Hypocrisy

[Klaynos]

I am pretty sure that sometimes there is bias, we're all human.

 

What is annoying me about this thread is that proximity1 had provided no evidence despite being asked.

 

I've suggested that when it's seen that people should report the posts. There have been no reports about this.

 

Surly the sensible conclusion that the is bias because the mods are human but it's not as widespread or as problematic as proximity1 suggests? Although I would say it's always a challenge that we try to work on.

[rangerx]

 

No one here bothered to disprove his theory.

 

There's no burden to prove something doesn't exist.

 

I don't know you, but I'd unequivocally suggest you've never been peer reviewed.

 

 

Try being just a tiny bit more honest with yourself.

 

I would say what's most lacking, obviously, is even a start at some genuine transparency.

 

Perhaps you ought to start practicing what you preach instead of pretentiously pivoting upon others.

 

The very embodiment your own OP. Hypocrisy.

[DrP]

Seriously Prox - how are we supposed to react to someone who is clearly deluded like O'Neil? (See post 150 above - he never once explained how he 'worked out' his cipher.... which only worked for a small number of words when he decided which way to interpret as symbol, seemingly at what ever whim he fancied at that time). What about the seemingly endless number of perpetual motion and free energy machine 'inventors' that we get? After a few pages of explaining to them why their machine won't work they usually take criticism of their design as personal attacks. How would those people do if they took their ideas to the Dragon's Den? - They would be met with ridicule and derision. After several pages of someone not being able to back their ideas up or say how they calculated something I am not surprised they get ridiculed - what do you expect?

 

This might seem harsh - but after 8 pages of going round in circles - put up or shut up. Stop defending O'Neil - there are rebuffs to his work all the way through the thread of his that he never addresses..... because he can't presumably. Why the heck should he be taken seriously? Are you his mate in RL or something?

[Ten oz]

 

No, I don't. The pretense from the site's moderators and its favored clique that, in effect, "we just don't get it" is laughably transparent in its disingenuousness. These people are quite intelligent. They get it. Pretending to be astonished at allegations of bias are ridiculous from such smart people. Throughout the thread, any disinterested reader can follow their various tactics-- from calls for a thorough exampled case-like dossier of proofs (when the evidence is literally reeking) to calls for "if you don't like it here, just leave," are those of people who are practiced in deflection, double-talk, resort to their own self-serving double-standards.

 

Nothing is more predictable than that they'd make a pretentious show of their "tolerance" by allowing this thread to go on for a while. But that didn't preclude their moving it and peppering it with moderator thinly-veiled threats--all the usual treatment that out-group members can expect to get here.

Your feedom to post your views and how those views are individually received are separate issues. Your initial complaint was that the mods unfairly censored posts you felt were should not have been per the site's rules. This thread has not been censored, you havecomplained about the mods, they (the mods) have bothered to address your complaints specifically, and yet you are still dissatisfied. Is this about your freedom to post or do you feel mods must agree with you?

 

This comes as no surprise to me. However, it comes some 140 posts into this thread. Moreover, despite all that effort, which I don't doubt in the least, the moderating practices remain utterly opaque. A regular participant like Tom could have no idea that his effort would be so roundly squashed.

 

Yes, several of you posed questions and made critiques of the flaws. I don't object to that. What I object to is a so complete and summary dismissal of his effort to enlist some programmer's help. No one here bothered to disprove his theory. Instead, the fact that it wasn't liked was entirely sufficient to shut down his appeal. Had he been allowed to find that programming help, the statistics should have done your work for you-- he'd have seen, on testing the expectations, that they don't bear out.

 

This crusader-attitude here where a non-science topic is concerned is really clearly biased in my view and I've given examples of how it isn't consistent. You don't like it, but, yes, as for "one example," you've got several.

 

Try being just a tiny bit more honest with yourself.

 

I would say what's most lacking, obviously, is even a start at some genuine transparency. The moderating processes are utterly unaccountable to the readership. That this may be a common feature at many sites doesn't make it any the more just in principle.

Rather than raising any real point about censorship or freedom of speech you basically are just complaining to a level that rivals insult here. That basically mods owed more than critiques of the flaws and they are dishonest for not providing it. None of the mods on this site, which we use for free, owe us anything. It is not a function of their job/role to "disprove" every flawed post made. It is our job as posters to support and prove what we post and not vice versa. The mods role here is to keep this site authentic to its design. To that end some topics simply do not belong.

 

I once started a sports related thread in the lounge. No one responded. At the time I was a little surprised no one was interested but in retrospect I think the thread was probably a bad fit for the site. Had it been successful and drawn in a bunch of sports fans from various other sports themed sites the lounge could've potentially filled up with sports themed threads and that is ultimately not its purpose. So while my thread wasn't censored I am sure that there is a limit to how many sports related threads the mods would have allowed. A sports thread doesn't violate any rules yet the mods role here mean they don't just sit back and allow sections of the site to become something other than what they are meant to be. How they control that is subjective.

[swansont]

Two points.

 

1. Proximity is an aggressive, argumentative prat.

And pointing that out is a personal attack, which you should know is against the rules. It's not beyond reason to suspect you did this just to see if there would be a response.

 

2. However, his fundamental thesis is valid. There is an elite within the membership who tend to overlook behaviour in fellow members of that elite that they would not tolerate in others. This is such basic and typical behaviour and is certainly present here that it routinely astounds me that almost none of the elite are aware of it. (Or are willing to acknowledge it.)

 

 

Then why is it that nobody is able or willing to come up with evidence when asked for it? Especially regarding the complaint here, which was about presenting evidence when asked.

 

 

In my experience of online forums (and human social groups in general) is that long standing members are given more leeway than newer members. It often comes with a cost - benefit style analysis of the poster's behavior. If they are generally useful, entertaining and genial, but prone to the occasional inappropriate outburst they might be tolerable, but if a new poster is inappropriate from the get go, it's easier to dismiss them entirely.

 

These are not necessarily inconsistent positions. Unless you have a "one strike and you're out" policy, and we don't (unless it's spam), then you are in a situation where you are willing to tolerate some posts that cross the line, or in a grey area. So the issue becomes how often do you tolerate it? The difference there is if you are comparing LongtimeMember42 with 10,000 posts over several years, who says something objectionable every 250 posts (40 total) and Newbie956 who has 5 violations in 10 posts, you aren't going to treat them the same way. The counter gets reset every so often.

 

We actually have been issuing warning points that expire in some cases, so that people who have modified their behavior (for things like hijacking threads or soapboxing) won't be burdened with a stack of warning points if they are able to stick around for a long time. But if they don't, they will accrue points and eventually we will suspend them, because that's the next step.

 

And that's the process. Every circumstance is different, but the general procedure is warn in-thread, then issue warning point, then suspension, and if that hasn't worked, we ban. Each step may encompass greater or fewer posts, depending on the details. A long-standing member may not get an admonishment because it's not rapidly repeated, so there is no need. And also note that some modnotes are addressed to all participants, which could include long-standing members.

 

There's also the factor that it's easier to overlook inappropriateness when the person is saying something you agree with, than if it's something you disagree with.

 

On the flip side, we have kept and do keep some people around precisely because they have contrary viewpoints, despite their less-than-stellar behavior.

[Phi for All]

What I object to is a so complete and summary dismissal of his effort to enlist some programmer's help. No one here bothered to disprove his theory.

 

This is beyond the pale. First, you fail to show even a single example of the hypocrisy you accuse us of, then you make up your own facts to support the claim instead. Plenty of people showed him where he was wrong. Is it hypocritical of me to ask you to stop lying, to stop making shit up to defend your behavior here?

[swansont]

I've cited numerous examples in threads of a non-science topic (Politics, for example), noting about various comments from the in-group's members the kind of shoddy reasoning which is quickly censored when moderators find a newbie posting (even in a non-science area) comments of which the moderator simply doesn't approve. There may indeed by flaws in the reasoning--the fact is that these kinds of flaws are common here in non-science threads from the mutually-supporting in-group. They simply are ignored, left to stand.

"Shoddy reasoning" is not a rules violation. There's no call for a moderator to step in. This is a discussion board — you rebut the argument with a better one.

 

And when I noted them, I got called down for--guess what!?--that's right: rule violation.

Where?

 

I'm expected--epxlicitly called on- to have a prepared a clear case in advance, full of examples. Well, that's not because this is what's routinely done here by all in all areas of discussion.

Where has anyone demanded that you have a prepared case, full of examples? All I've seen is that you've been asked for one.

 

It's because my thesis is sensitive and the in-group members don't like it. Again, their opinions in non-science discussions are not subjected to the sort of hostile scruntiny that Tom O'Neil received for venturing into a theory about the VM. While I didn't find his arguments particularly compelling, I saw no reason to come down on him in the way that was done.

You hadn't even read his original thread — by your own admission (post 60) — when you complained about how he was treated.

 

I could have mounted a stronger defense of his position--without regard for the congency of his arguments on the VM--but I didn't bother.

How could you have done that, when you hadn't read the thread until well after it was locked?

 

I've been answered with ad hominem arguments, begging the question, diversions from the point, name-calling, hyperbole and none of it has drawn any correction from a moderator.

Did you report the posts?

 

The occasions when another member has even dared to timidly take my views in this matter as having even a possibiltiy of some, however partial, validity are fascinating in their rareness. It speaks of a community which either has a coincidental herd-mentality or which lives under a certain accepted intimidation as "well, that's how we roll here." Don't make no waves, don't rock no boats.

The phrase in question (used by me) was in response to being asked to provide evidence. It's not about rocking the boat, it's about being rigorous. This is a science site. It should come as no surprise that we want evidence for claims.

 

In O'Neil's case, there's a clear bias at work in the way he was treated--and that's something apart from the merits or lack of them in his theory.

The original thread was closed after numerous attempts by several people to draw information out about his method. Repeated objections were made about his approach, and were not addressed. All he ended up doing was repeating himself, and after several cycles of that, and it was clear no progress was going to be made, it was closed. On top of that, he was warned twice about violating the advertising rules.

 

That's pretty damned patient by the participants, and pretty forgiving from a moderator standpoint, IMO. If this bias is so clear, why can't you point it out?

 

What I object to is a so complete and summary dismissal of his effort to enlist some programmer's help. No one here bothered to disprove his theory.

I don't see where he asked for this. I searched on programmer and program in the original thread, and found no posts by Tom.

 

Several people called out his methods. No one bothered to disprove his theory? WTF?

 

I did find programmer in a subsequent thread, but he had been told not to re-introduce the topic. Twice, at that point. He used up his chance at discussion. When we say don't re-introduce the topic, that's what we mean. If that's what you're referring to then the bias is against people who violate the rules and direction of the staff. We are definitely biased against that.

[proximity1]

Technical note: many here shall be quite pleased to hear that, due to a construction-site accident, my usual internet access is now and for about a week to come (as I understand it) severely limited. In the circumstances, I'm using that very limited time for other internet needs rather than reading and replying here. I'll get back to this when the repairs have been effected.

Edited January 20, 2017 by proximity1