A disappointing tale.

[studiot]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

And at least one person did suggest building a demonstration device.

 

If that is true I apologise unreservedly to whomsoever posted it because I missed it the first time and I still can't find it.

[Sensei]

10 hours ago, Bignose said:

So... if there isn't anything to discuss, why are we surprised that the thread was closed? There is little need to document everyone asking questions and providing critiques that OP has stated they cannot or will not answer. Thread closure is the logical next step; if there is to be no discussion, then there is no point on a discussion forum.

The main point of OP is about premature closure of other thread. i.e. there have been just 3 hours when thread was started, to closure. User who started thread reached post limit per day and could not reply. IMHO closure of said thread should be considered after at least 48-72 hours, when user continued to avoid even the simplest questions even like area of operation of power plant (revealing source of energy for it, certainly would not break his IP rights).

[swansont]

6 hours ago, Sensei said:

The main point of OP is about premature closure of other thread. i.e. there have been just 3 hours when thread was started, to closure. User who started thread reached post limit per day and could not reply.

We sometimes close threads after just the original post. A lot of time you don't even see these posts, because they are hidden. It depends on the situation.

6 hours ago, Sensei said:

IMHO closure of said thread should be considered after at least 48-72 hours, when user continued to avoid even the simplest questions even like area of operation of power plant (revealing source of energy for it, certainly would not break his IP rights).

It's unlikely we are going to adopt such a rule, which would prevent us from taking action if needed before that time. We assess each thread on its merits, because each situation is different.

[Sensei]

@swansont

You're talking about completely different kind of threads. Threads which are immediately deleted are made by people who are e.g. seeking for help making explosives or drugs, obvious spam, insulting, made by sockpuppets etc. etc.

 

Edited April 1, 2019 by Sensei

[swansont]

1 minute ago, Sensei said:

@swansont

You're talking about completely different kind of threads. Threads which are immediately deleted are made by people who are e.g. seeking for help making explosives or drugs, obvious spam, insulting, made by sockpuppets etc. etc.

Not completely different. 

We shut down threads made by people who are violating the rules. You have only listed some of the rules that lead to thread closure. We also do it when, for example, someone announces that they will not be following the rules. The thread in question is not the first time we have acted quickly based on such a declaration. It typically ends up being a waste of moderators' time to ignore such declarations.

One thing that I don't think that's been mentioned is that thread closures aren't cast in stone. We can re-open threads. We have not done so. There was discussion amongst staff (another thing most of you were not privy to) about whether this would be warranted. You can see what we decided.

This happens quite a bit. A lot of actions you see are the result of collaboration, especially whether to suspend or ban someone for rules violations. Sometime we do, and sometimes we decide they deserve a second chance. It depends on the circumstances. There are people still on this site who would not be had we adhered to strict interpretations of rules. Some people have actually improved their behavior when given the opportunity (though the majority have not) 

 

[Ten oz]

19 minutes ago, Sensei said:

@swansont

You're talking about completely different kind of threads. Threads which are immediately deleted are made by people who are e.g. seeking for help making explosives or drugs, obvious spam, insulting, made by sockpuppets etc. etc.

 

I started a thread about debunking 9/11 conspiracies a couple years back and it was closed before anyone could reply. I was told by a Moderator that such a thread may attract an unwanted element (trolls and conspiracy nuts) to the site. My thread didn't contain anything objectionable and hadn't broken any forum rules yet was closed. I accept the Moderators choice as they felt it was beat for the site. I don't consider it unfair. 

They are many reasons for a thread to be closed and no single rule can account for all scenarios. 

Edited April 1, 2019 by Ten oz

[Sensei]

Swansont. Not only I think, that in this particular case, reaction was too hasty, therefor entire @studiot thread about prematurity of closing it (and couple others shared this point of view by upvoting his post)..

 

2 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

I started a thread about debunking 9/11 conspiracies a couple years back and it was closed before anyone could reply. I was told by a Moderator that such a thread may attract an unwanted element (trolls and conspiracy nuts) to the site.

Going such way of moderation, threads about "flat Earth", "hollow Earth", "anti-vaxxers", etc. etc. should be immediately closed down after the first post, because they might (and will!) attract supporters of these controversial ideas. That's ridiculous and silly. This way you won't be able to learn what are their arguments from the first hand. And you won't be able to teach these people how science is actually working and teach them scientific method used to measure something.

[Strange]

20 minutes ago, Sensei said:

Going such way of moderation, threads about "flat Earth", "hollow Earth", "anti-vaxxers", etc. etc. should be immediately closed down after the first post, because they might (and will!) attract supporters of these controversial ideas. That's ridiculous and silly.

I don't think it is silly at all. I know one science forum that allows discussion of conspiracy theories and "alternative" scientific theories but completely bans the discussion of the "electric universe" theory. Experience has told them that it is futile to allow the sort of idiots who believe it to post. 

I would quite happily ban certain topics (the three you mention and several others) as they are basically unscientific, quasi-religious beliefs and there is no point discussing them.

23 minutes ago, Sensei said:

And you won't be able to teach these people how science is actually working and teach them scientific method used to measure something.

They aren't interested.

[Sensei]

Just now, Strange said:

I don't think it is silly at all. I know one science forum that allows discussion of conspiracy theories and "alternative" scientific theories but completely bans the discussion of the "electric universe" theory. Experience has told them that it is futile to allow the sort of idiots who believe it to post. 

I would quite happily ban certain topics (the three you mention and several others) as they are basically unscientific, quasi-religious beliefs and there is no point discussing them. 

They belong to speculation forum. Nobody is forced to reply in every thread made on this forum. Not interesting you subject? That's simple. Don't reply. By banning crackpots, deleting their posts, you disallow other the more determined members of the forum to persuade these people that they are mistaken.

1 minute ago, Strange said:

They aren't interested. 

..but at least you (or somebody else) tried..

If somebody is reading our explanations of science to crackpots, these people, not being crackpots at all, are learning something new too..

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Sensei said:

They belong to speculation forum. Nobody is forced to reply in every thread made on this forum. Not interesting you subject? That's simple. Don't reply. By banning crackpots, deleting their posts, you disallow other the more determined members of the forum to persuade these people that they are mistaken.

1

what if they already know?

[Ten oz]

44 minutes ago, Sensei said:

Swansont. Not only I think, that in this particular case, reaction was too hasty, therefor entire @studiot thread about prematurity of closing it (and couple others shared this point of view by upvoting his post)..

 

Going such way of moderation, threads about "flat Earth", "hollow Earth", "anti-vaxxers", etc. etc. should be immediately closed down after the first post, because they might (and will!) attract supporters of these controversial ideas. That's ridiculous and silly. This way you won't be able to learn what are their arguments from the first hand. And you won't be able to teach these people how science is actually working and teach them scientific method used to measure something.

All discussion isn't honest. Not only do some people troll for S&Gs but certainly key words attract bots. 

[StringJunky]

27 minutes ago, Sensei said:

They belong to speculation forum. Nobody is forced to reply in every thread made on this forum. Not interesting you subject? That's simple. Don't reply. By banning crackpots, deleting their posts, you disallow other the more determined members of the forum to persuade these people that they are mistaken.

..but at least you (or somebody else) tried..

If somebody is reading our explanations of science to crackpots, these people, not being crackpots at all, are learning something new too..

Sensei, you should know by now that you cannot successfully argue about subjects founded on arbitrary belief, like those you mentioned.

[Strange]

38 minutes ago, Sensei said:

They belong to speculation forum. Nobody is forced to reply in every thread made on this forum. Not interesting you subject? That's simple. Don't reply. By banning crackpots, deleting their posts, you disallow other the more determined members of the forum to persuade these people that they are mistaken.

This is slightly offensive.

1. I didn't say anything about not being interested. And I don't see see the relevance of not being "forced to reply"

2. I definitely did not say anything about deleting posts.

 

[Phi for All]

I'm disappointed that you don't seem to trust the staff to treat with the membership in the context of their behavior and subject matter. You seem to want a blanket policy about something that requires more nuance and flexibility. 

If someone has spent 13 years trolling sites like this pushing guesswork they made up because they can't be bothered to actually study, do you really think they're listening to people correcting them? I don't think so, but apparently my judgement is in question. It would be great if folks like that bothered to listen, but they're too busy trying to get others to listen to their mistakes.

I have to say, I normally don't mind these "Why are the mods so X?" threads, but this one is starting to be pretty insulting.

[koti]

@studiot @Sensei

I’m sory but someone other than the mods has to say it; Will you both really put the below poster above Swansont’s, Strange’s and Phi’s judgmenet? Are you both high?! :

”Good day. I have a project on power industry. I receive the electric power on the basis of a renewable energy resource. It will be possible to receive the electric power 24 hours a day, 365 days in a year, generation of the electric power will happen at one level all the time, that is, no stores of the electric power will be necessary and the electric power can be given directly to a electrical grid of the country. It will be possible to construct power plant of any power for electricity supply of the whole city or any country. Because the power plant works at a renewable energy resource it is not necessary to transport any energy carriers on power plant, that is, the electric power will be generated exclusively in the territory of power plant. The power plant can be constructed near any settlement around the world. The power plant will work until will exist an earth and the nature in such type, in what we know it. At generation of the electric power there are no harmful emissions in the atmosphere of the earth, about any greenhouse and carbon dioxide gases cannot be here to go speeches, there will be no industrial wastes, including any radioactive waste, that is, it will be completely green technology of generation of the electric power, that is, ecologically absolutely pure method of receiving the electric power, that is, the mankind already completely and is forever provided with environmentally friendly energy. Thus, it is not necessary to throw more billions of dollars on construction of any exotic power source, including the thermonuclear reactor, everything, no need to do anything else, instead of throwing these billions unknown where, can freely put this money in my power plant. In addition, all this guarantees that cost value of the electric power will be one of the lowest in the world, the lowest. But I cannot reach anybody in any way, I understand that in the world there are many various engineering designs, but what else should I offer about generation of the electric power that paid attention to this project? What I still have to make or what my power plant still has to do? What from power plant still waiting? That she began to sing? Maybe is necessary for them the flying power plant, what still is necessary for them? Maybe you will prompt to me, what am I not doing right?”

i suggest you read again through the above post and if once is not enough read through it again and then apologize to swansont, strange and Phi. Theres been times that a mod or w member has gotten on my nerves on this forum but this right here looks like youre both having the same delusion. Say youre sory and lock the damn thread. Im going to request it.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Sensei said:

Swansont. Not only I think, that in this particular case, reaction was too hasty, therefor entire @studiot thread about prematurity of closing it (and couple others shared this point of view by upvoting his post)..

You are entitled to your opinion, but, as I have pointed out, you are reaching a conclusion without having access to all of the information. You can only see part of the picture. I am not at liberty to discuss private conversations.

15 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I'm disappointed that you don't seem to trust the staff to treat with the membership in the context of their behavior and subject matter. You seem to want a blanket policy about something that requires more nuance and flexibility. 

If someone has spent 13 years trolling sites like this pushing guesswork they made up because they can't be bothered to actually study, do you really think they're listening to people correcting them? I don't think so, but apparently my judgement is in question. It would be great if folks like that bothered to listen, but they're too busy trying to get others to listen to their mistakes.

I have to say, I normally don't mind these "Why are the mods so X?" threads, but this one is starting to be pretty insulting.

I agree with Phi, BTW.

[Strange]

2 minutes ago, koti said:

I’m sory but someone other than the mods has to say it; Will you both really put the below poster above Swansont’s, Strange’s and Phi’s judgmenet? Are you both high?! :

I think the clue is here:

On 3/28/2019 at 10:27 PM, studiot said:

I say premature closure because I have just looked at the thread for the first time and it is already closed.

So I have no opportunity to offer some encouragement and perhaps a way forward to the new member.

Perhaps it isn't about censoring the OP but about other people not being allowed to add their Very Important Contributions to the thread.

So, now we have all seen studiot's excellent suggestion to build a demonstrator, perhaps this thread could be closed?

[Sensei]

 

Quote

Not only do some people troll for S&Gs but certainly key words attract bots. 

Even if you will put thread to trashcan, even if you will close it, Internet crawlers will find them (posts) there anyway.

BTW, crawler/bot is gathering data. Data are put in databases. Keywords are just filters for end-users. Crawlers don't visit website attracted by some keyword. They visit website regularly, regardless of anything. Google bot at least one time per day. If Google bot detects website changes regularly, starts visiting it more often. Google bot sees new threads on this website quicker than moderators..

28 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Sensei, you should know by now that you cannot successfully argue about subjects founded on arbitrary belief, like those you mentioned.

If somebody managed to brainwash them, persuaded them to believe in these nonsenses, it's possible to undo it too...

It is an opportunity to learn new skills in erudition.

 

[hypervalent_iodine]

I can understand how it may have seemed hasty without the added perspective of what was happening behind the scenes. As mentioned a few times already, after closing it staff discussed the closure and the member was contacted. We considered reopening the thread if we believed the member was hoping to participate in genuine discussion. They weren’t (as per PM), so it stayed closed. It wasn’t a spur of the moment decision, nor was it irreversible.

I’m not sure what else there is to say on the matter. We take these things case by case, and a lot of staff discussions and interactions with members are not made public. That isn’t going to change.

1 hour ago, Sensei said:

They belong to speculation forum. Nobody is forced to reply in every thread made on this forum. Not interesting you subject? That's simple. Don't reply. By banning crackpots, deleting their posts, you disallow other the more determined members of the forum to persuade these people that they are mistaken.

..but at least you (or somebody else) tried..

If somebody is reading our explanations of science to crackpots, these people, not being crackpots at all, are learning something new too..

SFN is not a conspiracy forum, nor is it a make up whatever BS you want and call it science forum. We give a lot of leeway to people to post and defend their ideas, but we have to draw a line somewhere. If we identify early on that a poster has absolutely no interest in participating in rational discussion, why should we let it continue? That runs completely counterintuitive to the spirit of the forum, and has no place here. 

[Intrigued]

8 minutes ago, koti said:

@studiot @Sensei

I suggest you read again through the above post and if once is not enough read through it again and then apologize to swansont, strange and Phi. Theres been times that a mod or w member has gotten on my nerves on this forum but this right here looks like youre both having the same delusion. Say youre sory and lock the damn thread. Im going to request it.

I have read the OP of the thread under discussion a number of times as well as the rest of the thread. For what it's worth (probably not a lot) this is my take on it.

The OP clearly has major difficulties with English. This is unfortunate since it detracts sigificantly from their attempt to get across a clear message. More than that it can create the impression, consciously or unconsciously sensed, that the poster is not the sharpest knife in the draw.

At one end of the possibilities I see a deluded person, probably not well versed in science, but knowing enough (poorly understood and often wrong) to think they have had a revolutionary idea. At the other end is an individual who has had a relevant insight to a plausible renewable energy resource. They have likely been seriously overoptimistic about its potential, but yet is may offer a genuine benefit. In either case they lack the resources to construct a protype and fear loss of control if they publish details. The quality of their English makes it impractical to distinguish between these possibilites, though past experience might suggest the first is the more likely.

In neither case was there much point in continuing the thread, but I sympathise to a degree with the point made by Studiot that the poster could have been treated with a little more courtesy.

Obviously, all of the foregoing is an opinion and can certainly be disregarded, though I've always found it productive to reflect on all opinions.

[hypervalent_iodine]

 

5 minutes ago, Intrigued said:

 

28 minutes ago, koti said:

@studiot @Sensei

I suggest you read again through the above post and if once is not enough read through it again and then apologize to swansont, strange and Phi. Theres been times that a mod or w member has gotten on my nerves on this forum but this right here looks like youre both having the same delusion. Say youre sory and lock the damn thread. Im going to request it.

I have read the OP of the thread under discussion a number of times as well as the rest of the thread. For what it's worth (probably not a lot) this is my take on it.

The OP clearly has major difficulties with English. This is unfortunate since it detracts sigificantly from their attempt to get across a clear message. More than that it can create the impression, consciously or unconsciously sensed, that the poster is not the sharpest knife in the draw.

At one end of the possibilities I see a deluded person, probably not well versed in science, but knowing enough (poorly understood and often wrong) to think they have had a revolutionary idea. At the other end is an individual who has had a relevant insight to a plausible renewable energy resource. They have likely been seriously overoptimistic about its potential, but yet is may offer a genuine benefit. In either case they lack the resources to construct a protype and fear loss of control if they publish details. The quality of their English makes it impractical to distinguish between these possibilites, though past experience might suggest the first is the more likely.

In neither case was there much point in continuing the thread, but I sympathise to a degree with the point made by Studiot that the poster could have been treated with a little more courtesy.

Obviously, all of the foregoing is an opinion and can certainly be disregarded, though I've always found it productive to reflect on all opinions

 

 

Again, these are opinions made lacking all of the facts of the matter. We are not going to post the contents of private messages, but I can say that we were willing to reopen the thread IF we believed that they were willing to discuss anything. They weren’t, and so the thread stayed closed. It wasn’t a langauge barrier issue, it was an issue of the OP not wanting to give any details whatsoever about their alleged discovery. What point is there in allowing a thread (on a science forum) wherein the OP has absolutely no intention of discussing the scientific aspect of their ideas? 

[dimreepr]

8 minutes ago, Intrigued said:

I have read the OP of the thread under discussion a number of times as well as the rest of the thread. For what it's worth (probably not a lot) this is my take on it.

The OP clearly has major difficulties with English. This is unfortunate since it detracts sigificantly from their attempt to get across a clear message. More than that it can create the impression, consciously or unconsciously sensed, that the poster is not the sharpest knife in the draw.

At one end of the possibilities I see a deluded person, probably not well versed in science, but knowing enough (poorly understood and often wrong) to think they have had a revolutionary idea. At the other end is an individual who has had a relevant insight to a plausible renewable energy resource. They have likely been seriously overoptimistic about its potential, but yet is may offer a genuine benefit. In either case they lack the resources to construct a protype and fear loss of control if they publish details. The quality of their English makes it impractical to distinguish between these possibilites, though past experience might suggest the first is the more likely.

In neither case was there much point in continuing the thread, but I sympathise to a degree with the point made by Studiot that the poster could have been treated with a little more courtesy.

Obviously, all of the foregoing is an opinion and can certainly be disregarded, though I've always found it productive to reflect on all opinions.

9

[swansont]

Thread closure is a pretty mild moderator action, in the scheme of things. There was no official warning, which is one option open to the staff. One might note that a modnote preceded the thread closure, allowing the OP to respond.

I don't think requiring someone to sign NDA before they can be shown the project leaves a lot of wiggle room in the question of whether any science/technology is going to be discussed. And if we aren't discussing that, what's left to be discussed?

 

 

[Phi for All]

30 minutes ago, Sensei said:

If somebody managed to brainwash them, persuaded them to believe in these nonsenses, it's possible to undo it too...

It is an opportunity to learn new skills in erudition.

But there was no mention of anybody else. There was only the mention of years spent studying, and several elementary physics mistakes which made it obvious it was self-study. It's a LOT more difficult to undo when someone has been washing their own brain.

I understand and agree that we should try to help where possible. But I also think you're being overly rigid in your defense of principles that need more context in their application. It's caused you to go on the warpath against the staff riding a very high horse.

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, Sensei said:

It is an opportunity to learn new skills in erudition.

Nice idea but not realistic.