Pseudoscience Section Rules New Moderation

And now a word about moderation.

Stryder;
Would it be possible to open a sticky thread that contains the deleted posts of those that are “spam, advertising messages, and problematic (harassment, fighting, or rude) posts.”?

This would help serve as a deterrent to those posters and also help to identify the real trouble makers that are continuously disrupting the threads.
 
This would only serve to offer a continued means of these idiots being able to get attention. Deleting that garbage without warning or acknowledgement works to get rid of them because they believe that noone will ever see their messages.

I say delete 'em and don't let anyone have to see it. Otherwise people like Chris Beacham and UFOTheatre will be here trying to sell CDs and videos.
 
Yes, I say delete the advertisers that don’t want to pay to advertise on this site. But I say expose those that disrupt the threads to public shame, and ban them if necessary, and the proof stays there for all to see.

Thread disrupters and the pseudo-debunkers need to be dealt with openly.

Stryder, just what the hell was that all about over the tactics thread? YOU started down those lines in the Crater Research thread, then ONE freakin post to close that tactics thread? Ok, what ever.
 
I closed the Tactics thread because it's just an extension to an already current thread (and the thread itself was suffering from what you were complaining about, alot of disrupters) Rather than trying to get everyone to act responsible, which wasn't going to work, the only option left was the threads closure.

If you feel that was the wrong thing for me to do, then state what the better option would have been. (As for The Craterchains, I only posted one Alien balloon thing, purely because you had entered the Mexican DoD thread with alot of ridicule for the balloon theory along with FieryIce. I just couldn't resist taking the balloon theory into the Crater thread :D, I meant no disrespect to your theory by it, but it was entertaining wasn't it?)
 
I am now starting to look at editing any posts that either:

  • Inflame counter responses through thoughtless personal attacks
  • Posts complaining about moderation injustices

I know full well that not all of you were too happy with myself getting the moderation position, your reasoning however I'm not 100% sure of, perhaps the little grey men that push "your" buttons are upset at me and my take on the whole kitten kaboodle.

(In fact I'll have to explain my theory eventually to show you why the UFO syndicate as we know it would be upset, and No guy's and gall's it's not saying it's all in the heads of the people that suffer from them, but it is a major conspiracy theory, so get to your grassy knolls before reading.)

I have decided to be "hardline" with my efforts to stomp out personal attacks, since alot of you have complained about the "softly softly approach".
I do not mean to cause any of you guys that are thinking about running off to different boards on the net to do so, as I have no personal grudges against any of you, and if I have caused you to grudge me in someway then I apologise, since it's not my intension (In fact creating personal grudges isn't even in my top 5 things to do before theres a riot list)
 
Heck Stryder, I have no problems with you being the moderator here. I think you are doing a bang up job so far. All things concidered.
 
I don't think he or it is doing a bang up job, all things considered.

I meant no disrespect to your theory by it, but it was entertaining wasn't it?
Click to expand...

That is an example of bias and prejudge right from day one of his/it's moderation.
LOL
:D
 
FieryIce,
You don't realise the difficulties in moderating a subject where you have either people exploiting the uneducated to further their bizarre crackpot theory and real people with real situations. Where some people tend to ridicule all too readily with baise based on the "fakers" and "deceivers".

It makes it difficult to work out what is suppose to be a reality to one, or just a delusional state cooked up to continue the forums "mayhem".

I'm sure from where you stand you believe that a task of moderation is easy since it would mean moderating all that appose you, however a moderators job/task isn't to moderate biasedly.

Although if you keep pushing at buttons your going to attempt to overthrow that perception.
 
Norval, don't bother. I've seen the output of both you and Fiery to know that you guys exist just to get people to create a rise you can quote somewhere.

However I know your beckoning for one so I'll respond with the manner you want.

What would be left of your post if you took all the nonsense out of it?
[Give you a hint, it's not a large amount of anything, and isn't really something at all. If you take alot of something away your left with just that.]

Quote to your hearts content.
 
Just bumping this up to inform everyone of a new rule change which has been created to assist with dealing with bloated threads, from now on I will be locking threads if they reach 20 Pages in size.

If anyone disagrees with this proposed action to deal with stale deadlock threads, make yourself known.
 
I'm having problems with the definition:

Pseudoscience is a forum dedicated to Theories and Science that currently aren't scientifically proven and untested.
Click to expand...

Consider wikipedia's definition of the scientific method:

The essential elements of the scientific method are iterations and recursions of the following four steps:

Characterization
Hypothesis (a theoretical, hypothetical explanation)
Prediction (logical deduction from the hypothesis)
Experiment (test of all of the above)

This can be called the hypothetico-deductive method. These activities do not describe all that scientists do (see below). The 4-step method described above is often used in education. Teachers using inquiry as a teaching method sometimes teach a slightly modified version of the scientific method in which "Question" is substituted for Observation.
Click to expand...

Now:
Characterization = currently not scientifically proven and untested = pseudoscience
Hypothesis = currently not scientifically proven and untested = pseudoscience.

Apparantly it's more complicated to distinguish between science and pseudo-science.

Perhaps this helps:

A pseudoscience is any body of knowledge purporting to be either both factual and scientific, or of an even higher standard of knowledge, but which fails to comply with scientific method.
Click to expand...

Like global warming for instance.
 
Well you could use some analogies, for instance Newtonian Law is Science since it has been tested and proven, and documented about by more than just Newton himself.

The same could be said for many other Scientists.

Pseudoscience would be a claim that someone makes thats not just purely untested but lacks an overall regard to current scientific consensus that has already been defined, like having an alternative theorum that doesn't have the evidence to withstand too much scrutiny.

One major example of pseudoscience is "perpetual motion" but it's still something people toy with for one reason or another. (For instance I had a theory which I was purely toying with to workout if it was possible and when proven not the question is raised "Why not?". It doesn't mean I would lead on to generate something that creates perpetual motion, however it does increase my understanding of the elements that are involved in what I previously preposed.)
 
How about simply requiring folks (including all incest cloned borgs) to apply whatever expertise or other talents they've got, so as to offer their input in a form that's giving more than it's taking.

In other words of wisdom; if you don't agree with the original topic at hand (as first posted), and you'd care to let others know how you feel, let us give at least two positive offerings for every negative bashing, whereas those positive considerations need not concur with the original post, but merely point out well proven facts and/or accepted logic (given references), and not as suppositions as based upon something NASA/Apollo that simply can't be substantiated. I believe this method would go a long ways towards figuring out what's what, and/or of at least what's possible, instead of continually defending ourselves by way of having to return the favor, or that of defending the "mainstream status quo" simply because it's going to get another warlord reelected, or perhaps NOT.

Lord Stryderunknown,
If I requested that certain comments by others be removed because they've added absolutely nothing to the intended quest for resolving the task at hand, as such would you comply?

Especially since there is nothing stopping a counter argument post of essentially the same title, whereas all sorts of hot and nasty flak can be asserted without limits.

I'd certainly not object to honest folks questioning my motives, nor questioning my ongoing research, that is as long as their objections and questions are founded upon something other than their prime directive.

By way of looking at what the typical likes of "SkinWalker" stipulating his objections to another honest effort by "craterchains (Norval", of SkinWalker stipulating "This would only serve to offer a continued means of these idiots being able to get attention" is proof-positive that once a borg always a bord applies to his more than obvious "prime directive" of sustaining the mainstream status quo at all cost, and without remorse.
 
The "idiots" to I was referring to included "spammers, advertisers," and "flamers." Beyond that, I found that post nonsensical at best, though it appears with mention of Borg and prime directive, you think you're in the "Science Fiction" forum.
 
Some of you would love to see your opposition disappear from a set ruling of deletion, however the problem with doing so is it doesn't actually stop people from making those posts in the first place.

I've mentioned previously my Attempted policy is this:
If you write a post that is disruptive, personal and unprofessional it's getting left within the thread, the reason it's left in the thread is because all those people that might view these threads in the future will see this juvenile behaviour and it will potentially follow a user throughout their internet life.

In doing this the suggestion is if your fair and refrain from harsh commentary and even as it has been mentioned before attempt to place forwards evidence for either pro or con, then your Internet persona can truly gain merit among people.

In short, What you write to day, can be seen tomorrow. If you act an ASS, then an ASS you'll be in not just the eyes of those you are posting in response to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top