Rules concerning what constitutes a personal attack are too vague

[Ophiolite]

Let's not get carried away there Bells . Why not simply include words that moderators have taken action against?

Scott, give it a rest. It's not the words that matter, it is the meaning and intent of the words.

This meaning and intent are not being addressed consistently. Why? The diverse nature of the moderators is an excuse. If the moderators discussed issues together more frequently; if there was a system of checks and counterchecks in place as there are on other fora; if a concerted effort was made to achieve consistency then we would be much closer to where you would like thing to be.

But the kumquats don't count, it's whose ass you shove them up and how far that matters.

 

[Bells]

Scott, give it a rest. It's not the words that matter, it is the meaning and intent of the words.

Give the man a prize!

Finally. Somebody gets it!

If the moderators discussed issues together more frequently; if there was a system of checks and counterchecks in place as there are on other fora; if a concerted effort was made to achieve consistency then we would be much closer to where you would like thing to be.

And you assume that does not happen?

You don't think we're trying to do that?

 

[sniffy]

But the kumquats don't count, it's whose ass you shove them up and how far that matters.

Ah. So oranges are not the only fruit......

 

[Ophiolite]

And you assume that does not happen?

I examine the evidence and reach a provisional conclusion. Based on the evidence it does not happen.

You don't think we're trying to do that?

You need to try harder.

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Problem: Human mods.

Seems like the "censure of language" would be achieved easily enough using software. Is that what is being requested? How do you censor for meaning and intent? If I said to Bells "I want to fuck you like an animal" some may take offence. Am I declaring a desire, or simply being facetious, or quoting a song lyric? How do you know?

 

[scott3x]

Let's not get carried away there Bells . Why not simply include words that moderators have taken action against?

Scott, give it a rest. It's not the words that matter, it is the meaning and intent of the words.

Granted. However, some words are generally used for insults, which is why even the forum rules post has 6 examples of such words. The forum rules mentions that profanities shouldn't be used but does not provide a list of such, even in a link; I don't think it would be that hard to do so. Another possibility is that when a post is deleted due to being a personal attack, the post in question be placed in a forum of examples, so others can take a look at past precedents. In essence, I'm asking for a system that basically works like our courts do, so people who really care about such things can study up.

This meaning and intent are not being addressed consistently. Why? The diverse nature of the moderators is an excuse. If the moderators discussed issues together more frequently; if there was a system of checks and counterchecks in place as there are on other fora

The forum I mention to see censored posts could be a moderator only thing. I think it would be better if normal members could see it as well, but something is better than nothing. In terms of checks and counterchecks that you say are in other fora, can you specify?

if a concerted effort was made to achieve consistency then we would be much closer to where you would like thing to be.

But the kumquats don't count, it's whose ass you shove them up and how far that matters.

I agree with you; I simply feel that the biggest problem is that there is no reference material on past incidents; instead of saving them as precedents, they're simply deleted. And while it's certainly realistic to say that moderators should learn how to be consistent, the opposite side of the equation bears mention: the members themselves. If the posts with insults are deleted, many members are left in the dark as to what, exactly, all the fuss was about... and unless they read the post before it was deleted and have begun to see patterns on what terms are deleted, they may remain in the dark as to what's ok and what's not.

 

[Randwolf]

Another possibility is that when a post is deleted due to being a personal attack, the post in question be placed in a forum of examples, so others can take a look at past precedents.

This idea may actually have merit. Kind of a "common law" approach.

If nothing else, a locked thread full of this type of posts would certainly be entertaining.

 

[scott3x]

Originally Posted by scott3x

Another possibility is that when a post is deleted due to being a personal attack, the post in question be placed in a forum of examples, so others can take a look at past precedents.

This idea may actually have merit. Kind of a "common law" approach.

If nothing else, a locked thread full of this type of posts would certainly be entertaining.

I was thinking the same thing but didn't want to mention it because then someone might say that some would right personal attacks just to have their posts in said thread. To avoid this type of thing, enough personal attacks would have to result in someone getting into the ban cycle, or else I could indeed see this happening. It might happen even then but the person doing it would have their days numbered...

 

[scott3x]

Problem: Human mods.

Seems like the "censure of language" would be achieved easily enough using software. Is that what is being requested?

No.

How do you censor for meaning and intent?

This is why this is not what's being requested.

 

[Oli]

Originally Posted by scott3x
Another possibility is that when a post is deleted due to being a personal attack, the post in question be placed in a forum of examples, so others can take a look at past precedents.

This idea may actually have merit. Kind of a "common law" approach.
If nothing else, a locked thread full of this type of posts would certainly be entertaining.

And an excellent reference source when one is stumped for a mot juste, plus it would confer the ability to avoid tedious repetition, thus possibly improving the quality of *cough* friendly banter.

 

[scott3x]

And an excellent reference source when one is stumped for a mot juste, plus it would confer the ability to avoid tedious repetition, thus possibly improving the quality of *cough* friendly banter.

Agreed. *cough* indeed, laugh ;-).

 

[Prisme]

That's not the issue at all. What you're REALLY crying about more than anything else is being called an idiot. Here's a suggestion for you: Stop acting like a mindless idiot and people will stop calling you an idiot.

In the real world, Scott, people are likely to call it - and you! - as they see it. And when the shoe fits, you've no choice but to wear it. So you shouldn't act so surprised when they tag you with labels that fit your displayed personality and obvious lack of mental abilities.

This is a poor argument/comment on many levels:

1- You ignore the fact that people may be wrong in their assessment of calling someone else an idiot
2- "People call it as they see it" is in no way a guarantee that people "call it correctly" or in an appropriate way.
3- The crux of what you are saying is essentially a long winded insult backed by popular "truths" we would most likely hear on Dr Phil...

Why do the moderators not address comments which do not use inappropriate language but are clearly meant to be offensive and seek to escalate the vitriol?

 

[Syne]

Some serious thread necromancy there.

 

[Read-Only]

This is a poor argument/comment on many levels:

1- You ignore the fact that people may be wrong in their assessment of calling someone else an idiot
2- "People call it as they see it" is in no way a guarantee that people "call it correctly" or in an appropriate way.
3- The crux of what you are saying is essentially a long winded insult backed by popular "truths" we would most likely hear on Dr Phil...

Why do the moderators not address comments which do not use inappropriate language but are clearly meant to be offensive and seek to escalate the vitriol?

Not in the least. And I *detest* Dr. Phil!

Perhaps you didn't notice that Scott has been banned. Way to go, troll!

 

[Read-Only]

Some serious thread necromancy there.

Indeed! He had to reach WAY back to get this one! Heh-heh-heh!

 

[Trapped]

There is a lot of blatant trolling, hijacking of threads and a lot of insinuations that get thrown about here. I wonder if any of the mods actually plan sometime in the near future to ban the real troublemakers.

 

[paddoboy]

There is a lot of blatant trolling, hijacking of threads and a lot of insinuations that get thrown about here. I wonder if any of the mods actually plan sometime in the near future to ban the real troublemakers.

This forum in the first instant is a science forum, to discuss mainstream science, and hypotheticals.
The hypotheticals, any pseudoscience, alternative ideas, and conspiracy theories, to have any acceptance, need to run the gauntlet so to speak, and stand up to all scrutiny.
That should be expected.

 

[Trapped]

This forum in the first instant is a science forum, to discuss mainstream science, and hypotheticals.
The hypotheticals, any pseudoscience, alternative ideas, and conspiracy theories, to have any acceptance, need to run the gauntlet so to speak, and stand up to all scrutiny.
That should be expected.

That's ok paddy, I understand this. I was talking about a recent altercation in the physics subforum, in which read-only made plenty accusations about... my education. Then calling me a ''kid.'' I find that derogatory.

Not to mention, getting more than a two lined sentence from him just explaining what objections he has about something is a near impossible task. He just states an objection, says that isn't what science thinks and then trolls the thread by trying to make me look bad. I know my physics and he had no clue what he was talking about.

One such example, telling me that there was free space everywhere. I continually told him that quantum mechanics doesn't treat spacetime as a pure vacuum, there is always some matter and some blackbody radiation in some area of the vacuum. He then went on to twist my words and make it out I was saying ''energy takes up space'' ... just totally trolling. He either knows exactly what I was saying and was trolling and hijacking my thread, or he had no clue, in which case that is probably worse than trolling since he is trying to talk about subjects as someone experienced in it.

He does claim to have worked in radio work, but I couldn't care less. This has no impact on the fact he had his physics all wrong and he was relentlessly trolling because of it.

 

[Stryder]

Science isn't emotion, Science is empirical evidence collect through a lot of hard work over time by many different Scientists worldwide.

When scientists communicate with each other, sometimes it's without any emotional connection, not so much a "how was your day?" but more specific communications in regards to whatever details or criteria is their field of research. (They can of course have the niceties too, but that's more about respect for people in their field.)

If a scientist falls to some emotional retort, it implies they'd be high strung and difficult to work with, it might even suggest they wouldn't be able to concentrate on fairly weighing the facts and viewing their research with an unbiased perspective (They could be prone to being deluded).

So it's possible that a few might throw the occasional derogative to see if a person is thrown off balance and responds purely out of emotion rather than acting guarded with intellect.

This is also the reason why you'll see the term "Troll" stated at people that act erratic and highly emotional, it especially gets used when the person called troll writes posts that are all about their feelings, their hurt and why they aren't happy about how they've been singled out. The reason for this of course is the subject that was initially being discussed wasn't actually the important thing but the persons own need to be Right and acknowledged for something by their peers, when it doesn't go to plan it becomes an emotional response, rather than a re-examining of what their perspective actually was. (It's very difficult for anyone to admit to themselves when they are wrong, but sometimes you have to do it, after all... Nobody is infallible.)

 

[Trapped]

Science isn't emotion, Science is empirical evidence collect through a lot of hard work over time by many different Scientists worldwide.

When scientists communicate with each other, sometimes it's without any emotional connection, not so much a "how was your day?" but more specific communications in regards to whatever details or criteria is their field of research. (They can of course have the niceties too, but that's more about respect for people in their field.)

If a scientist falls to some emotional retort, it implies they'd be high strung and difficult to work with, it might even suggest they wouldn't be able to concentrate on fairly weighing the facts and viewing their research with an unbiased perspective (They could be prone to being deluded).

So it's possible that a few might throw the occasional derogative to see if a person is thrown off balance and responds purely out of emotion rather than acting guarded with intellect.

This is also the reason why you'll see the term "Troll" stated at people that act erratic and highly emotional, it especially gets used when the person called troll writes posts that are all about their feelings, their hurt and why they aren't happy about how they've been singled out. The reason for this of course is the subject that was initially being discussed wasn't actually the important thing but the persons own need to be Right and acknowledged for something by their peers, when it doesn't go to plan it becomes an emotional response, rather than a re-examining of what their perspective actually was. (It's very difficult for anyone to admit to themselves when they are wrong, but sometimes you have to do it, after all... Nobody is infallible.)

I've met someone here, no names mentioned now, that have not ever admitted their mistakes here. In fact, the mistake was pointed out by myself and another poster, yet the accused poster just continued believing they were right. Even though we gave them citations, the lot. This same person came into a thread of mine the other day and started talking about ''the equation I made'' and how wrong it was and that it was best I left the site.

Let alone none of that was true, he was the one who made the mistake, these little things get posted all the time in the forums and the mods have done nothing to rectify the misinformation and propaganda. So I think often ''troll'' suits.