acceptable in accordance with site rules. They're the only people who can be satisfied with the current environment of sciforums.
Others can hold back and adapt to exist within said environment peacefully enough, but they won't thrive, look around, they evidently are not.
Dr Lou Natic:
Your argument that a total absence of moderation makes for a forum full of exciting and interesting thoughts sounds all well and good. But you are already very familiar with at least one counterexample that disproves your own theory.
When misogyny, homophobia, racism and personal psychological hangups are allowed to run rampant on a forum, all civilised and intelligent posters go elsewhere, leaving only the bottom dwellers to wallow in their own filth.
The fact is, every forum membership self-selects its own clientele. There is no forum that suits everyone. Some people never want to drag themselves out of the gutter and think. Some want only to big-note themselves by being big fish in a small pond. Some set out to try to compensate for frustrations from their "real" lives in an environment where they believe they are effectively anonymous. Some just want mindless banter, so they can switch off after a day's work. Others want intellectual stimulation, or access to views that don't often make it to the mainstream media.
A "flame wars" forum may be what you want - a place where people insult each other, and that stops you being "bored" and provokes an emotional reaction from you that you enjoy.
I find it interesting that so many disgruntled ex-members of sciforums seem desperate to keep "contributing" here, despite their constant whinging about how this forum does not meet their personal wishes for what a forum ought to be. I mean, if you complain and complain and nothing changes to your satisfaction, how long does it take to realise that maybe you're in the wrong place?
You complain about "nothing posts dominating the board". And yet, you choose to frequent another forum where the standard posts are insults and obscenities posted by true "rebels without a cause". If you really consider that what is here is "nothing", while you find that what is there is valuable, then the difference is as obvious as chalk and cheese, and you should make the obvious choice of where you wish to be, rather than carrying on a campaign of complaint in a futile attempt to turn this place into a carbon copy of that place.
Most people generally do not enjoy anarchy and mindless drivel, either. But some do. If you're one of those who does, there are plenty of places on the internet where you can find those things.
Your argument that a total absence of moderation makes for a forum full of exciting and interesting thoughts sounds all well and good. But you are already very familiar with at least one counterexample that disproves your own theory.
When misogyny, homophobia, racism and personal psychological hangups are allowed to run rampant on a forum, all civilised and intelligent posters go elsewhere, leaving only the bottom dwellers to wallow in their own filth.
The fact is, every forum membership self-selects its own clientele. There is no forum that suits everyone. Some people never want to drag themselves out of the gutter and think. Some want only to big-note themselves by being big fish in a small pond. Some set out to try to compensate for frustrations from their "real" lives in an environment where they believe they are effectively anonymous. Some just want mindless banter, so they can switch off after a day's work. Others want intellectual stimulation, or access to views that don't often make it to the mainstream media.
A "flame wars" forum may be what you want - a place where people insult each other, and that stops you being "bored" and provokes an emotional reaction from you that you enjoy.
I find it interesting that so many disgruntled ex-members of sciforums seem desperate to keep "contributing" here, despite their constant whinging about how this forum does not meet their personal wishes for what a forum ought to be. I mean, if you complain and complain and nothing changes to your satisfaction, how long does it take to realise that maybe you're in the wrong place?
You complain about "nothing posts dominating the board". And yet, you choose to frequent another forum where the standard posts are insults and obscenities posted by true "rebels without a cause". If you really consider that what is here is "nothing", while you find that what is there is valuable, then the difference is as obvious as chalk and cheese, and you should make the obvious choice of where you wish to be, rather than carrying on a campaign of complaint in a futile attempt to turn this place into a carbon copy of that place.
Most people generally do not enjoy anarchy and mindless drivel, either. But some do. If you're one of those who does, there are plenty of places on the internet where you can find those things.
No I'm not...?
That there is precisely what I want.
I wonder what you have against a hypothetical forum of this nature?
Does it really sound that bad?
Why do you actively prevent sciforums from becoming such a forum? Do you genuinely prefer sanitary small talk amongst the small minded? Do you feel it has a higher innate value?
If someone says something offensive about jews (for example), why not wait for jews to come and argue against the horrible biggot, or argue against them yourself on behalf of jews like the enlightened compassionate superman that you are.
Let this rare dialogue flourish for once on earth, what an opportunity.
Right now sciforums has a huge group of people who agree anti-semitism is awful, and there are racist forums that have a huge group of people who agree jews are awful.
Both are equally worthless.
This is just one example, I don't envision the perfect sciforums to specify on anti-semitism, or any one issue.
Rather open discussion on every possible issue any one can think of, mostly ones which aren't appropriate small talk in social situations (because why bother with ones that are?). Be it due to them potentially offending someone, or even potentially boring or excluding someone (discussions about physics or geology or philosophy, etc).
I never really flamed people that much, I didn't avoid flaming people (and don't think anyone should) but flaming certainly didn't comprise the bulk of my contributions or anything close.
I would say you flame more than me, with passive aggression and less curse words, but you definately pick on people with intent to bring them down and make them feel bad much more commonly than I ever did.
The way you characterise my posts indicates that you never really paid much attention to them, you just know they featured words commonly used in flaming/trolling/racist posts, and so to you that's what they were.
I expect that from most people, I'm not deluded enough to think people are on the edge of their swivel seats peering deep into the abyss of my literary significance.
But it's irritating that the person with the power to delete my posts and permaban my account for what I say has no fucking idea what I'm saying, and an itchy trigger finger to boot.
I can't expect you to "get me" if you don't, but why not generally let more go? Not to condone the comments and views you disagree with, but to actually combat them and expose their flaws?
When people say bad things, tell them how and why it's bad, and let others tell them why it's bad, and let people try to insult and shame them into not having such "bad" views. Why not let there be arguments on the contentious and contraversial issues?
I mean, if you want any good to come from anything that happens here.
Banning people doesn't make their ideas disappear, open discussion has the potential to do so much more, and there's absolutely no denying this.
No I don't, what forum?
I don't frequent any forum any more. I occassionally visit one about animals, but less and less. I've never been a member of any "flaming" or "rebel" forum.
I've never even seen or heard of one to tell you the truth.
Animals and comedy are the two types of forum I have been involved in, apart from sciforums. I joined sciforums as a dumb teenager for one topic I saw about killer whales I think.
But, over the years, I grew accustomed to sciforums and became a part of the community.
I'd rather try to fix my broken community than go to one where I can swear at people. I want to swear at THESE people, is that so hard to understand?
Last edited:
If you're talking about Spurious's forum, I don't think that Lou hangs out there. He does have an account, I believe, but haven't seen it posting except way back when.
I personally agree more with Lou on this than against him. Rather, I don't think that the forum should necessarily be 'anything goes'. But, I do feel that the true problem posters of the forums are generally not the ones that are prosecutable by forum rules. There's no rule against being insipid.
Probably because this forum used to really kick ass. It still has potential and is better than other science forums in a lot of ways, but is a pale shadow of its one time glory.
Yes. I speak of glory days.
Sue me.
No carrots in cornholes or group masturbation?
Is basketball big in Australia?
Mostly gardening and basketball, MOSTLY.
Don't forget this includes growing vegetables and spending time in locker rooms.
Not really.
Dr Lou Natic:
Forgive me if I made unwarranted assumptions about your membership of spurious's "shitforums", as they call it over there. I'm glad you're not wasting your time there.
There's nothing I really disagree with you about from your previous post on what makes a good forum. What I do disagree with you about is that sciforums lacks those qualities, or that I am somehow responsible. I mean:
What do you think? Really?
If you look at threads in the "World events" and "Politics" forums, you will find many discussions where exactly such arguments are made, both by others and by myself. There are many ongoing threads about the Israel-Palestine situation. There are multiple ongoing threads where the supposed evils of the Arab world, or the Western world, are being battled out. Look around you. Debates over animal rights, the value or otherwise of "illegal immigrants", homosexuality, religion, right vs. left politics are common here. They are not censored. No view is imposed due to "political correctness". The only line drawn is at the point when actual constructive debate disappears and is replaced by personal acrimony and insult, or evidence- and effort-free stereotyping.
Anti-semitism is a form of irrational prejudice. The worst thing about it is that it advocates hatred for a group of people based on a characteristic that is intrinsic to that group and one that cannot be chosen or changed. As such, it is akin to racism and sexism. Hatred for a person because of what he is, rather than what he does in terms of the choices he makes, is bigotry. Bigotry is irrational, and as such is not amenable to reason. There is a difference between anti-zionism and anti-semitism, by the way, and "semitism" does not imply "zionism".
There is no point in providing sciforums as a platform for bigots on which to soapbox. There are already enough of those on the internet.
I really wasn't trying to imply this about you.
I don't have a huge amount of tolerance for fools, I admit. But I always make a point of trying to rationally reason with people rather than insulting them. That doesn't mean that I won't call a spade a spade and point out when I perceive that they are hypocritical or dishonest or uncharitable. Nor does it mean that I will sit back and be insulted without ever responding.
As a rule, I always remember that when in a heated discussion or argument with somebody on the forum, my posts are not primarily for their benefit. It is far more important to convince others who are reading the thread. People often dig in when they feel threatened or challenged. They take a position and become unwilling to give any ground at all. Once that happens, I don't expect them to back down. I just try to make the best argument I can to sway any undecided lurkers.
The decision to unban you is supported by myself and the other moderators. We are willing to let bygones be bygones. Where things go from here is really up to you.
Few if any posters here are banned for their ideas. They are generally banned when they no longer show any respect for other members, or they become a destructive rather than constructive influence on the forum as a whole.
I understand what you're saying. Whether you sincerely want to make a contribution here or not, only time will tell. I will certainly try to step back and give you room, but I can promise no special treatment or greater latitude than is given to other members. Certainly, some ex-members of sciforums expected special treatment, and found it difficult to cope when they weren't given it. I hope that the point has now been made clearly enough, so we can start a new chapter here.
Forgive me if I made unwarranted assumptions about your membership of spurious's "shitforums", as they call it over there. I'm glad you're not wasting your time there.
There's nothing I really disagree with you about from your previous post on what makes a good forum. What I do disagree with you about is that sciforums lacks those qualities, or that I am somehow responsible. I mean:
What do you think? Really?
If you look at threads in the "World events" and "Politics" forums, you will find many discussions where exactly such arguments are made, both by others and by myself. There are many ongoing threads about the Israel-Palestine situation. There are multiple ongoing threads where the supposed evils of the Arab world, or the Western world, are being battled out. Look around you. Debates over animal rights, the value or otherwise of "illegal immigrants", homosexuality, religion, right vs. left politics are common here. They are not censored. No view is imposed due to "political correctness". The only line drawn is at the point when actual constructive debate disappears and is replaced by personal acrimony and insult, or evidence- and effort-free stereotyping.
Anti-semitism is a form of irrational prejudice. The worst thing about it is that it advocates hatred for a group of people based on a characteristic that is intrinsic to that group and one that cannot be chosen or changed. As such, it is akin to racism and sexism. Hatred for a person because of what he is, rather than what he does in terms of the choices he makes, is bigotry. Bigotry is irrational, and as such is not amenable to reason. There is a difference between anti-zionism and anti-semitism, by the way, and "semitism" does not imply "zionism".
There is no point in providing sciforums as a platform for bigots on which to soapbox. There are already enough of those on the internet.
I really wasn't trying to imply this about you.
I don't have a huge amount of tolerance for fools, I admit. But I always make a point of trying to rationally reason with people rather than insulting them. That doesn't mean that I won't call a spade a spade and point out when I perceive that they are hypocritical or dishonest or uncharitable. Nor does it mean that I will sit back and be insulted without ever responding.
As a rule, I always remember that when in a heated discussion or argument with somebody on the forum, my posts are not primarily for their benefit. It is far more important to convince others who are reading the thread. People often dig in when they feel threatened or challenged. They take a position and become unwilling to give any ground at all. Once that happens, I don't expect them to back down. I just try to make the best argument I can to sway any undecided lurkers.
The decision to unban you is supported by myself and the other moderators. We are willing to let bygones be bygones. Where things go from here is really up to you.
Few if any posters here are banned for their ideas. They are generally banned when they no longer show any respect for other members, or they become a destructive rather than constructive influence on the forum as a whole.
I understand what you're saying. Whether you sincerely want to make a contribution here or not, only time will tell. I will certainly try to step back and give you room, but I can promise no special treatment or greater latitude than is given to other members. Certainly, some ex-members of sciforums expected special treatment, and found it difficult to cope when they weren't given it. I hope that the point has now been made clearly enough, so we can start a new chapter here.
Hey, Dr Lou, long time no see. Where've you been?
Bells
Staff member
Your memory is based on when the forum was going through one of it's *fallen apart* phases, that wasn't the forum in it's glory, that was it when a little neglect had set in and the weeds were running rampant in the garden.
The true ones that spoil this forum aren't necessarily the controversial posters but the whining brats that don't like it when they can't get their way and have a temper tantrum. Sorry kids, it's apart of growing up, you can't always get what you want, especially when you misbehave, if you can't accept that then your not going to get far in the real world.