Comments on Moderation

[swansont]

We ask that if you have an issue with moderation you use the report post function rather than further derail a thread, and we thank everyone for doing so. This thread can be used as a response for communication by the staff, to further clarify the actions.

 

 

____

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/72856-how-many-photonscm3/page-3#entry729892

 

The post was a hijack with non-mainstream physics ("heavy photons"), though that remark has since been edited; mechanisms for creating and annihilating photons is (currently) beyond its scope.

 

The thread in question was not split off from an existing thread (as the report claimed), though it would not matter — discussions are supposed to stem from the OP and legitimate, related answers. It is not permission to ask about or post information that is unrelated to that discussion. The discussion in this case is about numbers of photons, and brightness of areas of space from various objects.

 

Short version: a thread is supposed to be about what its originator wants to discuss.

[swansont]

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/73025-thread-hijack-basic-building-blocks/#entry730261

 

Was a thread hijack. The rule (10) here is quite straightforward

 

 

Keep alternative science and your own personal conjecture to the appropriate forum (Speculations). Threads in the ordinary science forums should be answered with ordinary science, not your own personal hypothesis. Posting pet "theories" in mainstream science forums is considered thread hijacking.

 

Meaning that if a moderator sees a statement which starts "I have theory that…" , it could not be clearer that thread hijacking is taking place. It's spelled out in the rules for a reason.

[hypervalent_iodine]

Though this thread is really to respond to queries about moderator action, this post is to explain a lack of staff action following reports regarding the following:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/72619-what-exactly-is-the-connection-between-conscious-and-autosomatic-thinking/page-2#entry730312

 

And

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/72619-what-exactly-is-the-connection-between-conscious-and-autosomatic-thinking/page-2#entry730200

 

Both reported as trolling. By no definition of the term were able to see how exactly either of these posts constitute trolling. As such, no effort is going to be made to reprimand the author of these posts.

[swansont]

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/73185-should-a-neanderthal-be-cloned/#entry732917

 

Really? There's a question about this? "Italian's look like Neanderthal's" is a racial slur (plus a double count of grammarcide)

[swansont]

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/73694-ufoet-phenomenon/page-7#entry736263

 

"what are the reasons that a thread can be closed?"

 

Breaking rules, or re-introducing a closed topic. Beyond the obvious ones of devolving onto personal attacks, etc., breaking rules can include not providing valid evidence (in speculations, this is mandated) and repeating arguments without acknowledging counterarguments, which counts as preaching/soapboxing.

[swansont]

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/75015-two-mass-hanging-on-a-pulley/?p=744829

 

Let's see here. "if the cords are Mass-less then there cannot be tension on the pulley" is wrong, and though that's not why the warning was issued, it's a bad start.

 

This is a physics 101 problem, so anything but a physics 101 solution is off-topic. All the blabbering about quantum fields, regardless of its veracity, is way beyond the scope of a question whose answer simply involves Newton's laws of motion. And some of it is non-standard physics. That's why the warning was issued.

[imatfaal]

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/75217-testable-predictions-of-metaphysics-split-from-richard-dawkins-documentary-enemies-of-reason/#entry746691

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/75217-testable-predictions-of-metaphysics-split-from-richard-dawkins-documentary-enemies-of-reason/#entry746595

 

"... for someone who as direct contact with alien god,sure is ignorant."

"... all i can say, is you are so gullible with ignorance."

 

And from our rules "Refrain from insulting or attacking users in a discussion."

 

The warning was issued because posts were negatively characterising or insulting another member; no matter how eccentric a perspective might seem to you - do not focus your comments on the member but rather on his or her argument.

[hypervalent_iodine]

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/72758-a-lingual-theory-of-everything/?view=findpost&p=749725

 

Though staff agree that there are issues with this thread, we do not think that SamBridge's posts are being rude or disrespectful, just very persistent.

[swansont]

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/75794-things-that-are-wrong-imo/?p=749996

 

It is incumbent upon the poster to make sure your posts are relevant to the thread, which means they contain enough information to make that association. Otherwise it's no better than spouting random words and until that association is made, off-topic. Snorkel. Albuquerque.

[imatfaal]

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/75943-evolution-on-earth-vs-around-the-universe/page-2#entry753249

 

There are comments which are clearly directed at another member in person (claiming lack of understanding or ability to understand) rather than at any argument - they are not acceptable. There are multiple instances of this form of posting.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/75943-evolution-on-earth-vs-around-the-universe/page-2#entry752960

"also, keep in mind, nasa is not transparent."

 

This is a science site and definitely not a conspiracy theory site - we don't really expect claims like this; if they really must be made they should be backed up when challenged and otherwise withdrawn.

 

If you have been misunderstood - then provide explanation rather than assert another member's lack of ability to comprehend.

 

And generally - especially when other posters are seeking clarification - it is best to avoid gnomic phrases. Writing in well-constructed sentences is the best way to ensure comprehension.

[hypervalent_iodine]

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/75256-richard-dawkins-god-delusion-i-could-not-read-it/?view=findpost&p=754696

 

There was a report about this mod noted asking why I had reprimanded science4ever when the post was almost in direct response to the OP.

 

Yes, the post that I left in the thread is almost in direct response to the OP. That's why I left it there. The 8 posts that I hid however, were not. The mod note was directed to those posts, not to the one(s) still in the thread. Apologies for not making that clearer.

[hypervalent_iodine]

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/59897-reputation-versus-time/page-2#entry754904

 

A report was made asking how telling someone that they lack comprehension is offensive and to provide a source.

in·sult

/inˈsəlt/

Verb

Speak to or treat with disrespect or scornful abuse.

Noun

A disrespectful or scornfully abusive remark or action.

 

Telling someone that they lack basic comprehension falls pretty solidly into the disrespect column. And whether or not you think it's offensive, we (staff) do and so do the people you directed the comment(s) to, so you'd do well to keep it in mind in future.

[swansont]

A reminder, based on a recent report, that reports are supposed to be for rules violations or other mod action. This does NOT include complaints about getting downvoted

[swansont]

Regarding http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/77703-was-the-law-of-conservation-of-energy-ever-proven-for-electricity/page-2#entry757870

 

"I don't agree with Noether's theorem" is not "questioning" the validity of the theorem. There is no substance to the disagreement, and it had been pointed out previously that substance was required. It was clearly stated that the reason for the thread closure was the lack of substance, which is contrary to the rules of speculations.

 

If anyone wishes to open a thread and actually discuss the ramifications of Noether's theorem and what Popper has to say on the subject, i.e. the kind of things that were conspicuously lacking in the closed thread, they are free to do so.

[swansont]

Though technically not a reported post, it should have gone that route

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/77789-a-question-about-anti-matter/?p=758483

 

Claiming that gravity is responsible for particle annihilation is indeed speculation, and not what the thread was discussing, making it a hijack as well.

[swansont]

The subject of hijacking has come up a few times recently, so it's clear a few people don't understand what is meant by thread hijacking.

In regard to the board rules, it stems from rule 5 which says

Stay on topic. Posts should be relevant to the discussion at hand. This means that you shouldn't use scientific threads to advertise your own personal theory, or post only to incite a hostile argument.

The relevant part is Stay on topic. Posts should be relevant to the discussion at hand. The latter part refers to specific actions that are against the rules: advertising a speculative "theory" (further detailed in rule 10), and trolling. However, any off-topic post is a violation.

The basic premise is that the thread starter has a topic in mind, and the thread is for discussing what they want. Not what you want.

[Phi for All]

With regard to thread hijacking, I think the desire to spread new-found knowledge is a natural product of the scientific method. In a discussion forum such as this, however, it's essential that we focus on the topic of the thread starter, and not try to introduce knowledge that will cause a significant shift in the discussion.

 

The best thing to do is start your own thread. Link back to the original and start with something like, "While following the discussion in the Relativity & My Aunt Hazel thread, it occurred to me that my new hypothesis might be applicable here." It gives context, doesn't hijack someone else's discussion and keeps both threads clear of unnecessary cross-talk and confusion,

[hypervalent_iodine]

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/82963-molecules/#entry803724

 

This was reported due to it supposedly constituting ridicule towards the OP. Staff do not agree with this assessment and as such, no action will be taken.

 

The OP of that thread does however need to take note of the fact that we do not allow members to create multiple threads on the same thing.

[swansont]

It was recently reported, regarding the recent part of a current discussion on global warming, that

 

"Saying that 5000 people will die per year in the UK due to a 1 degree temperature rise is bollocks. There is no other way to say it there is no paper to refute it."

 

It's hard to imagine that this is the only study of heat-wave related deaths in the world. It's possible that no papers exist to refute it, but that may be because the study is valid. Finding a paper that confirms your personal opinion is not guaranteed to exist, because this is science, not religion.

 

Another example was given:

 

"If you say you have lots of posh looking paper that says the sea is made of beer what peer reviewed paper can i site which says it's not?"

 

There are a large number of studies that give the composition of seawater. Noting the absence of alcohol in these studies would be an excellent rebuttal to such a claim.

 

No action will be take, because the report is utterly baseless.

[Phi for All]

Signalling his eminent departure, ADVANCE sent PMs to many of his detractors, informing them in no uncertain terms what he thought of their opinions. Apparently, if you tolerate homosexuality, you ARE a homosexual in ADVANCE's mind. I'll gladly wear that part of the label he pinned on me. And all Americans are rednecks, so I've got that going for me as well.

 

I would like to formally apologize to the Bastard community out there. My temporary new usertitle is in no way to be construed as ridiculing this important sector of society.

[swansont]

A reminder that getting a down-vote to your reputation is not a rules violation, even if it seems undeserved, so it's not something the staff is going to pursue unless a rules violation is involved (such as a sockpuppet account used to game the system)

[Phi for All]

In the thread on Killer Drones, it was reported that one member was being uncivil and rude. Upon review, there are no personal attacks, just attacking the idea. If we can focus on ideas and remove our egos, a discussion happens instead of a debate. You win knowledge when you discuss, you win nothing when you win a debate.

[Phi for All]

In the thread Ebola in the U.S. of A., the OP made a reference to Americans all being assholes, in violation of our rule 2.1 "Slurs or prejudice against any group of people (or person) are prohibited. The reference was not part of the argument, and seemed more like a rough attempt at humor, so no warning points were assigned and the offending language was removed. A modnote was placed to explain the violation but staff didn't want to call more attention than was necessary. Still, we really dislike removing words people have spent their time typing, and really appreciate a more thoughtful approach to discussion.

[swansont]

A question about having to provide links when an opinion was offered has come up, and not for the first time. It's been added to the FAQ

10. I was expressing my opinion. Why are you asking me for links?

This means you probably weren't merely expressing an opinion. An opinion is a personal, subjective view, but if you are asserting a claim as an objective truth, i.e. something that others must accept as truth, then it's not an opinion. And in that case, it's perfectly reasonable for someone to call you on it and ask you to support your claim. Any factual reason(s) you might have given in order to justify your opinion are similarly open to a call for a link to confirm it.

[swansont]

Since it's come up

 

Why was my post moved to Speculations?