Split-The Angry Intellect-Plea to go easier on new members

[The Angry Intellect]

I'm not trying to become another target for the mods to attack here, but could you "moderators" & some long-term members take it a bit easier on some of the not so scientifically minded individuals that probably just come to these forums to post questions about something... Considering they probably got confused with the term "speculation" and thought it meant you can come into this section to post things that don't have any theories or studies backing them up.

 

I believe they are more so just wanting to post their own "theory" or curious thoughts to the more educated & informed people residing in the forums for their feedback on the particular question...

 

Instead of receiving a subtle (passive-aggressive?) response which they all seem to get whenever they speak without citing or referencing anything...............................

 

What I'm getting at is this: Stop being self-righteous pricks towards newcomers who just want someone smarter than they are on the particular issue to give them some feedback.

 

I'm sure many others reading this feel the same way. Some of you do come across as excessively harsh. Feel free to click the negative button or delete my post, you usually do.

[Ophiolite]

I am designated a Forum Expert. I gave you an up arrow. I agree with you, though I think you could have been a little more circumspect in the language you used. The problem seems to arise because experience has revealed that a large percentage of "speuclative" posters do turn out to be dicks and so mods and other jump in a little too early and a little too harshly at the first sign of "trouble". I have been guilty of the same failings, but try only to be aggressive and demanding when the poster has shown they are beyond redemption. Unfortunately the early attacks, that are often unwarranted, lose us potentially valuable members.

[swansont]

I'm not trying to become another target for the mods to attack here, but could you "moderators" & some long-term members take it a bit easier on some of the not so scientifically minded individuals that probably just come to these forums to post questions about something... Considering they probably got confused with the term "speculation" and thought it meant you can come into this section to post things that don't have any theories or studies backing them up.

You post this, and yet the posts before it in the original thread was not a case of somebody simply asking a question. It was someone making an assertion about the state of scientific inquiry. If you're going to complain about how the "moderators" (why the scare quotes?) and long-term members should take it easier on people asking questions, maybe you could find the examples of it actually happening. Also, since the implication was that we are being rough on newcomers, who might not know their way around the place, maybe the example should be a newcomer and not someone with >300 posts.

 

I believe they are more so just wanting to post their own "theory" or curious thoughts to the more educated & informed people residing in the forums for their feedback on the particular question...

Which is what happens., But if they're wrong, we should tell them so. If they are not actually being scientific, we should tell them so.

 

Instead of receiving a subtle (passive-aggressive?) response which they all seem to get whenever they speak without citing or referencing anything...............................

 

What I'm getting at is this: Stop being self-righteous pricks towards newcomers who just want someone smarter than they are on the particular issue to give them some feedback.

 

I'm sure many others reading this feel the same way. Some of you do come across as excessively harsh. Feel free to click the negative button or delete my post, you usually do.

 

So this feedback is subtle, but also an example of being self-righteous pricks?

 

Sorry, I'm not seeing it. You seem to be advocating that we shouldn't tell people that they are wrong. I don't see how that is ultimately helpful. All it does is prevent some bruising of apparently fragile egos, but doesn't address the more important issue of them being wrong. Science is not an endeavor where participation trophies count for much. Being wrong and then learning why you were wrong to then be right is part of the process.

 

All I can do is conclude you really haven't paid much attention to all the threads where people are asking questions and getting a lot of very patient feedback and information from our members.

Feel free to click the negative button or delete my post, you usually do.

 

 

I can find two examples of your posts being hidden and in both cases you were (IMO) being a condescending jerk. Stones and glass houses and all that.

[Ophiolite]

Just because The Angry Intellect may be guilty of improper behaviour does not invalidate his central point.

 

Just because The Angry Intellect have an agenda does not invalidate his central point.

 

This is because his central point is valid. If you seriously do not accept that then you - and any other moderator who feels that way - should reconsider their position.

[Phi for All]

Just because The Angry Intellect may be guilty of improper behaviour does not invalidate his central point.

 

Just because The Angry Intellect have an agenda does not invalidate his central point.

 

This is because his central point is valid. If you seriously do not accept that then you - and any other moderator who feels that way - should reconsider their position.

 

The point may be valid, but it's being used to stab people who hardly deserve it.

 

Please show where we've jumped all over someone with less than 20 posts for no decent reason. Please show how rigor in our explanations, and enforcing rules, even with newcomers, is detrimental to the site. Please show how The Angry Intellect's central point is being violated by current Moderators.

 

I'm willing to leave my position if you can show me evidence that I've unfairly treated newcomers.

[swansont]

Just because The Angry Intellect may be guilty of improper behaviour does not invalidate his central point.

 

Just because The Angry Intellect have an agenda does not invalidate his central point.

 

This is because his central point is valid. If you seriously do not accept that then you - and any other moderator who feels that way - should reconsider their position.

Does he have a point? He gave no valid examples of the alleged behavior for context.

[The Angry Intellect]

 

The point may be valid, but it's being used to stab people who hardly deserve it.

 

Please show where we've jumped all over someone with less than 20 posts for no decent reason. Please show how rigor in our explanations, and enforcing rules, even with newcomers, is detrimental to the site. Please show how The Angry Intellect's central point is being violated by current Moderators.

 

I'm willing to leave my position if you can show me evidence that I've unfairly treated newcomers.

 

Well, in a testament to my post about it, the moderator replied in such a way that had me thinking "seriously? Your doing it again right now, I have nothing else to say in response"

 

I'm in such disbelief that he cannot see through the many different threads in areas all over the forums where my statement doesn't ring true.

 

Just the response he gave me in relation to my post was like.... WTF, really??

 

I have seen some others talking about similar matters on random threads.

 

The moderators seem to "pick" on certain people and to anyone who is not a member or is a newcomer it just looks semi-harsh if not slightly brutal.

 

Go read my profile.... If you still don't understand, then the statement in my profile was intended for people like you my friend.

 

I have nothing else to say, except seriously... Just back off with the excessive enforcement and "warnings" you guys give out constantly, it's unnecessary and makes you guys appear extremely over zealous and abusive.

Does he have a point? He gave no valid examples of the alleged behavior for context.

 

I'm NOT going to dig through the countless threads all over the forum to point it out, you guys have serious attitude & enforcement problems.

[Phi for All]

I'm NOT going to dig through the countless threads all over the forum to point it out, you guys have serious attitude & enforcement problems.

 

So you get to accuse with no supportive evidence? Sort of a head-you-win, tails-we-lose situation? Perhaps this might have something to do with my serious attitude problems.

Go read my profile.... If you still don't understand, then the statement in my profile was intended for people like you my friend.

 

It seems very angry, but not intellectual. You placed that in your profile, so between pushing your blog, and wanting SFN to lower it's standards for rigor to suit you, it seems like you're all about agenda, and nothing to do with the science. I think this is the part you don't understand.

[The Angry Intellect]

Are you being serious right now?

 

Wow, you really ... I have no words to describe how straight over your head this has gone, the more you speak and the way in which you do it just better illustrates my original point.

 

Goodnight.

P.S. In case you didn't notice, I don't push my blog, I only point it out to certain people when the very subject they are talking about or the questions they have, however strange they may be, are actually talked about on my blog, that's all.

[CharonY]

As a whole I do not observe the mentioned behaviour on a frequent basis. There are only few examples of early attacks, when either the OP or early posts are seemingly framed in a very soapboxy or crackpot style. I will echo Ophiolite's concern that even in those cases it may just be the result of poor communication skills and care has to be take in the initial responses. I am pretty sure that there are times when out of exasperation I have posted harsher comments than warranted or even intended.

 

That being said, in experience it does happen very rarely and most of the time there are simple requests to follow the rules and pointing out violations and/or nudging the poster into a position in which they can re-examine their initial assumptions. Furthermore, I do not recall that it happened to new posters. Typically, posts that could be construed as attacks (if at all) are due to a series of posts.

Nonetheless, if nothing else it is a good exercise to step back every now and then to check whether one had been unduly harsh. Even if the answer is "no". We are (mostly) only human after all.

[swansont]

I'm NOT going to dig through the countless threads all over the forum to point it out, you guys have serious attitude & enforcement problems.

 

 

The current against which you're swimming upstream is that people who display this attitude always seem to be the ones who violate the rules. Telling the cop that you should be allowed to drive 60 in a 45 zone doesn't generally garner sympathy. Most people have experience looking at what unmoderated (or loosely moderated) fora and comment sections are like. They're cesspits, and we're not going there.

 

Nonetheless, if nothing else it is a good exercise to step back every now and then to check whether one had been unduly harsh. Even if the answer is "no". We are (mostly) only human after all.

 

Absolutely. But it is immensely helpful if one has examples to look at, rather than vague accusations. For the examples that were proffered, the answer was (IMO) "no"

[The Angry Intellect]

Right.

 

Whatever you say. Go look at any thread, pick one at random, the way in which you guys respond is completely unnecessary, you simply interject like a commentator sometimes offering nothing of value to the conversations except to interrupt them or shut them down in some way.

 

That's not the point of a moderator.

 

No one reading any particular thread is forced to do so, and believe it or not, if you just sit back and watch, you will see that the people participating in the threads can work it out on their own, eventually getting things sorted out or helping the OP to understand things better.

 

But not if you (the mods) jump in, yell something, keep telling people to cite things, giving warnings when they really didn't even say anything bad and were not out of line.

 

If someone doesn't want to post in a thread, they won't. If they don't want to read what the "users" have to say, they won't. But you will find that most of the time you guys cut things short or lock threads when it could have got interesting and was actually being openly discussed by the users of this forum at their own will, nothing is forced up on them.

 

What moderators SHOULD BE DOING (yes I used caps) is checking for threats, bad language perhaps, spam or other dangerous links/content being posted and if things get way out of hand & the thread catches fire and everyone gets smallpox, only then you should interject, not before hand just for you to have your "say" and express your authority for your own amusement.

 

Otherwise... What do you contribute?

 

Besides the obvious, which is telling people "no" and always repeating that they need to cite references & provide links to studies etc., issue uncalled for "warnings".....

 

I was new on here just about 2 or 3 weeks ago, I know that this post and some before it have "gone off-topic" but I'm simply pointing out what others surely must see. You just need to scale it back a bit guys. Can you understand this? Or would you like me to post a link to a site explaining it in further details for you..

 

I won't post again about this matter, just letting you know from a "newcomers" perspective that the moderators and some of the other regulars need to tone it down a bit, it seems unnecessary & a bit harsh at times.

And furthermore, I'm The Angry Intellect.... Here I am explaining to YOU that what your doing is harsh, how ironic.

[Ophiolite]

Does he have a point? He gave no valid examples of the alleged behavior for context.

Neither did I, yet you chose not to challenge me on it.

 

I've spoken of this before, in public and in the mod threads. It is not unique to this forum. It is, in my experience, almost universal in forums.

 

Very well. I shall highlight each and every instance I notice for the next month.

 

 

First example - the kneejerk reaction to The Angry Intellect's points by several members. And the pity is you are not even aware how kneejerk they appear. All very human, but moderators are expected to be better than that.

Edited February 24, 2016 by Ophiolite

[CharonY]

 

 

Absolutely. But it is immensely helpful if one has examples to look at, rather than vague accusations. For the examples that were proffered, the answer was (IMO) "no"

 

Fair enough.

 

 

 

Very well. I shall highlight each and every instance I notice for the next month.

 

Also fair enough.

 

 

Right.

 

Whatever you say. Go look at any thread, pick one at random, the way in which you guys respond is completely unnecessary, you simply interject like a commentator sometimes offering nothing of value to the conversations except to interrupt them or shut them down in some way.

 

That's not the point of a moderator.

 

No one reading any particular thread is forced to do so, and believe it or not, if you just sit back and watch, you will see that the people participating in the threads can work it out on their own, eventually getting things sorted out or helping the OP to understand things better.

 

Well, the issue here is that this is a science forum and in contrast to other more free-for-all fora the idea here is that we try to ground our arguments in science. Requesting citations serves three purposes. First, if there are none, OP should reflect whether the stated arguments are based on facts or just opinion. Second is, if citations exist, to educate the reader that the argument has indeed merit and by providing the citation, one can read up and follow the arguments better. Third, OP may base assumptions on some false interpretations of some data. By providing the source it will be possible to clear up misunderstandings. If, on the other hand we treat opinions the same way as data or scientific works then there is now way that a discussion will be grounded in science (or at best just by chance).

In that regard this forum is a bit of a niche but there are many others out there that fulfill your need for flights of fantasy. However, typically they degrade very quickly into nonsense, which is one of the reason why I stuck around for so long here (edit although I should say that the role of mods may be a bit off-topic and has been discussed to death here).

Edited February 24, 2016 by CharonY

[Phi for All]

Neither did I, yet you chose not to challenge me on it.

Did swansont really need to, after I did just that? Wouldn't you have thought that a bit heavy-handed, having two mods make the same challenge? Let's think about this, please. I understand where you're coming from, but I'm reluctant to admit I've been one of the staff The Angry Intellect is accusing of being unfair, especially when it's all just hand-waving.

 

 

First example - the kneejerk reaction to The Angry Intellect's points by several members. And the pity is you are not even aware how kneejerk they appear. All very human, but moderators are expected to be better than that.

How is it a kneejerk response to ask someone to back up an accusation of being a poor moderator? Why would you expect me not to ask for clarification and example? I propose I will never be the better-than-that moderator you are wishing for. Tacit approval of blanket condemnation is just not in my wheelhouse.

[Mordred]

As a long standing member on numerous forums I can honestly say this forum grants a far greater leeway than many.

 

I can for example name several highly successful forums that don't even allow a speculative section. Any thread that doesn't follow mainstream science is instantly locked down.

 

I've been a member on this forum for quite sometime, I prefer the flexibility here, not because I have speculative models to post but I find a better opportunity to assist ppl to learn the science they more often enough didn't understand in the first place.

 

Quite frankly the staff here do an excellent job, as far as I've seen they always give a fair chance when members aren't following the forum rules.

[ajb]

As a long standing member on numerous forums I can honestly say this forum grants a far greater leeway than many.

Not that actually participate in other forums, but I think we are quite generous in giving rope to people who want to hang themselves! Several threads in the speculations sections could, in my opinion be closed straight away. However, we would generally rather try to extract some science from these threads for the benefit of everyone. Of course, sometimes this can be very hard.

 

 

What moderators SHOULD BE DOING (yes I used caps) is checking for threats, bad language perhaps, spam or other dangerous links/content being posted and if things get way out of hand & the thread catches fire and everyone gets smallpox, only then you should interject, not before hand just for you to have your "say" and express your authority for your own amusement.

 

Otherwise... What do you contribute?

Okay... the moderators do what you have said, and indeed there is a report button for people to inform the moderators of some problem. Probably this feature is not used enough.

 

What the moderators add is value. If a post is not in line with the ethos of this forum, breaks the rules, does not conform with common decency, is clearly non-scientific, uses generally poor logic or falsehoods then they will intervene.

 

Also note that every moderator warning can be objected to and reviewed by other moderators. If you feel unfairly treated then ask for another moderator to take a look.

 

I believe they are more so just wanting to post their own "theory" or curious thoughts to the more educated & informed people residing in the forums for their feedback on the particular question...

 

This is an interesting statement. Most people who post their own 'theory' do not actually ask any questions. They try to tell people with some scientific training that they are wrong and science should be done in another way. This can make it hard to give very constructive feedback, especially if the 'theory' is very poorly constructed. The famous saying "not even wrong" comes to mind.

 

Then they get rude and angry that the scientific community (is SFN really part of the scientific community?) don't agree with them and the thread ends up in insults etc.

 

 

Anyway, maybe some specific examples of the 'wrong doings' of moderators and long term members could be useful. However, I agree that not all responses by all members are always useful. People can sometime be a bit short, but we should always try to be civil.

[Mordred]

Not that actually participate in other forums, but I think we are quite generous in giving rope to people who want to hang themselves! Several threads in the speculations sections could, in my opinion be closed straight away. However, we would generally rather try to extract some science from these threads for the benefit of everyone. Of course, sometimes this can be very hard

Lol I recall a few private messages where you and I tried to find a scientific direction on a thread, including conversations on how to best guide a poster into a more informed direction. To describe it as hard is in some cases an understatement

 

 

My wife has often heard me yell "how can he be so blind".

Edited February 25, 2016 by Mordred

[The Angry Intellect]

I know I said I would not post again, sorry to break my word. However I have a solution or offer to which may solve some of the issues at hand.

 

First off, I'm not targeting any specific mods and I was not just mentioning mods in all my posts, I was also referring to some of the more well known (long-term) users of this site.

 

In general, I strongly believe that most people would appreciate some of the users and the mods not "jumping the gun" so quickly on certain threads, it also seems to be targeted, for instance any post or thread I make seems to have me on the "hit list" that I'm sure the mods have somewhere

 

For everyone, users & mods alike, if you seriously need me to cut & past or quote the different posts that many of you have made which got me to bring this to your attention in the first place, then your lying to your selves. That's the truth, your simply lying. That or your completely oblivious to the way in which some of your posts are perceived by everyone else reading it, which is generally taken as being blunt, arrogant, harsh and sometimes just unnecessary.

 

Some mods do target certain individuals, don't try tell me otherwise, you're not fooling anyone.

 

Back on topic, I have a solution to which you may or may not like, I can't convince you either way but here it is:

 

Why not have another section in the forums which is easily visible & pinned near the top, which is for all these people who seem to get confused about "speculation" to be able to post their own thoughts or theories in, which is exempt from strict rules such as citing or referencing anything they may say.

 

Have it clearly labelled so everyone understands what it's for, and have a thread within that section (also pinned) which states to all users that this area of the forum is exempt from certain rules and may contain science fiction or threads from users who do not have a proper scientific understanding and the threads may not make sense, but are merely there for anyone who wishes to contribute to that thread.

 

If you wanted to go a bit further, you could go through the speculation (or other) areas and find threads which "do not conform to the forums general rules" and move those threads into the new section for the people that may wish to continue speaking on those threads.

 

That would help to clear out some of the rather odd or completely made-up "theories" that some users post, and also give them a room to breath easier without being harassed or shut down.

 

It would also make me feel a lot better knowing that the mods are not breaching basic human rights with their abuse by giving those kinds of users a space of their own. (I'm just kidding about this line)

 

P.S. Thanks for the reply Mordred.

[Mordred]

No problem, however one has to understand the challenge presented to the mods on a forum.

 

Take a new poster, he feels there is a mistake on an understanding.

 

That poster takes it upon himself to solve that mistake, yet more often than not fails to back it with effort.

 

By effort I mean supportive posts or effort into the math.

 

Without mentioning specific posts currently I can point to three active posts that follow the rules on speculations that have been allowed.

 

The mods allow the effort, after all any diligence into an effort has its rewards, provided the poster listens to advise being offered against his ideas.

After all the job of us professionals on a particular field is to poke holes onto a model or theory. This done and accounted for strengthens that model or theory.

 

The job of a moderator is extremely challenging. One they do so voluntarily. They must look at the wide variety of ideas, determine which has scientific merit or which is based upon misconceptions. (Not including other factors such as rules violations).

 

As one that has moderated on a PLC (programmable logic controller website) for 2 Years not an easy task

[swansont]

Right.

 

Whatever you say. Go look at any thread, pick one at random, the way in which you guys respond is completely unnecessary, you simply interject like a commentator sometimes offering nothing of value to the conversations except to interrupt them or shut them down in some way.

 

That's not the point of a moderator.

 

No one reading any particular thread is forced to do so, and believe it or not, if you just sit back and watch, you will see that the people participating in the threads can work it out on their own, eventually getting things sorted out or helping the OP to understand things better.

 

But not if you (the mods) jump in, yell something, keep telling people to cite things, giving warnings when they really didn't even say anything bad and were not out of line.

 

If someone doesn't want to post in a thread, they won't. If they don't want to read what the "users" have to say, they won't. But you will find that most of the time you guys cut things short or lock threads when it could have got interesting and was actually being openly discussed by the users of this forum at their own will, nothing is forced up on them.

 

What moderators SHOULD BE DOING (yes I used caps) is checking for threats, bad language perhaps, spam or other dangerous links/content being posted and if things get way out of hand & the thread catches fire and everyone gets smallpox, only then you should interject, not before hand just for you to have your "say" and express your authority for your own amusement.

What you're missing here, and what you can't possibly know (since you don't have access to the information), is that we often respond because somebody has reported a post. So somebody participating in the thread has decided it has gone off the tracks and isn't working out on its own.

 

The reason we don't wait until the thread catches fire is that we've seen that happen, and it's a lot more work to clean up when it does. We're volunteers and would rather spend our time participating in science discussions as members rather than have to do moderation.

In general, I strongly believe that most people would appreciate some of the users and the mods not "jumping the gun" so quickly on certain threads, it also seems to be targeted, for instance any post or thread I make seems to have me on the "hit list" that I'm sure the mods have somewhere

When people show up and break the rules, they get our attention. If they refuse to modify their behavior, that focuses the attention even more. If that's a "hit list" then so be it.

 

We "target" people who break the rules. That's the job we have. I personally don't have much sympathy for anyone whose argument is that they shouldn't have to be bothered to follow the rules, and the world should conform to their wishes.

 

Why not have another section in the forums which is easily visible & pinned near the top, which is for all these people who seem to get confused about "speculation" to be able to post their own thoughts or theories in, which is exempt from strict rules such as citing or referencing anything they may say.

No.

 

We're a science site. You are free to go off and start a site for such discussion if you wish, but we are under no obligation to do it.

[Phi for All]

For everyone, users & mods alike, if you seriously need me to cut & past or quote the different posts that many of you have made which got me to bring this to your attention in the first place, then your lying to your selves. That's the truth, your simply lying. That or your completely oblivious to the way in which some of your posts are perceived by everyone else reading it, which is generally taken as being blunt, arrogant, harsh and sometimes just unnecessary.

 

Some mods do target certain individuals, don't try tell me otherwise, you're not fooling anyone.

 

IOW, "I'm not going to show any examples of why I'm accusing you of being self-righteous pricks, because my saying so is enough. In fact, what I say is the truth, so you're automatically lying. I've made up my mind and won't be swayed by anything you say."

 

Is this your scientific argument?

[The Angry Intellect]

Do you know what your doing?

 

You're being a politician, not a scientist, you just made up some sh*t that you "think" is what I was thinking and threw it into some quotation marks as if to say this was said by me in some way.

 

You're trying to put words in my mouth that were not there to begin with and then show it to others as if it's an accurate translation of the point I was trying to make.

 

What I "was" saying by not wanting to reference other threads is, there are far too many examples and random threads to which I have seen this stuff go on.

 

I am not going to spend ages looking for all the examples and then stick them in here, if you are not aware of any such examples where this sort of behaviour has occurred and you seriously want me to "prove it" to you by finding them all as opposed to you just opening your eyes and actually reading everything, then kindly, go f*** yourself.

 

I'm done with this topic, some of you are clearly blind & have communication (and personal) issues.

 

Grow up.

[hypervalent_iodine]

Do you know what your doing?

 

You're being a politician, not a scientist, you just made up some sh*t that you "think" is what I was thinking and threw it into some quotation marks as if to say this was said by me in some way.

 

You're trying to put words in my mouth that were not there to begin with and then show it to others as if it's an accurate translation of the point I was trying to make.

 

What I "was" saying by not wanting to reference other threads is, there are far too many examples and random threads to which I have seen this stuff go on.

 

I am not going to spend ages looking for all the examples and then stick them in here, if you are not aware of any such examples where this sort of behaviour has occurred and you seriously want me to "prove it" to you by finding them all as opposed to you just opening your eyes and actually reading everything, then kindly, go f*** yourself.

 

I'm done with this topic, some of you are clearly blind & have communication (and personal) issues.

 

Grow up.

I'm not sure why you are being so hostile. You made a claim that members and staff are too harsh on newcomers. Fine. I think I speak for all of the mods when I say that we gladly welcome reasonable observations on these matters by members. The thing is, you haven't shown us a case of where this is true and I can't immediately think of a thread where your criticism would be applicable. All that is being asked of you is to provide some examples of where you are seeing the problem. We can't do that for you.

[ajb]

I am not going to spend ages looking for all the examples and then stick them in here, if you are not aware of any such examples where this sort of behaviour has occurred and you seriously want me to "prove it" to you by finding them all as opposed to you just opening your eyes and actually reading everything, then kindly, go f*** yourself.

One clear example would be nice and give everyone a better understanding of your complaint.

 

My complaint is that you should try to calm down and keep civil.

 

I'm done with this topic, some of you are clearly blind & have communication (and personal) issues.

To spin this round, I think you should also look at your communication issues. Your clear hostility is not helping your argument.

 

 

I think I speak for all of the mods when I say that we gladly welcome reasonable observations on these matters by members.

And as a long term member and expert I too welcome such observations.