Adam & Eve unqualified!!

[rigney]

Personally, I really wish you hadn't taken this guys "Adan & Eve" thing off the forum. Frustration is probably the best timbre to sanity that I can think of. After venting, most folks go back to a more subtle way of life. Just think of his misgiving as a modertion of thinking?? What else can I say?

[ydoaPs]

Personally, I really wish you hadn't taken this guys "Adan & Eve" thing off the forum. Frustration is probably the best timbre to sanity that I can think of. After venting, most folks go back to a more subtle way of life. Just think of his misgiving as a modertion of thinking?? What else can I say?

 

I happen to have similar thoughts, but this post is probably better suited to the Suggestion forum rather than the Speculations forum. I did, however, choose to let my thoughts be known via PM rather than the forum itself. If you ever feel the need, you can contact a staff member.

[Clipper]

That theory I brought makes no sense, as it uses false mathematics and doesn't explain things fully; I however believe in it and I will teach myself to explain it fully.

[ydoaPs]

That theory I brought makes no sense, as it uses false mathematics and doesn't explain things fully; I however believe in it and I will teach myself to explain it fully.

 

Wait, what? You say it's false, but still believe in it. What are the other 5 impossible things you believe before breakfast?

[iNow]

Wait, what? You say it's false, but still believe in it. What are the other 5 impossible things you believe before breakfast?

 

One, there's a potion that can make you shrink. Two, a cake that can make you grow. Three, animals can talk. Four, cats can disappear. Five, There's a place called wonderland. And six, I can slay the Jabberwockey.

[mooeypoo]

Personally, I really wish you hadn't taken this guys "Adan & Eve" thing off the forum. Frustration is probably the best timbre to sanity that I can think of. After venting, most folks go back to a more subtle way of life. Just think of his misgiving as a modertion of thinking?? What else can I say?

 

Reopening a closed thread is against the rules. If you want to complain, you can do so by reporting and the moderators and administrators will see it.

 

We're a science forum, and we have rules and etiquette. We have quitre a large number of threads talking about theories that are non-mainstream, so it's not like we erase any and all of those, but we don't waste our time with people whose sole purpose is to lecture nonscience nonsense and pretend it has any scientific meaning.

 

If someone wants to vent, they can open their own blog.

 

~moo

[ydoaPs]

Reopening a closed thread is against the rules.

I don't think it is, as normal users don't have that ability. Moderation staff, however, have been known to review a closed thread, clean it up a bit, and re-open it.

 

Now, what you might be thinking about would be an extension of Section 2 Article 8 which deals with 'soap boxing'. While it is not explicitly mentioned, creating a clone of a previously closed thread may fall under this category.

 

This thread, however, falls into neither category as it is calling into question a specific instance of moderator action. Last time I checked, inquiring into policy is allowed. We do, in fact, have a moderation policy(some of which has been made public upon changes). The mere fact that it changes is a sign that it is not immutable and as such is not beyond questioning.

 

If you want to complain, you can do so by reporting and the moderators and administrators will see it.

You can contact a moderator if you have any questions about the site and its policies, or you can post your question in the Suggestions, Comments, and Support section of the forums. For the thread in question, I chose to contact the acting moderator via our site's InternetRelayChat as well as contacting an administrator via PM.

 

We're a science forum, and we have rules and etiquette.

We do, in fact, have rules and etiquette by which posters are intended to abide(you agreed to them by joining).

 

This thread, afiact, is just asking about the rules for moderators and for justification of a specific instance of action.

 

While we do have the rules and etiquette for the general public, I feel that the moderation staff should be held to a higher standard. As a former Army officer, this idea should be of no surprise to you, mooeypoo.

 

This is effectively the subject of my discussion with both you and the administrator. I feel that a certain moderation etiquette and perhaps a change to the moderation policy(given I don't have access to the policy in its entirety) are needed.

 

I've always been trained with the 'praise in public, admonish in private' mindset when it comes to leadership, but that might not carry over from the military to forum moderatorship. I just think it may look poorly upon the site, when viewed from a newcomer, to see any thread closed immediately and/or with a harsh message.

 

Sure, the poster in question may have a habit of behaviour that is against the rules, but new users won't know that(I wasn't even familiar with the poster in question in this case, and he had a history). In such cases, I think that deletion with the mod note(and perhaps a couple of infraction points) sent to the user would be the best option.

 

There is a definite place for visible action; I'm not disputing that. It just needs to be done with more finesse, imo.

 

We need public actions, but they need not be done so bluntly. The mod notes, in times when public action is needed, should be made with the audience in mind; it's not just the offender who reads the thread. When private action is needed, a more stern mod note is permissible.

 

We need to take the audience into account.

 

Please, don't take this personally, as this is just the latest instance. It has, in my opinion, been a trend of the staff as a whole to have public action which may be perceived questionably. As we say in the military, perception is reality. Your actions can be completely legitimate, but still seem to outsiders to be wrong.

 

We have quitre a large number of threads talking about theories that are non-mainstream, so it's not like we erase any and all of those, but we don't waste our time with people whose sole purpose is to lecture nonscience nonsense and pretend it has any scientific meaning.

This is exactly right, but there are multiple ways to handle the situation. Some are better than others.

[Double K]

I'm still not seeing how arbitrary numbers were allocated to meanings in the OP...

It had me totally lost, but I was interested to hear how it was derived...

 

As for "believing" in something I would just like to quote something from a movie

 

"It's better to have ideas. You can change an idea. Changing a belief is trickier. Life should be malleable and progressive; working from idea to idea permits that. Beliefs anchor you to certain points and limits growth; new ideas can't generate. Life becomes stagnant."

- Chris Rock (Dogma, 1999)

Edited June 7, 2010 by Double K

[rigney]

I really didn't mean to open a can of worms. But my sympathy goes more to those who have never felt frustration or pain. This guy is hurting. The ambiance of your intellect should allow you to read his "screams", turn a page and go on. Only the sadness of his thoughts, not his words; disturbed me.