Hypocrisy

[proximity1]

" The Lounge

---Book Talk

Discuss life, work, school, ANYTHING*!"

 

* (emphasis added)

 

"We are not obligated to give you a platform to say whatever you want to."

 

-- a SFN moderator "moderating" a posted thread originally in this "Lounge" forum before moving the post, rebuking its author & locking down the thread.

 

My topic : "Hypocrisy"

 

Discuss*

 

 

 

* only If allowed, of course.

 

;^)

[Strange]

Obviously, there is an implied "within the rules" after "anything".

[imatfaal]

You might wish to learn about freedom of speech - at present, you are making the same mistake that Tom O'Neil did; Freedom of Speech in its most general terms is a right for the citizen to speak freely without government or state interference; it says very little about behaviour in private places . It is not the right to come into our forum and whine incessantly about how you are oppressed, to post rubbish masquerading as science or discovery, to post against the rules or spirit of the forum etc. No one apart from the admins/owners has a right to post here - it is a privilege, and that privilege comes with rules and guidelines which must be adhered to.

 

We provide an arena for scientific discussion - and the admins make the rules; we do not have to allow anyone to have freedom of access or of speech; we are not obligated to give anyone a platform - we do, in fact, give many people we disagree with a place to discuss their ideas. What's more, if members break the rules or post in a manner which is against the spirit of the forum ("science forums dot net" remember?) then we will close threads. Furthermore, if members moan and bitch about threads being locked for the aforesaid reason and then insult the members and staff by saying we are close-minded then we will feel that a slur is being perpetrated against the members and staff and the moany thread will be locked too.

[Ophiolite]

" The Lounge

---Book Talk

Discuss life, work, school, ANYTHING*!"

 

* (emphasis added)

 

"We are not obligated to give you a platform to say whatever you want to."

 

-- a SFN moderator "moderating" a posted thread originally in this "Lounge" forum before moving the post, rebuking its author & locking down the thread.

 

My topic : "Hypocrisy"

 

Discuss*

 

 

 

* only If allowed, of course.

 

;^)

You appear to be confusing hypocrisy with incompletely specified rules and guidelines. As others have noted certain intentions are implied, or require a full reading of rules and guidelines.

 

Could the word "anything", which forms an important element in your argument, have been better chosen? Almost certainly.

 

Would the intention be clear to most people? Probably.

 

Is your position on this that of an argumentative prat? Apparently.

[proximity1]

 

You might wish to learn about freedom of speech - at present, you are making the same mistake that Tom O'Neil did; Freedom of Speech in its most general terms is a right for the citizen to speak freely without government or state interference; it says very little about behaviour in private places . It is not the right to come into our forum and whine incessantly about how you are oppressed, to post rubbish masquerading as science or discovery, to post against the rules or spirit of the forum etc. No one apart from the admins/owners has a right to post here - it is a privilege, and that privilege comes with rules and guidelines which must be adhered to."

 

_________________

 

 

You're missing the point. Yes, thanks, but I took a Con.Law course and don't need a refresher from you on the application of legal free speech rights. No, the point is different: The site specifies "The Lounge" as a venue where members are allowed to "Discuss life, work, school, anything!" making it clear that in the Lounge the rigors of science method are not enforced in the discussion.

 

So a member proposed discussing a view (his own)--- & etc. concer closed-mindedness

resident here. And, almost as though to prove his point, he was quickly censored by this site's most fanatical censor and hois topic was moved and locked.

 

Apparently somewhere "the rules" forbid members' raising for open discussion in the forum intended to accommodate "all other" topics the matter of the site's own management's

open-mindedness.

 

 

And if I'd been asked about it, my answer should have been one of surprise, too. Never minding the First Amendment, I difdn't know that it's forbidden to suggest that the site could be liable to be seen by some of its own members as closed-minded in its applications of its own rules even if we agree about the point of them as a principle.

 

That this site's so-called moderators are above all intolerant of something it's most obviously the idea that in open-mindedness they're woefully lacking.

 

That's demonstrated here every week if not every day. And it's not allowable under "discuss life, school, anything!" ?

 

Yes: I didn't know that.

[iNow]

Nobody is forcing you to post here. If you're so unhappy with how the place is run, why continue?

 

This is a private site. You can always setup your own somewhere else where you can write your own rules and choose your own volunteers to clean up after messes left by people such as yourself.

[Phi for All]

Apparently somewhere "the rules" forbid members' raising for open discussion in the forum intended to accommodate "all other" topics the matter of the site's own management's open-mindedness.

 

Your particular gripe is more about standards than rules. We want more rigorous science discussions than most sites do. Even in the Lounge the kind of guesswork you're defending is a waste of time, and not something we want to be connected with.

 

We're a science discussion site, so I think it's implied that the Lounge is for discussing things other than science. While it's true that guesswork isn't science, it's always hoped that even Lounge discussions have meaningful foundations.

[StringJunky]

 

Your particular gripe is more about standards than rules. We want more rigorous science discussions than most sites do. Even in the Lounge the kind of guesswork you're defending is a waste of time, and not something we want to be connected with.

 

We're a science discussion site, so I think it's implied that the Lounge is for discussing things other than science. While it's true that guesswork isn't science, it's always hoped that even Lounge discussions have meaningful foundations.

In a nutshell: The Lounge is not a place to to try and sidestep the rules that may be in place in the other forums.

 

Edited for missing word

Edited December 31, 2016 by StringJunky

[Strange]

So a member proposed discussing a view (his own)--- & etc. concer closed-mindedness

resident here. And, almost as though to prove his point, he was quickly censored by this site's most fanatical censor and hois topic was moved and locked.

 

 

But it had nothing to do with being closed minded. The member in question had had a previous thread on the subject closed (after many failed attempts to explain why his ideas were incoherent nonsense) with the instruction that he was not to bring it up again.

 

Apparently having a thread closed when you have been explicitly told not to open it is "closed minded".

 

And apparently enforcing that instruction is "hypocrisy".

 

We truly do live in a post-truth world.

In a nutshell: The Lounge is not a place to to try and sidestep the rules that may be place in the other forums.

 

Exactly.

[swansont]

You're missing the point. Yes, thanks, but I took a Con.Law course and don't need a refresher from you on the application of legal free speech rights. No, the point is different: The site specifies "The Lounge" as a venue where members are allowed to "Discuss life, work, school, anything!" making it clear that in the Lounge the rigors of science method are not enforced in the discussion.

By the same token it's assumed that the discussion does not belong somewhere else on the site, and "anything" does not include topics or styles that are otherwise forbidden by the rules.

 

As far as "anything" is concerned, it's come up before

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/72973-comments-on-moderation/?p=915293

 

Complaints about moderation belong in the suggestions, comments & support forum (which is where this one is headed). And just whining about the fact that a topic was closed down, because previous threads on the topic had been locked, is complaining about the rules being enforced. There is no further discussion to be had.

 

So a member proposed discussing a view (his own)--- & etc. concer closed-mindedness

resident here. And, almost as though to prove his point, he was quickly censored by this site's most fanatical censor and hois topic was moved and locked.

 

Apparently somewhere "the rules" forbid members' raising for open discussion in the forum intended to accommodate "all other" topics the matter of the site's own management's

open-mindedness.

"I broke the law, and was arrested and convicted. You are so closed-minded." is not worthy of further discussion. The original closure could have been avoided by engaging in scientific discussion, rather than avoidance of it. If you're looking for where to place the blame, that's it.

[Endy0816]

Does bother me sometimes when I see a thread closed soon after a move. I don't know what a good solution is though. Know generally OP seems to be at least given a chance to respond and could certainly appeal the decision.

[swansont]

Does bother me sometimes when I see a thread closed soon after a move. I don't know what a good solution is though. Know generally OP seems to be at least given a chance to respond and could certainly appeal the decision.

You might notice that there was no appeal of the particulars. No admission of error, no pledge to comply with the rules. Just an accusation of being close-minded, because we didn't credulously accept something that was posted. And then posted again, after a failure to properly support the idea. That doesn't ring hollow to you?

[iNow]

[Endy0816]

You might notice that there was no appeal of the particulars. No admission of error, no pledge to comply with the rules. Just an accusation of being close-minded, because we didn't credulously accept something that was posted. And then posted again, after a failure to properly support the idea. That doesn't ring hollow to you?

 

I think OP is a cloudcuckoolander. That being said, this bit:

 

moving the post, rebuking its author & locking down the thread.

 

matched something I had been noticing and growing concerned about. Threads being "Move-Locked". Threads moved to Speculations and locked down 1-2 posts later.

[StringJunky]

 

I think OP is a cloudcuckoolander. That being said, this bit:

 

 

matched something I had been noticing and growing concerned about. Threads being "Move-Locked". Threads moved to Speculations and locked down 1-2 posts later.

The mods, on moving a thread, expect change on the part of the OP. If that action of moving it is not enough of a hint and the OP continues as they did before, why wait for more than couple of posts to lock it?

[swansont]

I think OP is a cloudcuckoolander. That being said, this bit:

 

 

matched something I had been noticing and growing concerned about. Threads being "Move-Locked". Threads moved to Speculations and locked down 1-2 posts later.

Without examples I can't comment. I suspect those are repeat offenders, or the posts fall well short of the speculations guidelines.

[imatfaal]

...

matched something I had been noticing and growing concerned about. Threads being "Move-Locked". Threads moved to Speculations and locked down 1-2 posts later.

 

Aside from other explanations, it is possible that one mod has moved the thread to speculations and a second has locked it without much further ado; three immediately obvious reasons why this might happen occur to me. Firstly, I might move the thread not being sure about the contents but knowing enough to understand it is not mainstream - then one of the mods who is also an academic expert in the subject (and I am in a very small minority being a non-science graduate) will lock the thread as they can recognise that it is not only speculative but unarguable nonsense. Secondly, I might move the thread unaware that multiple threads on this OP have already been locked by other moderators (we try to keep aware of what is going on but our time is very limited) - then the thread is quickly locked by a staff member who realises that the OP is in breach of a request not to reopen a topic. And finally, a move to speculations is easy and done quickly by a single staff-member whereas locking a thread is sometimes something we will discuss

[Klaynos]

 

I think OP is a cloudcuckoolander. That being said, this bit:

 

 

matched something I had been noticing and growing concerned about. Threads being "Move-Locked". Threads moved to Speculations and locked down 1-2 posts later.

Having done some of the locking I feel I should comment on this.

 

We try to give people at least a chance after a thread move and normally a warning. But we are aware that some of the community has been vocal in the past that we let things go on for too long. It is of course possible that some of our actions have now gone the other way.

 

If you feel a thread has been closed too early I would encourage you to report the last post saying so. We're not perfect and want to get the balance right for the community.

[iNow]

I suspect it's also possible that the threads in question deserved to be locked no matter where they were posted so the locking was executed first.

 

Then, after being locked and upon recognizing it wasn't mainstream, the decision could be made later to put the thread into a different subforum, like speculations.

 

Basically, we don't know the individual circumstances of every thread and should keep in mind the process order may be reversed to that which is being assumed above: lock then recategorize.

 

 

Edit for spelling

Edited January 1, 2017 by iNow

[Ophiolite]

If you feel a thread has been closed too early I would encourage you to report the last post saying so. We're not perfect and want to get the balance right for the community.

A point that may be worth reflecting on is this: if a long term member of this forum and one time moderator can feel that some actions are precipitate, how may those actions appear to new members, or those who find themselves moderated? Transparency is probably more important than balance.

[swansont]

A point that may be worth reflecting on is this: if a long term member of this forum and one time moderator can feel that some actions are precipitate, how may those actions appear to new members, or those who find themselves moderated? Transparency is probably more important than balance.

As I wrote earlier, without examples, it's impossible to make any specific comments. There is typically some moderator commentary for locked threads.

[StringJunky]

A point that may be worth reflecting on is this: if a long term member of this forum and one time moderator can feel that some actions are precipitate, how may those actions appear to new members, or those who find themselves moderated? Transparency is probably more important than balance.

Spend some time on Physic Forums and then say this is over-strict. I'm not denigrating them because that's how they want it but they brook no deviation from the mainstream. It's my personal opinion that SFN staff give sufficient leeway without the general mission being lost in too much dross.

[Endy0816]

I suspect it's also possible that the threads in question deserved to be locked no matter where they were posted so the locking was executed first.

 

Then, after being locked and upon recognizing it wasn't mainstream, the decision could be made later to put the thread into a different subforum, like speculations.

 

Basically, we don't know the individual circumstances of every thread and should keep in mind the process order may be reversed to that which is being assumed above: lock then recategorize.

 

Possibly this^

 

Something like half a page of locked threads at one point. Wanted to state how it could be seen as unfair from the outside looking in, fully acknowledging that most of the threads are junk and did have at least a chance and typically a couple of moderators involved. I considered reporting or PM'ing previously but ultimately decided the junk threads weren't worth the time expenditure then.

 

This thread came up and seemed a reasonable location to mention something.

[Klaynos]

I'm not sure if it's possible to do automatically, but would the view looking in be improved if speculations threads were archives to a different sub forum after being closed? I'm also not sure if it's a good idea or not.

[proximity1]

Related reading -- on systemic in-group/out-group bias:

 

( Note: "→" indicates my own added emphasis)

 

★★★

LINK TO COMPLETE ARTICLE →

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/opinion/sunday/the-roots-of-implicit-bias.html

★★★

 

★★★ _____________________

 

The New York Times

Sunday Review

 

Title : The Roots of Implicit Bias

 

Marion Fayolle (illustration not included here)

 

December 9, 2016

Gray Matter

 

By DANIEL A. YUDKIN and JAY VAN BAVEL

 

"During the first presidential debate, Hillary Clinton argued that “implicit bias is a problem for everyone, not just police.” Her comment moved to the forefront of public conversation an issue that scientists have been studying for decades: namely, that even well-meaning people frequently harbor hidden prejudices against members of other racial groups. Studies have shown that these subtle biases are widespread and associated with discrimination in legal, economic and organizational settings.

 

// Body of Article Snipped out by Moderator //

 

Acknowledging the truth about ourselves — that we see and think about the world through the lens of group affiliations — is the first step to making things better.

 

Daniel A. Yudkin is a graduate student, and Jay Van Bavel is an associate professor, in the psychology department at New York University.

 

 

 

________________

________________

 

This post cc to:

 

Daniel Yudkin : dyudkin@gmail.com

 

 

and

 

Jay Van Bavel : jay.vanbavel@nyu.edu

 

http://www.psych.nyu.edu/vanbavel/lab/index.html

 

!

Moderator Note

 

 

edited by Moderator - potential misuse of Copyrighted Material

 

Edited January 2, 2017 by proximity1
Removal of Copyrighted Material