Uhhm... Where's the Politics Forum?

[iNow]

What happened to the Politics forum? It's no where to be found. I even looked for my own post history to get in from the back end, and yet none of my posts showed up for that forum.

 

What's up with that?

 

---

 

Okay... I just ran a test. Logged out and suddenly the Politics forum was visible when I was viewing as a guest. I presume I've for some reason been banned from the Politics section and nobody on the staff felt it warranted to notify me of this?

 

If so, I'd like an open and public explanation of why. Thanks.

[CaptainPanic]

I see no differences - it's still where it's supposed to be, and nothing has disappeared.

[iNow]

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/34-politics/

 

When I click the link above, this message appears:

 

 

An Error Occurred

 

Sorry, an error occurred. If you are unsure on how to use a feature, or don't know why you got this error message, try looking through the help files for more information.

 

[#10333] We could not find the forum you were attempting to view.

 

---

 

 

So... Yep. I just clicked "Reply" within a Politics thread when viewing as a Guest, then entered my login information, and received the following error:

 

 

An Error Occurred

 

Sorry, an error occurred. If you are unsure on how to use a feature, or don't know why you got this error message, try looking through the help files for more information.

 

[#103137] You do not have permission to view this topic.

 

 

Seriously?

[ydoaPs]

That's what you get for trolling, Trolly McTrollerson!

[Mr Skeptic]

Okay... I just ran a test. Logged out and suddenly the Politics forum was visible when I was viewing as a guest. I presume I've for some reason been banned from the Politics section and nobody on the staff felt it warranted to notify me of this?

 

If so, I'd like an open and public explanation of why. Thanks.

 

Yes, you got banned from the Politics forum. The mods presumed you would figure out why you had it coming, what with your repeated and apparently unrepentant violations of rule 2.1. Even if some of those were provoked, there's also no need to escalate which you often do. After the umpteenth discussion about whether to ban you, it was decided to at least remove you from the politics forum, since you seem to do the most damage in areas where the facts are uncertain (ie, you treat your opinion as fact and then apply your "conversational intolerance" against anyone who disagrees).

 

Not sure if the politics forum disappearing completely for you was intentional. I'll go ask.

[iNow]

Yes, you got banned from the Politics forum. The mods presumed you would figure out why you had it coming...

Ah. Further reinforcement of my user title. Thanks.

 

 

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/10/its_not_just_us.php

 

To people who are palpably wrong, the whole world is always going to look very rude to them. You'd think they'd learn after a while that whining about civility is never going to persuade anyone except other shallow, superficial wankers.

 

 

 

 

 

Not sure if the politics forum disappearing completely for you was intentional. I'll go ask.

It's an account permissions thing. I am no longer able to view or reply to posts in the Politics sub-forum when logged in. Consequently, searching for posts in that forum returns a null result... Even when those posts were submitted by me.

Edited October 11, 2010 by iNow

[Mr Skeptic]

Indeed. And you, my friend, are palpably wrong in the level of certainty with which you treat your opinions and the conclusiveness of the evidence which you offer in support of them. I know you won't just take my word for it (I wouldn't in your position either), but feel free to ask others who know you well.

[swansont]

"The mods presumed you would figure out why you had it coming" isn't entirely accurate; when a total ban occurs, those who actually do the banning typically log the action and inform the subject, and that did not happen here. Mr Skeptic's phrasing might lead one to conclude that there was a consensus or conspiracy not to pass the information along, and that is not the case.

 

The quote from pharyngula, while true, misses the point. It was not the perceived rudeness of contradiction or truth that was the issue here. It was actual insults and putdowns, that did not have to be part of the discussion in order to make your point, that led to this. IOW, you can disagree, and/or point out someone's errors, without calling them an idiot. If you want to do that from your own dais, fine — anyone who whines about it can justifiably be labeled a shallow, superficial wanker. But a discussion forum is trying to foster participation, and that sort of incivility is just not conducive to that goal.

[iNow]

You have all decided to place greater emphasis on tone and calls for civility instead of on requiring citations and support for our arguments. It's not that I think my evidence is all that's conclusive... It's that those who argue the opposite side to me fail to share any, and then engage in logical fallacies, ta boot.

 

Within the rules themselves, it states that people should avoid logical fallacies and repeating claims with no evidence because it's frustrating. Well... Go figure. I've been frustrated.

 

How about you guys address the root cause instead of scapegoating me?

[Sayonara]

Yes, you have had your access to the Politics forum revoked.

 

The reason for this is because of your attitude towards other users, which is basically Harris-style "controversial intolerance". While not quite opposed to our rules and values it isn't exactly harmonious with them either and consequently you have been warned many times about your inflammatory and aggressive posting style when discussing others' opinions and intellects. All of the admins have access to the records of these warnings, both in staff threads and in private messages.

 

May I remind you (and all other users, in fact) that access to the Politics forum is contingent initially upon a posting record that is appraised in quantitative terms by automated scripts, but subject to ongoing approval based upon qualitative administrator appraisal. I am sure I don't need to remind a long-standing member such as yourself iNow of the reasons we adopted this policy.

 

You have all decided to place greater emphasis on tone and calls for civility instead of on requiring citations and support for our arguments. It's not that I think my evidence is all that's conclusive... It's that those who argue the opposite side to me fail to share any, and then engage in logical fallacies, ta boot.

Insulting behaviour is not a substitute for requesting citations. The fashion in which you respond to others is your responsibility, not anybody else's.

 

It's an account permissions thing. I am no longer able to view or reply to posts in the Politics sub-forum when logged in. Consequently, searching for posts in that forum returns a null result... Even when those posts were submitted by me.

The permissions can be altered so that you have read-only access to politics, but I would have thought that would be agonising.

[iNow]

May I remind you (and all other users, in fact) that access to the Politics forum is contingent initially upon a posting record that is appraised in quantitative terms by automated scripts, but subject to ongoing approval based upon qualitative administrator appraisal.

It's nice seeing you around, Sayo. It's been a while. With your return, I do encourage you to qualitatively access revoking Pangloss' access to the Politics forum, as well. He has consistently shown a failure to support his assertions with evidence, as well as regular use of logical fallacies and equivocation.

 

To the best of my knowledge, those traits fly in the face of a self-proclaimed science site, and if the Admins are being so attentive to how discussions proceed in that sub-forum and the manner in which they progress, then the Admins should also recognize how appropriate it is to revoke access from its mod in the same way you've today done to me.

 

 

The permissions can be altered so that you have read-only access to politics, but I would have thought that would be agonising.

I read most posts as a Guest anyway... not logged in. The only difference now is I can no longer login to challenge people on their bullshit, or point out how their assertions are false and don't hold up to even remedial scrutiny, or post interesting things which I think would stimulate engaging conversations.

 

Whatever. I should have left of my own accord long ago. I was just hopeful something would change. It appears the only thing which changed was the permissions on my account. Good times.

[Sayonara]

I can certainly appreciate that this is not at all a happy day for you iNow but I am quite sure you will be well aware that this has been a long time coming.

 

The benefit of having you heroically challenge false assertions no longer outweighs the damage done by your chosen methods, and as I said you have been made aware of this on previous occasions. So no member of staff is likely to be influenced by appeals on the basis of "usefulness in a debate".

 

Take it on the nose and have some faith that as always we are actually trying to figure out a third option that is compatible with both our aims for the site, and your aims for the time you spend here. A "DMZ Forum" has been mooted which is an intriguing and potentially very fun idea.

 

 

As for Pangloss... well we do not allow staff to run rampant, and YT2095's absence should be a constant reminder of this. Although it might not seem like it at times the admins are watchful and do take action when necessary.