See, the above... would be moved to the garbage thread. He uses many words but doesn't actually say anything except "'THEY' control this forum". If anything moving is post will only make him happy that he was right... while the rest of us won't have to read through line after line of contentless posts.
Moderation of Pseudoscience Forum
- Thread starter James R
- Start date
James R said:
Excuse you! Scientific research happens because scientists spend a lot of time thinking 'what if', and devise experiments to test their theories! If Scientists can't think 'outside the square' how the hell did we end up with Relativity, if scientists were stuck inside Newtonian Mechanics?
How? Mind control? A hypothesis should stand up to a bit of scrutiny, that's what happen on pseudo science. Wacky ideas get proposed, and we throw stones at them. If any were left standing, they may warrant some merit.
This is a forum, a forum is place where we discuss, discussion involves opposing viewpoints, or dissection of the proposition at least. It is not about slapping each other on the back, and accepting everything that everyone says, is it?
If people want to post unqualified crap they are free to do so, as long as they label their posts as such.
Simply, Goofy has been overmoderating. If the thread degenerates, so what, conversations do wander, so let them.
Not really, if a WooWoo takes over moderation of pseudo science, I'll still call bullshit when I smell it.
I wouldn't suggest that Goofy has been over moderating considering some of the posts that he locked previously were getting well out of hand. Usually regressing to primative states of adolescent behaviour or generalised muck throwing.
Goofy was mearly trying to show that when a thread starts with a topic, it should continue on about a topic and not start to malform into either a breakdown of why the skeptics should chirp up or why the believers don't have any proof.
However you are also right that Scientists should be allowed to endulge in a flight of fantasy, as occasionally it answers alot of relevant questions through simulation that can save lives through errors being spotted or save money.
Goofy was mearly trying to show that when a thread starts with a topic, it should continue on about a topic and not start to malform into either a breakdown of why the skeptics should chirp up or why the believers don't have any proof.
However you are also right that Scientists should be allowed to endulge in a flight of fantasy, as occasionally it answers alot of relevant questions through simulation that can save lives through errors being spotted or save money.
Pseudo Science is over moderated, if you compare it to other sections here. For instance, Politics had a thread where one member called another a 'fucking jerk' and it stood.
So moderation should be applied equally, not just to one section which has a particular mods attention.
As to the threads "malform into either a breakdown of why the skeptics should chirp up or why the believers don't have any proof."
Why not? If a claim of proof is made, it should be shown, or the WooWoo should start the thread admitting it's just a hypothetical scenario with no basis in fact.
So moderation should be applied equally, not just to one section which has a particular mods attention.
As to the threads "malform into either a breakdown of why the skeptics should chirp up or why the believers don't have any proof."
Why not? If a claim of proof is made, it should be shown, or the WooWoo should start the thread admitting it's just a hypothetical scenario with no basis in fact.
I cannot possibly see every thread, nor do I try. If someone insulted another member, the only reason it stood is that we did not see it, which also means that no one reported it.phlogistician said:
Sure they do, and I have no issue with that. But when it wanders around to the situation that Stryder explained, or mere "name-calling", there is no reason to allow the thread to remain open. When it is, more often than not, the vitriol becomes more and more pronounced and soon spreads into other threads and forums. Most of my attention that has been directed at this forum is the result of someone from one "camp" or the other pushing the Report Post button. I would just as soon not moderate here - hence my call for volunteers.
As an interestind aside, I find it interesting that most of those who complain about the moderation of this forum (and that does not include you - you are discussing the issue) do not feel they could step up and do a better job, or they would toss their hat into the ring.
:m: Peace.
CounslerCoffee
Registered Senior Member
If you showed or PMed us the post/thread in question then we can take care of it. When members report problems it really helps us out in the long run.
-- The Grand Dragon Gizzard
goofyfish said:
My pov is that I don't see the need for much moderation at all. Enable the software to remove expletives, and let people bitch at each other. I don't have some standard by which I judge debates. If they degenerate, they degenerate. All you do by moderating, is stop one, and it springs up somewhere else, so what do you acieve, exactly? You just spend a lot of your time moderating, and people just start bitching at each other in another thread instead, it's like a Hydra.
The only reasons I see to moderate, would be to remove spam attacks, and adverts.
So, what if someone reports a thread? That shouldn't distract you to the more fierce vitriol in other topics. Sure, people have got a bit testy with each other, but I haven't seen much foul language on pseudoscience, compared to say, Politics. People have a choice whether to come here or not. If they don't like the arguments, I'm sure they could go talk to someone down at makeupalley.com, and discuss shades of blue or whatever froofroo non-contentional nonsense they talk about.
Let me see, you actually want the right to be stupid? Riiight.
Neildo said:
Are you paying attention to this Q?
This is one of my beefs too. Do you people actually think we are at the pinnacle of discovery? That we will never aquire another means of travel beyond our current method?
I just don't understand how some here can put OUR technological limitations on any and all possible life in the Billions of Universes out there.
I once again put my vote in for Stryder. I think he'd deal with the debunkers, and the off topic posts equally.
I used to visit this site often. But over the past 2 months, it has been overrun by the dubunkers ridiculing everything, and I've chosen to simply stay away. I take my hat off to Crazymike as he's usually kept his composure amongst all the insults.
VRob said:
Look, it's simple, the woowoo argument is circular. Aliens are here, they say. For aliens to be here, they must have a way of circumventing the obstacles as we understand them. So aliens have done this, because they are here. Around they go.
But there is no evidence for any of it. But there is evidence for relativity being sound. Overturn that first, eh? So of course Skeptics chirp up at this point. If woowoos are just blowing smoke out of their nether regions and postulating, then fine, state that in the opening post. Don't make any claims without some proof that stands up to scrutiny without expecting a sound debunking.
crazymikey said:
Mikey, you make the ludicrous claims, not me. You make ad-homs, and apply dual standards. I was just saying that when you do that, and go off topic, I don't mind.
phlogistician said:
No, around you go. I have never stated such a thing. I don't know where, or how they might be travelling. It is you who are doing the reaching here. You are refuting the entire idea simply because WE can't traverse through space at the necessary speeds to reach other galaxies in a timely fashion.
I HAVE NEVER CLAIMED TO PROVIDE PROOF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PROOF & EVIDENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
coolmacguy
Registered Senior Member
I think the humorous element of UFO debunkers is that they espouse the scientific method as the golden rule of all research, but then don't follow it themselves.
Many take the philosophy of Edward Condon, namely that UFOs can't exist, so any evidence pointing to that conclusion won't be considered.
The fact is we have two possibilities, both of which merit serious consideration and research. Either UFOs are real, as in real tangible objects flying in the skies, or they are a product of a psychological mass delusion so sweeping in scope that it dwarfs any previously on record. Whichever is true, the importance of either is sufficiently great in magnitude that the phenomenon warrants further study, by mainstream science as well as pseudoscience.
People who want to shut down all discussion on it don't seem to understand that.
Many take the philosophy of Edward Condon, namely that UFOs can't exist, so any evidence pointing to that conclusion won't be considered.
The fact is we have two possibilities, both of which merit serious consideration and research. Either UFOs are real, as in real tangible objects flying in the skies, or they are a product of a psychological mass delusion so sweeping in scope that it dwarfs any previously on record. Whichever is true, the importance of either is sufficiently great in magnitude that the phenomenon warrants further study, by mainstream science as well as pseudoscience.
People who want to shut down all discussion on it don't seem to understand that.
Even i get annoyed with that, people only consider our limitations, its like what faces all scientists, they are told it cant be done, but they still try and sometimes find a way to make something happen everyone said wasnt possible, until its proved some form of FTL travel is possible most wont believe in it, though the possibility of FTL travel still doesnt make a very convincing case for aliens visiting us.