Rules of moderation?

[swansont]

Given that we take as a fact that it took him ten years, then it is a reasonable question why that took so long and whether or not more support would of speed-ed up the process. I guess I don't have to point out he importance of getting to what Einstein had to say as mainstream science sooner than later?

 

It's not a reasonable question to ask in a thread about moderation. I don't see how our moderation policies could have affected this in any way.

 

But keep in mind that hundreds if not thousands of other physicists took infinitely longer, seeing as none of them ever came up with a correct theory.

 

Now lets analyze this without the burden of trying to be historically exact (or scientifically exact on history because history is inherently not an exact science); we do a thought experiment based on the fact that it took Einstein ten years and do that then and now.

 

Lets say Einstein dreamt up a thought experiment that light would curve in at more than the Newtonian value and also dreamt up the idea for a test that this should be observable when stars move behind observable planets. Because he at that moment wouldn't have had the mathematics to give the formula from which you can see that it will be exactly twice the Newtonian value, would that then render his idea as meaningless? As would be the case using current main stream science and thus rules of moderation on this site? Of course not. Had science on that bases then done the test they would of indeed observed (as we know now) that it even curves in at twice the rate, what Einstein then as yet wouldn't of known.

 

Insanely hypothetical, because he wasn't deprived of mathematical help and didn't present the idea without the benefit of a mathematical model.

 

However, if he had presented this prediction by just pulling it out of his ass, then yes, it would be speculation by our standards and without any support, shut down. The thing is, the science community would have treated it exactly the same way. It never would have been published anywhere.

 

So yes science then made repeated air-crashes and didn't get airborne until after ten years. With hindsight they deserve a straight F, they flunked something they should of spotted ten years earlier. The correct analysis is that science needs the protocol to be adapted in such a way that good idea's are filtered out more quickly. You do not do that by applying incorrect norms. Of course ultimately you want the full grown tree of wisdom as a law of science on a subject. Then and there you of course apply the highest norms of succinctness completeness correctness etc. i.e. then do you apply current protocols. You don't get there by putting the flamethrower to the saplings. You get there by filtering out the saplings (ideas) that have potential in a timely - matter of course - fashion. You do this via probabilistic reasoning using verbal logic, thought experiments and the such, as Einstein did and comparing these. (Even if Einstein failed to present his idea's then still science fails because it should of invited anyone like him to do so. As now the mood then was much more flammatory because even after he complied to the protocol he at first got flamed. If you a priori know that you of course won't ask help, because yo know you won't gt it.)

 

The more so today, with internet. Probability has it that you will have much more Einsteins on line than where involved in the game a hundred years ago.

 

Now then, how do you filter out the saplings that deserve attention, water and cultivation? Actually that is quite easy. You already have the correct division on that matter on this site. Einstein goes to the speculation thread and puts his idea on there. And you put it to the test of verbal logic at first and you see if it indeed addresses all the problems involved on the subject. You don't need to be creative to do that. Simple matter of course. And, you look whether the idea is presented in a potentially testable way (as you rules correctly state) .

 

Then you see how many of these idea's fit these criteria. of the ones left you look at which is most simple (Occam) or easy to check (Popper). If you then still have a great many left then indeed it will become more of a problem to see which is probable, because that also requires imagination to see - given looking back a hundred years that you believe in Newton - and you guess that the M&M experiment is actually a fringe issue (like DM & DE is seen by some/most) to spot that this crank Einstein with his relativity of time and length contraction is actually probably or even possibly right instead of providing bs. Even before Einstein got to the mathematics.

 

Nowadays even the more so because Einstein only had to get to grips with relatively straight forward mathematics as you say. Well probably now you will need rheology advanced statistics and what not. Yet as Einstein you can't dispense with the sapling idea, dreamt up as a testable thought experiment for the a priori garbage or non garbage to put into the mathematics, the latter to be found via tests in trial and error.

 

Now then how many TOE theories has this site generated since its start that meet these criteria? 1000? 100? 10? 1? 0? I guess no more than one or two. So you probably won't even get to the problem of having to discern the probability at all.

 

And, why not ask funding as a site? In order to provide this? That will thus certainly change you rules of moderation. (So yes, this is on topic.)

 

If this site were funded as a clearinghouse for discussion of science ideas, the material that gets discussed would be more rigorous and end up looking more like journal papers. The crap that ends up in speculations would still end up in speculations. We would still demand models and evidence, and would in all likelihood be even more demanding and shut down nonsense a lot faster than we do, including windmill-tilting such as your thesis — you'd have been shut down almost immediately. Right now simply being wrong or misinformed is not against the rules. If we demanded more rigor then we'd expect people to show up knowing certain basics and having an awareness of how science works and what experiments have been done.

 

But since we aren;t looking to do anything like that, this in not really on topic at all.

 

Of course I can. That a concept as a sapling is unproven as a large wise tree, doesn't mean it can't be proven to be a potentially better sapling then other saplings?

 

You don't have a sapling, if you have an unproven conjecture. A sapling is a tree, but you don't know if you have a tree. What if what you really have is a hedgehog? It doesn't grow up to be a tree, so you can't use it as an example of the process. You have to know that what you have will, in fact, grow up to be a tree.

 

What I'm saying is, that if the correct criteria are met, then yes science (as does this site if it claims to be scientific) should organize the help, via changing the rules of moderation in order to fit that.

 

You are free to start up such an organization. That is not the function of this site, however.

 

 

Well then there goes Einstein with his half backed but as we know now correct idea. You threw the sapling out as part of your rules of moderation. Proving that this IS totally a moderation requirement problem. Your position is inwardly contradictory.

 

I thought I was quite clear that what you claim here is not the case.

 

If Einstein had shown up with the model, it would have fit the rules of speculations. If Einstein had asked the questions that led him to the model, it would have fit the rules of speculations. The scenario that does not fit is one that has no historical basis or analogue — of Einstein showing up claiming the results of relativity, but without any support for it. What got tossed was the hypothetical sapling that was claiming it was a full-grown tree.

 

 

Is this a "don't know" or is it a "certainly would't of made a difference" position of yours on this question? And why run the risk of it indeed being a major problem, (what it of course extremely probably was) had Einstein got massive backing quicker than later, it would of all happened sooner.)?

 

It's more of a "you're making wild claims for which you have given absolutely no support" position. First of all, Einstein published the SR paper right after he got his PhD, so the timing for "massive backing" is all wrong. It's not clear he could have formulated his ideas any sooner, when he knew less about physics. Secondly, "support" is a very nebulous term. What kind of support? I do actual research, though I do experiment rather than theory. But there's an adage — that it takes a woman nine months to make a baby; you can't get nine women together and make a baby in a month. Some processes are linear and cannot be sped up by trying to make them parallel. You appear to be laboring under the assumption that this is not only possible, but that it's easy. It's ludicrous.

 

Can you earn a complete, standard US college degree in a year, by improving support? It's pretty much the same concept.

 

Immaterial, because we don't and never will know exactly as you pointed out earlier. What we do know is that extremely probably part of his idea's did stem from thought experiments. I.e. the correct way to do it. Once he got enough mathematics under his belt it becomes difficult to see how he went about it, because then he will of course comply by presenting his idea.s even if derived from a thought experiment in a mainstream thus mathematical way. Ergo no reason not to review you rules for moderation, quite the opposite.

 

As I've stated, thought experiments do not violate the rules, as long as the subsequent discussion is properly based.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

kristalis,

 

swansont has very kindly reminded you in previous posts that this is a thread - your thread - about rules of moderation. Enough with the 'woe is me, science won't listen.' It's tiresome and it doesn't belong here. If it keeps up, this thread will be closed.

 

Edit: please do not be tempted to reply to this in-thread. If you take issue with it, report it or PM a member of staff.

[Ophiolite]

I don't thing ten years is a long time, especially for a paradigm shift. What's your hurry kristalris?

 

And I guess you mean to say that I disagree with a lot and that is to be deemed disagreeable? BTW on tone in this case it's quit pro quo, isn't it? I.e. I'm in my reaction to your post just as disagreeable to you as you are to me, or would you care to differ?

Your response to me was in no way disagreeable. If you were aiming for that I'm afraid you missed.

[kristalris]

I don't thing ten years is a long time, especially for a paradigm shift. What's your hurry kristalris?

Sorry not allowed to answer, yet at the same time must answer according to the rules on which moderation rely. Proving again the need for adjustment.

Your response to me was in no way disagreeable. If you were aiming for that I'm afraid you missed.

No, I wasn't aiming at that at all, so I'm happy to hear that.

 

It's not a reasonable question to ask in a thread about moderation. I don't see how our moderation policies could have affected this in any way.

 

But keep in mind that hundreds if not thousands of other physicists took infinitely longer, seeing as none of them ever came up with a correct theory.

 

 

Insanely hypothetical, because he wasn't deprived of mathematical help and didn't present the idea without the benefit of a mathematical model.

 

However, if he had presented this prediction by just pulling it out of his ass, then yes, it would be speculation by our standards and without any support, shut down. The thing is, the science community would have treated it exactly the same way. It never would have been published anywhere.

 

 

If this site were funded as a clearinghouse for discussion of science ideas, the material that gets discussed would be more rigorous and end up looking more like journal papers. The crap that ends up in speculations would still end up in speculations. We would still demand models and evidence, and would in all likelihood be even more demanding and shut down nonsense a lot faster than we do, including windmill-tilting such as your thesis — you'd have been shut down almost immediately. Right now simply being wrong or misinformed is not against the rules. If we demanded more rigor then we'd expect people to show up knowing certain basics and having an awareness of how science works and what experiments have been done.

 

But since we aren;t looking to do anything like that, this in not really on topic at all.

 

 

You don't have a sapling, if you have an unproven conjecture. A sapling is a tree, but you don't know if you have a tree. What if what you really have is a hedgehog? It doesn't grow up to be a tree, so you can't use it as an example of the process. You have to know that what you have will, in fact, grow up to be a tree.

 

 

You are free to start up such an organization. That is not the function of this site, however.

 

 

 

I thought I was quite clear that what you claim here is not the case.

 

If Einstein had shown up with the model, it would have fit the rules of speculations. If Einstein had asked the questions that led him to the model, it would have fit the rules of speculations. The scenario that does not fit is one that has no historical basis or analogue — of Einstein showing up claiming the results of relativity, but without any support for it. What got tossed was the hypothetical sapling that was claiming it was a full-grown tree.

 

 

 

It's more of a "you're making wild claims for which you have given absolutely no support" position. First of all, Einstein published the SR paper right after he got his PhD, so the timing for "massive backing" is all wrong. It's not clear he could have formulated his ideas any sooner, when he knew less about physics. Secondly, "support" is a very nebulous term. What kind of support? I do actual research, though I do experiment rather than theory. But there's an adage — that it takes a woman nine months to make a baby; you can't get nine women together and make a baby in a month. Some processes are linear and cannot be sped up by trying to make them parallel. You appear to be laboring under the assumption that this is not only possible, but that it's easy. It's ludicrous.

 

Can you earn a complete, standard US college degree in a year, by improving support? It's pretty much the same concept.

 

 

As I've stated, thought experiments do not violate the rules, as long as the subsequent discussion is properly based.

You're wrong, but I'm not allowed to reply, yet at the same time forced to by the rules. As said proving that the rules of moderation need moderating.

 

On the rules of moderation a question? How can it be to get a warning point for being of topic in ones own thread if the one with whom you were of topic then was of topic as well, without getting a warning point?

[swansont]

Sorry not allowed to answer, yet at the same time must answer according to the rules on which moderation rely. Proving again the need for adjustment.

 

Not true.

 

You can create a new thread to discuss it. It's off-topic for a discussion on moderation policy. Surely you can see that?

 

You're wrong, but I'm not allowed to reply, yet at the same time forced to by the rules. As said proving that the rules of moderation need moderating.

At this point it's hard to tell if you're being deliberately obtuse or not, in order to play the part of the aggrieved crusader, or simply have not comprehended the dialogue thus far, or some other explanation. Being "forced to play by the rules" here simply means discussing moderation policy and not repeatedly dragging other discussion into the conversation. Really, is that so difficult to understand? Talk about our moderation policy, and not e.g. the structure of science as a whole. They aren't the same thing.

 

On the rules of moderation a question? How can it be to get a warning point for being of topic in ones own thread if the one with whom you were of topic then was of topic as well, without getting a warning point?

 

I wasn't involved in the action, but my guess is it's because you have been repeatedly dragging other discussion into the conversation, and not discussing moderation policy, which is your stated topic for the thread. How can I guess this? Because it's what hypervalent_iodine said in the modnote.

 

Sorry not allowed to answer, yet at the same time must answer according to the rules on which moderation rely. Proving again the need for adjustment.

 

Not true.

 

You can create a new thread to discuss it. It's off-topic for a discussion on moderation policy. Surely you can see that?

 

You're wrong, but I'm not allowed to reply, yet at the same time forced to by the rules. As said proving that the rules of moderation need moderating.

At this point it's hard to tell if you're being deliberately obtuse or not, in order to play the part of the aggrieved crusader, or simply have not comprehended the dialogue thus far, or some other explanation. Being "forced to play by the rules" here simply means discussing moderation policy and not repeatedly dragging other discussion into the conversation. Really, is that so difficult to understand? Talk about our moderation policy, and not e.g. the structure of science as a whole. They aren't the same thing.

 

On the rules of moderation a question? How can it be to get a warning point for being of topic in ones own thread if the one with whom you were of topic then was of topic as well, without getting a warning point?

 

I wasn't involved in the action, but my guess is it's because you have been repeatedly dragging other discussion into the conversation, and not discussing moderation policy, which is your stated topic for the thread. How can I guess this? Because it's what hypervalent_iodine said in the modnote.

[kristalris]

 

Not true.

 

You can create a new thread to discuss it. It's off-topic for a discussion on moderation policy. Surely you can see that?

 

Well, I'll take it that a discussion in a thread of what being on or of topic is as a point of order per definition on topic in a thread.

 

Nope. This entire thread is and has been on topic on the title. Proof: logic: A thread of mine was closed on proper scientific procedure because it wasn't mainstream and that given to be a correct interpretation of the moderation rules was then the way to go. Okay then I bring this up in a point that the moderation rules should encompass correct scientific procedure. Nope that then is off- topic and should be dealt with in a topic a new thread concerning correct scientific procedure. But that was closed because it wasn't main stream. So I open a thread in this forum to discuss rules on moderation........get my point? This is a circular argument on part of the moderators and thus infringes on it own rules that fallacies aren't allowed, and not just that it violates basic scientific rules because science is about being logical.

 

And, as Popper would explain to you: science is open not closed.

At this point it's hard to tell if you're being deliberately obtuse or not, in order to play the part of the aggrieved crusader, or simply have not comprehended the dialogue thus far, or some other explanation. Being "forced to play by the rules" here simply means discussing moderation policy and not repeatedly dragging other discussion into the conversation. Really, is that so difficult to understand? Talk about our moderation policy, and not e.g. the structure of science as a whole. They aren't the same thing.

Obtuse? Moi? And even deliberately so? Well indeed some other explanation. Well what ever: the role is simply that of the logical one. The one which you thus are not playing, in the last post you again make fallacies, yet you agree that I should react to them but in another thread. Bit strange I would say? Anyway: I never stated moderation policy and the structure of science are the same. I stated and state that they are interlinked and should thus be discussed together, as you have done as well, yet I get a warning point. Unjust and illogical.

I wasn't involved in the action, but my guess is it's because you have been repeatedly dragging other discussion into the conversation, and not discussing moderation policy, which is your stated topic for the thread. How can I guess this? Because it's what hypervalent_iodine said in the modnote.

Never said you were. Given that the discussion between us was indeed off-topic then you participated in that crime on the rules, yet didn't receive punishment via a warning point. Illogical and unjust then.

(Now before anyone thinks that I'm taking issue with the warning point other than doing a report or pm, this is in part a point in order (if you want clarification as to what that means please ask) and on the other hand not issue against me getting a warning point, but Swansont not getting one as well.)

Edited April 26, 2013 by kristalris

[swansont]

Well, I'll take it that a discussion in a thread of what being on or of topic is as a point of order per definition on topic in a thread.

 

Nope. This entire thread is and has been on topic on the title. Proof: logic: A thread of mine was closed on proper scientific procedure because it wasn't mainstream and that given to be a correct interpretation of the moderation rules was then the way to go. Okay then I bring this up in a point that the moderation rules should encompass correct scientific procedure. Nope that then is off- topic and should be dealt with in a topic a new thread concerning correct scientific procedure. But that was closed because it wasn't main stream. So I open a thread in this forum to discuss rules on moderation........get my point? This is a circular argument on part of the moderators and thus infringes on it own rules that fallacies aren't allowed, and not just that it violates basic scientific rules because science is about being logical.

 

Your thread wasn't closed because it was non-mainstream. Your thread was closed because you kept repeating yourself without regard to errors that others pointed out. At that point it's just repetition and soapboxing. The former means there's no reason for the discussion to continue and the latter is a rules violation.

 

However, you are far from the first to miss that nuance, despite it not being particularly subtle.

 

Obtuse? Moi? And even deliberately so? Well indeed some other explanation. Well what ever: the role is simply that of the logical one. The one which you thus are not playing, in the last post you again make fallacies, yet you agree that I should react to them but in another thread. Bit strange I would say? Anyway: I never stated moderation policy and the structure are the same. I stated and state that they are interlinked and should thus be discussed together, as you have done as well, yet I get a warning point. Unjust and illogical.

 

They are interlinked in some ways, but you are discussing parts that are not interlinked (e.g. how long Einstein took to publish), which is off topic, and you are complaining that the moderation is in need of adjustment because the science part is wrong, and discussion of the alleged science flaws is off-topic.

 

 

Never said you were. Given that the discussion between us was indeed off-topic then you participated in that crime on the rules, yet didn't receive punishment via a warning point. Illogical and unjust then.

(Now before anyone thinks that I'm taking issue with the warning point other than doing a report or pm, this is in part a point in order (if you want clarification as to what that means please ask) and on the other hand not issue against me getting a warning point, but Swansont not getting one as well.)

 

Of the two of us, which one has been repeatedly pleading to confine the discussion to the topic of moderation, and also asking the other to open a new thread to discuss off-topic issues? I'll give you two guesses.

[kristalris]

 

Your thread wasn't closed because it was non-mainstream. Your thread was closed because you kept repeating yourself without regard to errors that others pointed out. At that point it's just repetition and soapboxing. The former means there's no reason for the discussion to continue and the latter is a rules violation.

 

 

Phi for All

Chief Executive Offworlder

• 
• Moderators
• 
• 10,777 posts

• LocationCO, USA

Posted 19 February 2013 - 05:47 PM

kristalris, on 19 Feb 2013 - 11:36, said:

 

Oh dear, oh dear, unmotivated move to speculations by an anonymous moderator. I wonder what caused that, even when reading the rules?

 

 

!

Moderator Note

It was motivated by the fact that I thought I'd moved it there pages and pages ago in response to someone reporting it. I sincerely apologize to the membership for keeping it in a mainstream section for so long. Mea culpa.

 

So no Swansont it was closed for not being mainstream as the last post shows after which it was closed.

• 
• 
• 0

 

However, you are far from the first to miss that nuance, despite it not being particularly subtle.

Well logic is indeed far from subtle. If I'd been subtle on it you would have had a field day. Indeed a pre for mathematics for then you can word it in a subtle way yet prove the illogical bit.

 

They are interlinked in some ways, but you are discussing parts that are not interlinked (e.g. how long Einstein took to publish), which is off topic, and you are complaining that the moderation is in need of adjustment because the science part is wrong, and discussion of the alleged science flaws is off-topic.

 

The length it took "Einstein" is the core of the issue. So very much on topic. Nice try to split the issue. Yet I showed you it is logically interlinked thus un-split-able.

 

 

 

Of the two of us, which one has been repeatedly pleading to confine the discussion to the topic of moderation, and also asking the other to open a new thread to discuss off-topic issues? I'll give you two guesses.

Yes you did. It is then like the one burglar saying repeatedly to the other: you shouldn't be doing this, whilst subsequently carrying off the loot.

[Phi for All]

 

!

Moderator Note

It was motivated by the fact that I thought I'd moved it there pages and pages ago in response to someone reporting it. I sincerely apologize to the membership for keeping it in a mainstream section for so long. Mea culpa.

 

So no Swansont it was closed for not being mainstream as the last post shows after which it was closed.

 

*sigh*

 

It was moved from a mainstream section because it was reported that you weren't listening to anyone's reasons why your procedure lacked rigor. You used terminology that was inconsistent, you seemed to purposely misunderstand repeated explanations, and after seven pages everyone had given up trying to help you see the point. I should have moved it to Speculations after the second page where it became clear you were conflating theory and law, and kept insisting there is some sort of mass conspiracy amongst scientists to ignore new evidence in favor of confirmed bias for existing theory, which was demonstrated to you to be false. That is inconsistent with the purpose of mainstream topics.

 

And you continue in this vein here as well. You show nothing new and simply harp on things you refuse to understand. I normally welcome critique on our policies, and would happily try anything to make the site more fun, but not at the expense of the intellectual honesty of the rest of the membership or proven scientific methodology.

[pwagen]

 

So no Swansont it was closed for not being mainstream as the last post shows after which it was closed.

It's clear from what you're quoting that it was moved to speculation for not being mainstream science. What you quoted has precisely nothing to do with it being closed. How can that not be obvious?

[swansont]

 

!

Moderator Note

It was motivated by the fact that I thought I'd moved it there pages and pages ago in response to someone reporting it. I sincerely apologize to the membership for keeping it in a mainstream section for so long. Mea culpa.

 

 

 

 

So no Swansont it was closed for not being mainstream as the last post shows after which it was closed. [/size]

 

If this were on the reading comprehension section of the SAT, I think most college-bound students would answer that the meaning was "it was moved to speculations because it wasn't mainstream"

 

 

The length it took "Einstein" is the core of the issue. So very much on topic. Nice try to split the issue.

 

No, really, it isn't. If it had taken 5 years or 15, it would have no effect on our moderation policy. Though I have tried, I can't fathom the link you think is there between our moderation policy and how people do science. Whatever link there is, it is uni-directional — the protocols of science dictate some small part of our moderation policy (one or two rules). However, that link does not go in the other direction.

 

If you point to a purported flaw in science, that's another discussion, and only after having demonstrated that flaw would there possibly be a change in moderation policy. You went on for quite a bit in the closed thread, and convinced nobody. You were vague and unresponsive and showed little understanding of actually doing science. In short, your arguments sucked. For specifics, refer back to the thread.

 

 

Yes you did. It is then like the one burglar saying repeatedly to the other: you shouldn't be doing this, whilst subsequently carrying off the loot.

 

Whatever.

[kristalris]

It's clear from what you're quoting that it was moved to speculation for not being mainstream science. What you quoted has precisely nothing to do with it being closed. How can that not be obvious?

Well otherwise it was closed on a (disputable) undisclosed thus whimsical ground. Ergo per definition not obvious. And inherently bad moderation because presented as such to be taken as been because of being non mainstream.

 

 

If this were on the reading comprehension section of the SAT, I think most college-bound students would answer that the meaning was "it was moved to speculations because it wasn't mainstream"

Well the students then would indeed be right. The remaining question then is why was it also immediately closed, and why would this of been clear to the thread starter?

 

 

 

No, really, it isn't. If it had taken 5 years or 15, it would have no effect on our moderation policy.

 

Learning curve in sight anywhere then? And is it going up? Clearly not then.

 

Now on soap boxing then: someone says oi, look the world is not flat and two plus two is four. Nah, mainstream says: it's flat and two plus two is five. Well, you start to explain the position. If you keep on repeating that in exactly the same way that would be boring and could thus be construed to be soap boxing. Now what if you explain it (logically inherently the same) then in different ways. Would that still constitute soap boxing? If so, is then the world flat and the correct scientific answer five? I.e. where then is the learning curve?

Though I have tried, I can't fathom the link you think is there between our moderation policy and how people do science. Whatever link there is, it is uni-directional — the protocols of science dictate some small part of our moderation policy (one or two rules). However, that link does not go in the other direction.

 

My position is not as much on how people do science, but, how logically, given the goal of science, they should be doing science. That subsequently and logically dictates how moderation of a pretended scientific discourse should unfold. That the problem of how moderation should be done is broader/ different than the scientific topic is inherent.

 

If you point to a purported flaw in science, that's another discussion, and only after having demonstrated that flaw would there possibly be a change in moderation policy.

Now that insight is indeed something. You thus acknowledge the unavoidable link between the two. Yet also inherently that it is thus an on topic discussion.

You went on for quite a bit in the closed thread, and convinced nobody.

Nobody you know of then, and apart from that you make here a by your own rules prohibited fallacy of authority. Would you like proof of that?

You were vague and unresponsive and showed little understanding of actually doing science. In short, your arguments sucked. For specifics, refer back to the thread.

Reopen it then, so I can respond. Otherwise a prohibited by your own rules fallacy of a circular argument.

 

 

 

Whatever.

So you would accept a warning then?

[swansont]

Saw this, had to share:

 

So you would accept a warning then?

I don't particularly care. I understand why warnings are given — one is when chronic behavior is being displayed that needs to be corrected because it violates the rules, and the person displaying that behavior is in denial or is oblivious to the fact that they are breaking the rules. It's probably pretty clear to almost everyone involved here who that describes. Chronic behavior is something you look at in context of a large number of posts.

 

Something else to consider is context and intent, which is something the mods look at in deciding these things. If someone provokes another into a violation, we try to take that into account — a harsh word that's a violation of civility is discounted quite a bit if that person was provoked into it, as compared to a post that simply appears and contains insults. Similarly, a brief response with an invitation to continue the conversation in another thread is not treated the same as the post that goes off-topic in the first place.

 

Warnings are given to try and modify behavior — an effort to try and ensure that members here contribute to fruitful discussions. In that context (i.e. remembering that appeasing your ego is not the goal of the warning system), what would warning me actually accomplish?

 

Have the warnings you've gotten had any effect on how closely you follow the rules and moderator-provided guidelines? Are more warnings likely to do that? Would a suspension? To be absolutely clear, I am not threatening you with a suspension. Just asking for feedback on moderation — what would it take for you to actually listen to moderator feedback and adjust your behavior?

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

kristalris,

 

I'm not sure what about my mod note was so difficult to read, but since you've failed to comprehend it, I'm closing this thread and you are not to reopen it. A point was made in staff discussion that arguing confirmation bias against mainstream science is simply Godwin in disguise. So really, this thread was lost some time ago.

 

In future, be aware that we place mod notes in threads with the intention that they should be read and adhered to rather than ignored. The soap boxing and persecution mentality has to stop, or you'll find your time here very short indeed.