bad moderation

[zonabi]

"If you want to continue discussion on this "Alledged" interplanetary war, then you would require a bit more evidence than just hypothesis "

thread was closed and this is the moderator's reason. because we dont have a bit more evidence ??

excuse me but does the moderator know what PSEUDOSCIENCE IS ABOUT ??

i think NOT - because Psuedoscience is SPECULATION, IT DOESNT NEED EVIDENCE, and IS PRETTY MUCH a "FREE-FOR-ALL" kind of science.

so what the fuck is the problem with the fuckers in this forum. jesus christ giving the MOD spot to that ass has been the worst thing to happen to PS @ sciforums.

good riddance.

 

[zonabi]

taken from the stupid moderators OWN WORDS:

"Pseudoscience itself means "Pretended or Spurious Science" (from the Oxford English Dictionary). This can be broken down to suggest that it deals with science that has no evidence "

from some wannabe guidelines thread he started, yet he closes the other thread because it didnt have enough 'evidence' ??

damn peoples take a look at whats going on.

if he isnt under some kind of IC, then damn... he must be one sad case.

 

[sideshowbob]

Pseudoscience pretends to be real science. Therefore, it has to pretend to have evidence, even though it doesn't.

The idle speculation you're talking about is science fiction, not pseudoscience.

 

[Lemming3k]

There could only be three purposes of an alien war thread, to prove there was a war(which makes it science), to discuss the war as if its a fact(which if you dont prove it makes it sci-fi) either way it would be in the wrong place and the mod would be correct, the third purpose is if your discussing a theory/possibility of an alien war, in which case the mod would be wrong to close it.

 

[Stryder]

Zonabi, Let me put it blunt, Norval complained about the thread upsetters (the people causing trouble) that took the thread into a complete fictional direction. (They were heavily filling it with Debunkem)

It caused the threads overall conversation to break into ridicule and therefore became difficult to work out who believed what they were saying or who was just making stuff up.

So to deal with Norvals blight, (and might for working out how to distinguish the Trolling from the believers) I decided to close the thread. Admittedly my reason was lame, but that was purely because to explain that I was trying to remove the debunkem in the least catastrophic method.

I also mentioned that in the Rules I posted up in the forum:

Protesting unfair actions
If you should protest in any form at the unfair editing in the event of
thread closures or post editing, PM the moderator in question before
creating un-necessary threads about "wrong doing", since if you percieve
a problem there might be an easy solution that can be done without
causing loads of fuss. [Such fuss could be perceived as a personal attack]

You could have easily messaged along with Norval about the feels on the thread and I could of confered over the best action to take on it (like opening it and removing some posts, or commenting), rather than starting a post on Bad Moderation.

bad Moderation is when the moderator doesn't listen to what you have to say, which you can do via PM.
[ I hope this clears this up, and btw I'm closing this thread just because it isn't necessary "yet!"]