This post was made by Votorx in "undeniable proof for UFO's" he outrightly rejects and ridicules us for believing in ETI/UFO's and even rejects research of it. He started the thread accusing of being gullible and saying we'd think anything is an alien UFO. This is the type of stupidity we have to contend with.
Moderation of Pseudoscience Forum
- Thread starter James R
- Start date
This post was made by Q in "Proof for ETI: Part 2" I have taken Q of my ignore list momentarily to locate some of this posts. The reason I put him on my ignore list, was because he always indulged in insults, and never stopped. You can see if you removed 90% of the posts he's made in these threads, it would make no difference
These posts was made by WCF in "Proof for ETI: Part" you can clearly see he does not want discussion. He has already completely ruled out UFO/ETI as alien crap, and is only posting to call us kooks. Yet, the "pseudoscience" forum is exactly for this discussion. So he is only posting so he can insult us? Such prejudice should be deleted in the interest of mature discussion.
Last edited:
I vote for Dr. Lou.
James, hate to see you go, but Lou, if he's willing will be the best bet so far.
Simple.
James, hate to see you go, but Lou, if he's willing will be the best bet so far.
Simple.
Finally Skinwalker. Skinwalker is the most hypocritical pseudskeptic. He repeatedely calls us pseudoscientists, kooks or cultists and fanatics, and regularly posts in the topics, to make that known. I have him on record actually calling the entire ETI/UFO investigation(in favour of ETI) a waste of time and the arguments for it shit.
As you just saw, he just said in his last post, why "Proof for ETI" topics should be closed or deleted. In other words, Skinwalker does not want to contribute to the topic, so instead he wants it deleted
In conclusion:
As you can see from the examples I have provided of them. They do nothing, but degrade the quality of discussion, make inapproproate and offensive remarks, or just flat out ridicule what is being discussed. Such people should be treated as troublemakers and you'll find if you took out 90% of their replies in these threads, they would jump up 100% in quality.
I fully expect any moderator to deal with them from now on. Otherwise, the moderator is not doing their job
As you just saw, he just said in his last post, why "Proof for ETI" topics should be closed or deleted. In other words, Skinwalker does not want to contribute to the topic, so instead he wants it deleted
In conclusion:
As you can see from the examples I have provided of them. They do nothing, but degrade the quality of discussion, make inapproproate and offensive remarks, or just flat out ridicule what is being discussed. Such people should be treated as troublemakers and you'll find if you took out 90% of their replies in these threads, they would jump up 100% in quality.
I fully expect any moderator to deal with them from now on. Otherwise, the moderator is not doing their job
I maintain that on a science board like sciforums, pseudoscience should be discussed as if it were a pseudo science not an alternative science. The latter being an oxymoron since science is based upon a set of established methodology.
And crazymikey, if your "proofs" are indeed scientific and not pseudoscientific, then why not post them in the "appropriate" forum.
There are plenty of other sites that are accepting of the speculative, pseudoscientific frame of mind (atlantisrising.com, grahamhancock.com, etc.)... let the kooks and cranks go there. But here, we should maintain a scientific point of view and edit / moderate all else.
And crazymikey, if your "proofs" are indeed scientific and not pseudoscientific, then why not post them in the "appropriate" forum.
There are plenty of other sites that are accepting of the speculative, pseudoscientific frame of mind (atlantisrising.com, grahamhancock.com, etc.)... let the kooks and cranks go there. But here, we should maintain a scientific point of view and edit / moderate all else.
What kinds of threads and discussions should be allowed here?
Those which are not accepted as science. However, lying, making stuff up, and making unsupportable claims should be reigned in. People who make these above claims and tehnrefuse to answer questions should have their threads locked/merged.
Should moderation be more relaxed here than in other parts of sciforums? If so, how so?
'What if' threads are fine. If a poster makes unsupported claims and spams the forum though, their threads should be locked.
Those which are not accepted as science. However, lying, making stuff up, and making unsupportable claims should be reigned in. People who make these above claims and tehnrefuse to answer questions should have their threads locked/merged.
Should moderation be more relaxed here than in other parts of sciforums? If so, how so?
'What if' threads are fine. If a poster makes unsupported claims and spams the forum though, their threads should be locked.
Oh, I feel left out... hehe. You have to be kidding me though. Before you make claims like these you should really make sure your record is more clean then those above... unfortunately it is not. Not only do you also post completely off topic, try and change the subject, and insult other posters... you also make tons of claims of 'proof' but can't back any up. Your motto seems to be cut-and-paste-quantity over quality. If you'd like a list of examples, I'd be glad to oblige.
This overall thread is suppose to be about what the members would like to see done by the moderator(s) when pseudoscience becomes modded once more.
I'm mentioning that because sometimes people skip the whole topic and start disappearing on a tangent from the original, which is one of the things that occurs currently in the Pseudoscience forum.
This means the removal of off-topic chat from a thread, because when threads get cluttered they can be difficult to merge and continue the fluidity of the nature of the topic in question.
I suggest that although it's not the moderators job but my belief of better etiquette that some attempt to generate evidence for both the "For" and "Against" arguements when someone generates a topic of post. Afterall the nature of a forum is to debate a topic, and not see a person as someone to ridicule for their ideas, That sort of behaviour was suppose to have died out with the Darkages, Stocks and Pillory's (Where "Pillocks" were mocked).
The roots to Forums in full, is that of the ancient Greek place to discuss things Philosophical, this covered many things from the basis of Science right through to Homers "Odyssey". This meant they were not just a place of discussion about the factual, or the theory but even of fiction since some would have notions born from the lack of understanding.
You should all know a person can not be educated via mockery, therefore for them to be educated if their belief is fiction, they have to be open to reason and understanding, which they will not have if mocked.
Perhaps some of you share the same opinions?
I'm mentioning that because sometimes people skip the whole topic and start disappearing on a tangent from the original, which is one of the things that occurs currently in the Pseudoscience forum.
This means the removal of off-topic chat from a thread, because when threads get cluttered they can be difficult to merge and continue the fluidity of the nature of the topic in question.
I suggest that although it's not the moderators job but my belief of better etiquette that some attempt to generate evidence for both the "For" and "Against" arguements when someone generates a topic of post. Afterall the nature of a forum is to debate a topic, and not see a person as someone to ridicule for their ideas, That sort of behaviour was suppose to have died out with the Darkages, Stocks and Pillory's (Where "Pillocks" were mocked).
The roots to Forums in full, is that of the ancient Greek place to discuss things Philosophical, this covered many things from the basis of Science right through to Homers "Odyssey". This meant they were not just a place of discussion about the factual, or the theory but even of fiction since some would have notions born from the lack of understanding.
You should all know a person can not be educated via mockery, therefore for them to be educated if their belief is fiction, they have to be open to reason and understanding, which they will not have if mocked.
Perhaps some of you share the same opinions?
yes, but only if the new sprung topics are split not deleted. In the Were we visited before thread I and one other member somehow drifted to quite a historical in nature discussion about Viking sea voyages and their ships. The discussion is interesting and worthful, thus it'd be a shame to just delete it. Same goes for other simillar situations.
avatar why dont you check the thread again and try to be more patient.
THAT COMIC BOOK BULLSHIT YOU POSTED HAS NO RELEVANCE TO MY THREAD, BESIDES THE SLIGHT CONNECTION THAT THE COMIC MAKE FUN OF CONSPIRACIES.
i saw NO moderation of this unrelated post, no attempt to edit of remove the distracting Comic Pictures, no NOTHING at all.
oh, well maybe thats why their calling for a moderator ?!
Sargeantland has got my Vote.
--- avatar how can you be analyzing a Book that you NEVER READ?
i hate to sound cliche but :
"dont judge a book by its cover"
you are analyzing a fucking snippet of the book that a website allowed you to see, get a fucking life bro
THAT COMIC BOOK BULLSHIT YOU POSTED HAS NO RELEVANCE TO MY THREAD, BESIDES THE SLIGHT CONNECTION THAT THE COMIC MAKE FUN OF CONSPIRACIES.
i saw NO moderation of this unrelated post, no attempt to edit of remove the distracting Comic Pictures, no NOTHING at all.
oh, well maybe thats why their calling for a moderator ?!
Sargeantland has got my Vote.
--- avatar how can you be analyzing a Book that you NEVER READ?
i hate to sound cliche but :
"dont judge a book by its cover"
you are analyzing a fucking snippet of the book that a website allowed you to see, get a fucking life bro
of course it makes fun of it, why not?
maybe the mods also found it funny not offensive?
I never said I analized the book, I analyzed the index of it. And that index was pretty laughable as is.
and watch your tongue on using f* words, "bro"
p.s.
- he tells me to take this as factual evidence
maybe the mods also found it funny not offensive?
I never said I analized the book, I analyzed the index of it. And that index was pretty laughable as is.
and watch your tongue on using f* words, "bro"
p.s.
- he tells me to take this as factual evidenceStryder
The problem is that these guys aren't interested in education, nor are they open to reason and understanding. They would much rather go around pontificating their brand of pseudoscience as real science than actually trying to learn something.
So, in your opinion, what is the next step after all avenues of reason have failed?
The problem is that these guys aren't interested in education, nor are they open to reason and understanding. They would much rather go around pontificating their brand of pseudoscience as real science than actually trying to learn something.
So, in your opinion, what is the next step after all avenues of reason have failed?
Just as an example, there was recently a thread named 'xev' which was about race in humans. Not to rehash too much, I was disagreeing with paulsamuel and raithere. Paulsamuel said 'Im right because im right' while Raithere provided evidence and reason to backup his position, and ended up convincing me.
Crazymikey and several and others have simply been taking claims from other sites, claiming they are true, and posting them here... all without actually thinking about them. They have been completely unable to defend their position, and any mention of actual science is either not responded to or they claim that the science must be wrong... but they never actually address the issue.
This is fine for awhile and is to be expected. At some point however you have to put your foot down and stop posters from posting complete bullshit which you, I, and everyone else knows is not supported.
Crazymikey and several and others have simply been taking claims from other sites, claiming they are true, and posting them here... all without actually thinking about them. They have been completely unable to defend their position, and any mention of actual science is either not responded to or they claim that the science must be wrong... but they never actually address the issue.
This is fine for awhile and is to be expected. At some point however you have to put your foot down and stop posters from posting complete bullshit which you, I, and everyone else knows is not supported.
Well that covers the reason why moderators are needed.
Obviously not mocking them, afterall thats like supergrade troll feed right there, we don't want trolls growing up big and strong in the forums because they tend to cause real people with real things to discuss to go elsewhere.
If it's a toss up between one person that has four trolls and never posts any content worth noting, against one person that posts content worthy of reading, I'd pick the content holder as the winner and kick the other dog to the kerb.
I suppose you could say I'm up for some "high profile" moderator action on the forum (rather than covert sneakiness).
(Q) said:
Obviously not mocking them, afterall thats like supergrade troll feed right there, we don't want trolls growing up big and strong in the forums because they tend to cause real people with real things to discuss to go elsewhere.
If it's a toss up between one person that has four trolls and never posts any content worth noting, against one person that posts content worthy of reading, I'd pick the content holder as the winner and kick the other dog to the kerb.
I suppose you could say I'm up for some "high profile" moderator action on the forum (rather than covert sneakiness).
If as evidence is presented "A reprint of a document found in a IBM copier bought at a surplus sale. In short this document is a blue print for controlling a population." , can it be labeled as content worthy?
All my knowledge as a law student of what is considered evidence riots against such "blasphemy". Evidence can't be an anonimous "reprint of a document found in a IBM copier bought at a surplus sale" , nor can it be a declaration without giving any facts at the start of a thread, nor can evidence be a link to some (crackpot) website, nor a rock looking like dog's poo that is supposed to undoubtably prove alien existence on the planet Mars.
these people have no understanding of what is considered to be evidence in the sane world, and it frustrates as hell when I'm being told, that I've been given all the evidence a person could need to believe in eti's on Mars and Earth whereas in reality I'm not, just because that can't be considered evidence of any kind!
All my knowledge as a law student of what is considered evidence riots against such "blasphemy". Evidence can't be an anonimous "reprint of a document found in a IBM copier bought at a surplus sale" , nor can it be a declaration without giving any facts at the start of a thread, nor can evidence be a link to some (crackpot) website, nor a rock looking like dog's poo that is supposed to undoubtably prove alien existence on the planet Mars.
these people have no understanding of what is considered to be evidence in the sane world, and it frustrates as hell when I'm being told, that I've been given all the evidence a person could need to believe in eti's on Mars and Earth whereas in reality I'm not, just because that can't be considered evidence of any kind!
James R said:
I don't see why it would be so hard to take the middle of the road approach. The skeptics and the believers both should have their views posted and both shall do their best to present their arguments...the moderator's job should be to discern between whether or not those two groups are doing their best to insult each other.
My approach will be very similar to the moderation on the rest of the forum. To clear up the waste not what others think is waste just because they disagree with it.
The only thing I don't like about some skeptics is when they come in and say something is impossible due to our current technological limitations (such as it being impossible for someone/thing from another planet to reach us). Well uh, that's exactly why something like that is in a "pseudo" science section. Too many theoretical theories, myths, and other ideas get labelled as being the work of a nutcase every single time, multiple times per thread many times by the same person. Go ahead and say that in the normal science forum but not the psuedoscience one because you really cannot prove something theoretical or myth-like wrong.
The only real "proving wrongs" that should be done by the skeptics in a forum such as this is showing evidence that points towards something being not true. Whether it's showing the lies someone may be saying on a linked website, false information, correcting incorrect formulas (but not new theoretical ones), and whatnot. It's awesome and helpful when something is "proven" wrong. But when something can't be proven wrong even if there's only substantial evidence to support a theory but not confirm it completely, that tie goes to the advocator of the idea (in the pseudo section, that is), as outlandish as the idea may seem.
When it comes to odd ideas, most of the time a skeptic doesn't even really have to say anything. A whacky idea will speak for itself. That's why it's in a pseudoscience forum and not the regular one. So basically, allow some leeway and let the pseudos have their fun. Be helpful and give your input to prove or disprove things every now and then, but don't be an annoying ass posting against every single idea multiple times per thread in a troll-like fashion, again, as outlandish as it may seem because it can speak for itself.
So yeah, my vote goes towards regulating the "troll-like" (not normal skeptics) skeptics as mentioned above because they're highly annoying.
- N
The only real "proving wrongs" that should be done by the skeptics in a forum such as this is showing evidence that points towards something being not true. Whether it's showing the lies someone may be saying on a linked website, false information, correcting incorrect formulas (but not new theoretical ones), and whatnot. It's awesome and helpful when something is "proven" wrong. But when something can't be proven wrong even if there's only substantial evidence to support a theory but not confirm it completely, that tie goes to the advocator of the idea (in the pseudo section, that is), as outlandish as the idea may seem.
When it comes to odd ideas, most of the time a skeptic doesn't even really have to say anything. A whacky idea will speak for itself. That's why it's in a pseudoscience forum and not the regular one. So basically, allow some leeway and let the pseudos have their fun. Be helpful and give your input to prove or disprove things every now and then, but don't be an annoying ass posting against every single idea multiple times per thread in a troll-like fashion, again, as outlandish as it may seem because it can speak for itself.
So yeah, my vote goes towards regulating the "troll-like" (not normal skeptics) skeptics as mentioned above because they're highly annoying.
- N
Given the task of moderating a forum such as this presents one hell of a proposition. It has become a free for all of pseudo debunkers and disinformation agents that go as far as to out right lie about common knowledge.
Personally, I am off on vacation working on the boat. This is the start of summer in my part of the world, so figure it out for yourselves while I work on the tan lines and boats. The answers are out there, IF you care to look and can accept the bull shit that is thrown at you. No one said it would be easy now did they?
Hey folks, I have had enough confirmation of what I have said, so what more is there to say? Seek and you will find, it was said, it didn’t say how hard it would be to swallow that RED pill, nor did it say how hard it would be to keep it down.
This “forum” is in control of the “powers that be” don’t let anyone kid you.
Sea Yah, and then again, I probably won’t see some of you.
Personally, I am off on vacation working on the boat. This is the start of summer in my part of the world, so figure it out for yourselves while I work on the tan lines and boats. The answers are out there, IF you care to look and can accept the bull shit that is thrown at you. No one said it would be easy now did they?
Hey folks, I have had enough confirmation of what I have said, so what more is there to say? Seek and you will find, it was said, it didn’t say how hard it would be to swallow that RED pill, nor did it say how hard it would be to keep it down.
This “forum” is in control of the “powers that be” don’t let anyone kid you.
Sea Yah, and then again, I probably won’t see some of you.