A disappointing tale.

[Intrigued]

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

As I said you were free to ignore it.

Still, I would value a comment by PM as to which of my statements you felt most deserving of the face palm.

 

3 hours ago, hypervalent_iodine said:

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? 

Most opinions are based upon incomplete facts. The other points are duly noted, however, I was not questioning the closure of the thread, so you are preaching to the converted on that point.

My concluding point was that I felt the closure and associated remarks could have been more courteous. You may respond that courtesy had been exhausted by private contacts between the OP and the admin team, or that you see no discourtesy in any of the replies. None of what has been said would alter my view that the responses could have been more courteous and I offered that as opinion in the expectation that the admin team would welcome opinions both pro and con.

[koti]

I have a solution to all this; How about Hyper reprimends whichever mod locked the thread, then I'll get really stoned over the next weekend and studiot & sensei will be forced to address all the ridiculous crap that comes to my mind for hours in a specially created thread for it.

[swansont]

14 hours ago, Intrigued said:

My concluding point was that I felt the closure and associated remarks could have been more courteous.

What part of the response was lacking in courtesy? Was it the "best of luck" part?

[Intrigued]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

What part of the response was lacking in courtesy? Was it the "best of luck" part?

On any occassion I can recall in business, academia, social or personal contacts that a meeting has very often ended with the words " but we’re done here", it has been said in an aggressive, patronising or dismissive tone.

That can call into question the sincerity of the "best of luck" statement, or the "whatever it is that you want" clause.

swansont, I'm not here to create waves or argue. I offered an opinion in a thread containing many opinions. I offered it on the basis that another perspective might be of value to one or more participants. Apparently I wasn't the only one to feel there was discourtesy in the thread in general. Discourtesy does not need to be intentional for it to exist.

I feel as if my post was seen somehow as an attack rather than a sincere observation, so if I have been inadvertently discourteous I apologise. . As I noted at the time, feel completely free to disregard it.

[iNow]

You know what’s a disappointing tale? The fact that this dead horse is still being beaten after 3 pages of discussion. It’s an Internet forum, people. Perspective please. 

[swansont]

3 hours ago, Intrigued said:

On any occassion I can recall in business, academia, social or personal contacts that a meeting has very often ended with the words " but we’re done here", it has been said in an aggressive, patronising or dismissive tone.

With written words, it can be hard to conclude the tone. It's often what you read into it. 

But we aren't going to stop closing threads, or correcting mistaken posts, just because some people might deem it to be dismissive, or aggressive, or because it offends sensibilities. 

To quote myself from a previous discussion "This is a place to discuss science, not a self-esteem support group. Civility is required, but this does not extend to walking on eggshells to accommodate fragile egos."

 

 

 

[Intrigued]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

With written words, it can be hard to conclude the tone. It's often what you read into it.

Which argues, surely, for extra care in how things are phrased.

 

1 hour ago, swansont said:

But we aren't going to stop closing threads, or correcting mistaken posts, just because some people might deem it to be dismissive, or aggressive, or because it offends sensibilities. 

At no point have I suggested that the thread should not have been closed. I think this is the second time I have pointed this out to you. I'm not sure what I should have done to get it across more explicitly. It's rather frustrating having to respond to a strawman response.

 

1 hour ago, swansont said:

To quote myself from a previous discussion "This is a place to discuss science, not a self-esteem support group. Civility is required, but this does not extend to walking on eggshells to accommodate fragile egos."

Your perception of civility is duly noted. Thank you for the insight. To quote yourself from a relevant post,  "I think we're done here".

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, Intrigued said:

Which argues, surely, for extra care in how things are phrased.

People have their own particular way with words and, like in the real world, familiarity brings understanding. Too often, as you are doing here, people are too quick to pass judgement on post presentation and the general conversational style of the forum. It takes time to understand the style and  lingo of a hobby or interest forum. Scientists and enthusiasts are generally dispassionately terse and to the point; padding with soft words is not their usual thing.

[Intrigued]

16 hours ago, StringJunky said:

People have their own particular way with words and, like in the real world, familiarity brings understanding. Too often, as you are doing here, people are too quick to pass judgement on post presentation and the general conversational style of the forum. It takes time to understand the style and  lingo of a hobby or interest forum. Scientists and enthusiasts are generally dispassionately terse and to the point; padding with soft words is not their usual thing.

Valid points, well made - and yet:

Option 1: adopt the ethos you have skillfully presented here and apply it consistently. Result -  some individuals will be offended (or even hurt) and never stay around long enough to acquire an understanding of the "general conversational style" (and to temper their more radical ideas with scientific objectivity).

Option 2: exercise a litte more care and so retain the interest and participation of those individuals, thereby growing the size and diversity of forum membership.

For me Option2 is the obvious choice, since it requires no more effort than Option 1 and produces what appear to be significant benefits.

But look, I'm not suggesting this is how the forum should be conducted - that's up to the mod/admin team and, I imagine, to established members such as yourself. I was just throwing out a thought for consideration. I hadn't intended to initiate an extensive dialogue, or to give the impression that I was trying to start a revolution - not that you've suggested I was.

[Phi for All]

I'm willing to exercise a little more care so we can keep more posters like Ilige, if that's what the membership wants. I think it's a fairly masochistic request. Obviously it means a great deal more than I imagined that we increase the membership by courting this type of poster.

[dimreepr]

19 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I'm willing to exercise a little more care so we can keep more posters like Ilige, if that's what the membership wants.

no thanks, whos Ilige?

[swansont]

22 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I'm willing to exercise a little more care so we can keep more posters like Ilige, if that's what the membership wants. I think it's a fairly masochistic request. Obviously it means a great deal more than I imagined that we increase the membership by courting this type of poster.

I don't think "keep" is the right term here, as Ilige was not banned, and is free to start up or join in any other threads, as long as the rules are followed. They have thus far chosen not to do so.

It's hard to know whether we can "retain the interest and participation" of people, because we don't know if they are one-trick ponies or not. If all they want is an audience for some dubious science, then I don't see how we are accomplishing anything, once they have  made it clear they aren't here for a science dialog (whether it's not being forthcoming with details, as we had here, or simply repeating their claims and not responding to feedback, as we see elsewhere). And if they aren't here for a good-faith exchange of information, then what's the point?

 

4 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

no thanks, whos Ilige?

The starter of the thread in question.

[Phi for All]

3 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

no thanks, whos Ilige?

The poster the thread was started for. The one who didn't want to give details on his idea.

[dimreepr]

4 minutes ago, swansont said:

The starter of the thread in question.

3 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

The poster the thread was started for. The one who didn't want to give details on his idea.

 

do I need to know?

[DrP]

3 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

do I need to know?

probs not  -  but here it is anyway.  Damp squib if ever there was one... 

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/118572-i-offer-the-innovation-green-technology-of-generation-of-the-electric-power-by-means-of-a-new-renewable-energy-resource/?tab=comments#comment-1099131

A - "I have a great new ground breaking invention that will change the world forever and no-one will ever need for anything again"

B - "Great - what is it"

A - "I can't TELL you of course, doh, that would be telling and you might steal my idea - it's SO great though - what can I do to build it and sell it to the world"

B - "Whatever".

Mods: "yea - whatever - we get 20 of you a month, thread closed unless you want to discuss the science behind the idea".

 

[Phi for All]

16 minutes ago, swansont said:

I don't think "keep" is the right term here, as Ilige was not banned, and is free to start up or join in any other threads, as long as the rules are followed. They have thus far chosen not to do so.

Court them, then. "Exercise a little more care to retain the interest and participation of those individuals." Our judgement is being called into question about this, and our quality over quantity policy needs to be reexamined, it seems.

21 minutes ago, swansont said:

It's hard to know whether we can "retain the interest and participation" of people, because we don't know if they are one-trick ponies or not. If all they want is an audience for some dubious science, then I don't see how we are accomplishing anything, once they have  made it clear they aren't here for a science dialog (whether it's not being forthcoming with details, as we had here, or simply repeating their claims and not responding to feedback, as we see elsewhere). And if they aren't here for a good-faith exchange of information, then what's the point?

The point seems to be that some of the membership is more interested in our decision-making process than we previously thought, and wants us to treat all ideas as viable for discussion. Personally, I think it makes us look terrible when our home page is full of nutter garbage, and I doubt seriously that courting crackpots helps us attract more desirable scientific sorts. But it seems important that everybody gets a chance to put in their two cents when someone like Ilige posts an off-the-wall idea, more important than our wish to keep conversations meaningful. 

I promise to be more careful in applying the rules to those who break them the way Ilige did.

[dimreepr]

3 minutes ago, DrP said:

probs not  -  but here it is anyway.  Damp squib if ever there was... 

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/118572-i-offer-the-innovation-green-technology-of-generation-of-the-electric-power-by-means-of-a-new-renewable-energy-resource/?tab=comments#comment-1099131

A - "I have a great new ground breaking invention that will change the world forever and no-one will ever need for anything again"

B - "Great - what is it"

A - "I can't TELL you of course, doh, that would be telling and you might steal my idea - it's SO great though - what can I do to build it and sell it to the world"

B - "Whatever".

Mods: "yea - whatever - we get 20 of you a month, thread closed unless you want to discuss the science behind the idea".

 

2

I was A - once - I got better...

[StringJunky]

10 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Court them, then. "Exercise a little more care to retain the interest and participation of those individuals." Our judgement is being called into question about this, and our quality over quantity policy needs to be reexamined, it seems.

The point seems to be that some of the membership is more interested in our decision-making process than we previously thought, and wants us to treat all ideas as viable for discussion. Personally, I think it makes us look terrible when our home page is full of nutter garbage, and I doubt seriously that courting crackpots helps us attract more desirable scientific sorts. But it seems important that everybody gets a chance to put in their two cents when someone like Ilige posts an off-the-wall idea, more important than our wish to keep conversations meaningful. 

I promise to be more careful in applying the rules to those who break them the way Ilige did.

For the record: I think the balance of judgements made is about right. I don't want to see any more fluff than we are getting currently. If the moderating was OTT there would no dodgy threads at all, so some leniency is actually evident at any given time.

[studiot]

Thanks to all contributing here. It's gratifying to see so many are interested in 'getting it right', rather than just spouting platitudes.

Two thoughts occur from the responses.

Firstly to the moderator camp in general I would observe that I have been told (more than once) that this forum prides itself on not immediately rejecting propositions.
I can however, see clear water between the response to the proposition in question and many of those I have thought went on too long.
This water is the ocean between the continents of religious belief and belief in some false science or other.
I have been told that we should not jsut dismiss (religous) preachers but challenge them and many pages of threads have been devoted to this before they are finally closed or everybody gives up through exhaustion.

Secondly I still feel that only lip service has been paid to the lesson that could be learned here - for future threads - I am not asking to reopen the one in question,
Although I have, in the past, successfully asked for someone's thread to be reopened.

 

[StringJunky]

27 minutes ago, studiot said:

Thanks to all contributing here. It's gratifying to see so many are interested in 'getting it right', rather than just spouting platitudes.

Two thoughts occur from the responses.

Firstly to the moderator camp in general I would observe that I have been told (more than once) that this forum prides itself on not immediately rejecting propositions.
I can however, see clear water between the response to the proposition in question and many of those I have thought went on too long.
This water is the ocean between the continents of religious belief and belief in some false science or other.
I have been told that we should not jsut dismiss (religous) preachers but challenge them and many pages of threads have been devoted to this before they are finally closed or everybody gives up through exhaustion.

Secondly I still feel that only lip service has been paid to the lesson that could be learned here - for future threads - I am not asking to reopen the one in question,
Although I have, in the past, successfully asked for someone's thread to be reopened.

 

That's probably the way to address the issue when it arises: ask a mod to re-open it and tell them why. I can see it being a rare thing but sorts it out, I reckon. Also, it's not the same as the OP asking to re-open it.

Edited April 3, 2019 by StringJunky

[koti]

6 hours ago, studiot said:

Thanks to all contributing here. It's gratifying to see so many are interested in 'getting it right', rather than just spouting platitudes.

That is sweet studiot. I envy and encourage your commitment to getting things right. I have no idea what the people of science would have done without this 3 page long thread about fighting for flying power plant rights.

Thank you again. You will be rewarded with crackpots praising you on the forum and you will be reimbursed with plums.

PS. Do you think you could stop the uselessness and start being productive on the forum? I expect this from you since you are part of the members which are supposed to be productive. I'm saying this from a point of view of someone who wants to learn because thats what I'm here for, this is a science forum not a crackpot convert forum if you haven't noticed.

Edited April 3, 2019 by koti

[hypervalent_iodine]

9 minutes ago, koti said:

That is sweet studiot. I envy and encourage your commitment to getting things right. I have no idea what the people of science would have done without this 3 page long thread about fighting for flying power plant rights.

Thank you again. You will be rewarded with crackpots praising you on the forum and you will be reimbursed with plums.

PS. Do you think you could stop the uselessness and start being productive on the forum? I expect this from you since you are part of the members which are supposed to be productive. I'm saying this from a point of view of someone who wants to learn because thats what I'm here for, this is a science forum not a crackpot convert forum if you haven't noticed.

 

!

Moderator Note

This is uncalled for, koti. I tolerated your comments before as I was participating in this thread, but you should know better than to think we will be tolerant of you insulting other members. 

 

[koti]

Is this thread ready to be closed now or are we looking at putting a few pages more of nurturing incurable cracpottery?

[hypervalent_iodine]

We have no plans to close it. If you wish for it to end, stop participating in it and it will die its own death. Otherwise, please stop using this thread for comments that either don’t belong on the forum, or belong in a report.

[DrP]

10 hours ago, koti said:

Do you think you could stop the uselessness and start being productive on the forum?

Just my opinion for what it is worth I have always thought studiot to be very patient and thorough when explaining science stuff to people that come here for home work advice and things. He unintentionally rubbed me up the wrong way when we first met (he will not know this until now) and I have never been a fan of the "I gave you +1 for that", which seems to have caught on, but I can't fault his enthusiasm or the work he seems to put into helping people when they ask scientific questions. I am not a fan of the premise of this thread, but he seems pretty knowledgeable and helpful to me and seems to bend over backwards to explain things to people that ask for help. I can tell from his posts that his general knowledge of basic chemistry and physics are way better than mine...  and I have a PhD in the subjects.

Just my 'worthless' opinion though.  He is a good egg in my book. I wouldn't have commented but the suggestion that he is 'unproductive' on the forum doesn't ring right to me.

 

Regards,

 

P.