Status of sciforums
- Thread starter Tyler
- Start date
I've been here just a couple of weeks (with only the one ID) but have to agree that so many of the threads seem to get diverted.
Which of course is fine if there still remain one or two places where you can be reasonably confident of entering into a serious discussion.
But I'm finding someone tries to take the thread elsewhere, the originator or a concerned bod tries to get it back on track by restating the point a bit more forcibly and then the whole thing degenerates into a slanging fest.
I don't see the point of this, ESPECIALLY if it's being done anonymously or under (multiple) aliases. Simply saying 'You are wrong and I am right' isn't very forward-thinking and makes not for good debate IMHO. And why slag someone off if that someone has no idea who is doing the slagging and why? Just becomes like a rock thrown from a crowd.
To me, if these discussions end each time with a verbal head to head then aren't we showing just how far down the evolutionary road we still must travel? We sound like politicians!
I came here to listen, learn AND speak. In that order
Which of course is fine if there still remain one or two places where you can be reasonably confident of entering into a serious discussion.
But I'm finding someone tries to take the thread elsewhere, the originator or a concerned bod tries to get it back on track by restating the point a bit more forcibly and then the whole thing degenerates into a slanging fest.
I don't see the point of this, ESPECIALLY if it's being done anonymously or under (multiple) aliases. Simply saying 'You are wrong and I am right' isn't very forward-thinking and makes not for good debate IMHO. And why slag someone off if that someone has no idea who is doing the slagging and why? Just becomes like a rock thrown from a crowd.
To me, if these discussions end each time with a verbal head to head then aren't we showing just how far down the evolutionary road we still must travel? We sound like politicians!
I came here to listen, learn AND speak. In that order
Two days after this thread started. It obviously didn't take long. That new djckbaby is here and just being an idiotic ass.
Edit to add: I've decided we need a new submoderator. Someone besides Dave given (by Dave, obviously) the power to ban a member's IP address. It's apparent that Dave does not have the time to deal with as many problems as surface and sciforums continues to deal with problem cases such as the second dickbaby.
Edit to add: I've decided we need a new submoderator. Someone besides Dave given (by Dave, obviously) the power to ban a member's IP address. It's apparent that Dave does not have the time to deal with as many problems as surface and sciforums continues to deal with problem cases such as the second dickbaby.
Good idea. How about me. I've been here for a while (though not on this login) And have a knack for finding assholes (as I can be one myself) Not to mention I have the meanstreak to deal with people.
I've come to this thread late, but I have a few points-
To start off, 'Unregistered'- are you kidding yourself? Here we are talking about multiple identites, and you've gone through 3 in the past week alone. Besides which, you haven't been here long enough- and you know I know.
That said, more buerocracy and control will not stop the situation. The only thing that can try to stop the situation is real action on the part of the moderators.
This means, basically:
1. All forums must have a moderator, or at least if there is a problem there.
2. Inactive moderators must be replaced with new, willing ones.
3. There must be a standard in how we all approach situations- this means regular correspondance between all of the moderators. However, I think this already exists.
I've been visiting this site, in one form or another, since it was exoosci.com. And I can say honestly I visited exosci quite a bit- I was a kid obsessed with what could be out there, and still am. From the outside, I saw the site transform into what it is now, but have only been a member for one year, about. (Under the original username 'piffi'.)
Point being, I have seen this site as a literal utopia, and now as a chatty place. It doesn't matter that people have become abrasive, but only that there are more people to say things, and the atmosphere is much less naked than it was before. There are so many people to service each type of person that we've made ghettos that strectch across all sides of the spectrum. true 'Sciforumers' are only on one side. This is just inevitable, guys! The more members, the more intelligent ones, and also the more idiotic ones.
Let the idiots have their games. We have all played them before, me mainly with all my fawning over the 'Crap WILL be Tolerated' thread, doting on it as if it was some work of beautiful rebellion. But against myself? Every post we make in response to a troll, an attention-graber, or a raging egotist is denying our own oppurtunity to post somewhere better. So, if we all don't have lives this summer (and I don't!), we should try to get them, and not wate our time on sciforums. Instead, we should make good use of it.
I will offer one link to a well-moderated forum, the Poetry Free for All, of which I am a member of- Right Here. They have actually spun off a siste site for crap posters, and it is like a sponge. I believe avatar is a member there as well. I will admit, I did some troling there (or rather I just didn't know my place) and was quickly 'dismemebered' (Please forgive the pun.) This is what we should do to the people that just don't get it.
And, if it is determined we need a submoderator, I would nominate wet1, by far the most dedicated member scifourms has.
Thanks for letting me vent,
Jon
To start off, 'Unregistered'- are you kidding yourself? Here we are talking about multiple identites, and you've gone through 3 in the past week alone. Besides which, you haven't been here long enough- and you know I know.
That said, more buerocracy and control will not stop the situation. The only thing that can try to stop the situation is real action on the part of the moderators.
This means, basically:
1. All forums must have a moderator, or at least if there is a problem there.
2. Inactive moderators must be replaced with new, willing ones.
3. There must be a standard in how we all approach situations- this means regular correspondance between all of the moderators. However, I think this already exists.
I've been visiting this site, in one form or another, since it was exoosci.com. And I can say honestly I visited exosci quite a bit- I was a kid obsessed with what could be out there, and still am. From the outside, I saw the site transform into what it is now, but have only been a member for one year, about. (Under the original username 'piffi'.)
Point being, I have seen this site as a literal utopia, and now as a chatty place. It doesn't matter that people have become abrasive, but only that there are more people to say things, and the atmosphere is much less naked than it was before. There are so many people to service each type of person that we've made ghettos that strectch across all sides of the spectrum. true 'Sciforumers' are only on one side. This is just inevitable, guys! The more members, the more intelligent ones, and also the more idiotic ones.
Let the idiots have their games. We have all played them before, me mainly with all my fawning over the 'Crap WILL be Tolerated' thread, doting on it as if it was some work of beautiful rebellion. But against myself? Every post we make in response to a troll, an attention-graber, or a raging egotist is denying our own oppurtunity to post somewhere better. So, if we all don't have lives this summer (and I don't!), we should try to get them, and not wate our time on sciforums. Instead, we should make good use of it.
I will offer one link to a well-moderated forum, the Poetry Free for All, of which I am a member of- Right Here. They have actually spun off a siste site for crap posters, and it is like a sponge. I believe avatar is a member there as well. I will admit, I did some troling there (or rather I just didn't know my place) and was quickly 'dismemebered' (Please forgive the pun.) This is what we should do to the people that just don't get it.
And, if it is determined we need a submoderator, I would nominate wet1, by far the most dedicated member scifourms has.
Thanks for letting me vent,
Jon
nroweatherman
Registered Senior Member
guys doesn't knows greatness when he sees it
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[ Get rid of the old SCI-LIFE -- ]]]]]]]]]]]]]]
[[[[[[[[[[ [[[[[[ [[[[[[[ ]]]]]]]]]]]]] ]]]]
[[[[[[[[[[ & get a new life ]]]]]]]]]]]]]] ppplease dddo mmme aa fffavor && rereread ththis ththread]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]
Originally posted by Congrats
I've come to this thread late, but I have a few points-
This means, basically:
1. All forums must have at least a problem.
2. Active moderators must be replaced with new, unwilling ones.
3. There must be a standard, However, I think this already exists.
I've been visiting this site, in one form or another since I was a kid obsessed with an original user.
Point being, I have seen a chatty place. It doesn't matter that people have become more naked than before. There are so many people that we've made ghettos. true 'Sciforumers' This is just inevitable! The intelligent idiotic ones.
Let the idiots have their lives this summer and we should try to get them.
I am a crap poster. I believe avatar is as well. I admit, I did some troling or rather I just didn't know what to do.
And we need a moderator, I would nominate me, Jon
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[ Get rid of the old SCI-LIFE -- ]]]]]]]]]]]]]]
[[[[[[[[[[ [[[[[[ [[[[[[[ ]]]]]]]]]]]]] ]]]]
[[[[[[[[[[ & get a new life ]]]]]]]]]]]]]] ppplease dddo mmme aa fffavor && rereread ththis ththread]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]
Last edited:
nroweatherman
Registered Senior Member
crap in _______out
Its OK I am not at all hurt you erased me. Just a little joking can lift your spirits. Its your website. put me in a ghetto - I'm an intelligent idiot.
Do whatever you must for the peace of mind of all concerned.
Its OK I am not at all hurt you erased me. Just a little joking can lift your spirits. Its your website. put me in a ghetto - I'm an intelligent idiot.
Do whatever you must for the peace of mind of all concerned.
Last edited:
I like a bs thread probably as much as the next member does.
I do have to agree with Banshee that your post has no merits, nroweatherman, and is a fair example in part of what this thread is about. However it is Free Thoughts and as such I would not take it out. (It should be qualified to say, " in Free Thoughts")
As has been mentioned before in the thread it serves no purpose to be a nazi moderator. Neither the members of the site nor the readers gain purpose from the post though.
I know you are capable of better...
I do have to agree with Banshee that your post has no merits, nroweatherman, and is a fair example in part of what this thread is about. However it is Free Thoughts and as such I would not take it out. (It should be qualified to say, " in Free Thoughts")
As has been mentioned before in the thread it serves no purpose to be a nazi moderator. Neither the members of the site nor the readers gain purpose from the post though.
I know you are capable of better...
Memories
The first banning of a user that I was aware of occurred for offenses far less than the average daily output from Sciforums' users. Cris, Oxygen, and a few of our other posters (Ilgwamh, perhaps?) might recall this debate, a discussion in the wake of a user ban.
At that time, the TOA was a paragraph, somewhat specific, like you see on many other sites. Since then it has been reduced to a very short statement. Why? Because the influx of users to Exosci/Sciforums did not seem to care much for the TOA. Rather than running to our moderators every time, we often tried (note the word tried does not mean we accomplished) to resolve the issues 'twixt ourselves.
One particular poster, though, that gets to go nameless for the time being, set me in a foul mood by essentially lowering the standards of debate; strangely, many of his brethren in faith came to his aid, and while none would directly say, "He's right", many would defend him when he was obviously off his nut.
That growing battle eventually ended badly, with the introduction of political cartoons to the argumentative method. As Porfiry noted, such a tactic was well beyond the bounds of taste or acceptability. But when I look at some of the fights we've been having amongst ourselves, and considering the registry dates of some who are raising the present issues, well, quite frankly, some of us felt that way a long time ago. Our topic poster, Tyler, for instance: I hear you, man. It's what I said last autumn, during the summer before that, the spring before that .... It's been a downward slide for quite a while, but that's only within the more opinionated forums. I can't speak for the more objective, scientific discussions.
But essentially, that original offense which I referred to at the beginning of the topic, just for reference, was to post seemingly irrelevant quotes from the Bible while offering no commentary whatsoever. There was some discussion of more inflammatory posts, but I never saw them. But it's just a trip down memory lane.
Read through the religion archives in general. Compare the fights we had then to the fights we have now. There's 3+ years of history to be amused, confused, dazzled, or bored senseless by.
Consider, for instance, my running exchange with Adam: we probably don't disagree on nearly as much as it seems. That's one of the tragedies of it. The bigger disagreement, for me, is the simple fact that I've put up with posters who do such things as we've fought about for a long time. It used to be every once in a while, but since shortly after the arrival of that unnamed poster in the early part of 2001, it's pretty much been the growing standard.
And before that unnamed poster, I had my scuffles; but they weren't nearly so frequent. There's been a fight going on here for so long that our newest posters might possibly think that's the intended tone.
How many people remember the days of banner ads at Exosci? I used to wonder what the advertisers thought if they ever went out to see where their ad landed. In the beginning, perhaps we looked like a viable, intelligent, growing market. But by the time Sciforums dropped its ads, I would not have advertised at the site because it would have been too much a gamble to say that the market was viable.
The other day I got away with saying that the Creationists were trying to revoke the scientific method. Such a stance used to warrant pages of debate in which Christian-advocates would try to demonstrate that the science was the religion of the anti-Christians, or that Creationism was, in fact, a better science than any other.
And for those of you who might ask me for examples? Not at present; there are a couple of posters who have been here long enough to consider the sequence of events I've proposed, and I'm sure they'll tell me if they disagree. To the other, I'm not out to start a war today.
two cents or so,
Tiassa
The first banning of a user that I was aware of occurred for offenses far less than the average daily output from Sciforums' users. Cris, Oxygen, and a few of our other posters (Ilgwamh, perhaps?) might recall this debate, a discussion in the wake of a user ban.
At that time, the TOA was a paragraph, somewhat specific, like you see on many other sites. Since then it has been reduced to a very short statement. Why? Because the influx of users to Exosci/Sciforums did not seem to care much for the TOA. Rather than running to our moderators every time, we often tried (note the word tried does not mean we accomplished) to resolve the issues 'twixt ourselves.
One particular poster, though, that gets to go nameless for the time being, set me in a foul mood by essentially lowering the standards of debate; strangely, many of his brethren in faith came to his aid, and while none would directly say, "He's right", many would defend him when he was obviously off his nut.
That growing battle eventually ended badly, with the introduction of political cartoons to the argumentative method. As Porfiry noted, such a tactic was well beyond the bounds of taste or acceptability. But when I look at some of the fights we've been having amongst ourselves, and considering the registry dates of some who are raising the present issues, well, quite frankly, some of us felt that way a long time ago. Our topic poster, Tyler, for instance: I hear you, man. It's what I said last autumn, during the summer before that, the spring before that .... It's been a downward slide for quite a while, but that's only within the more opinionated forums. I can't speak for the more objective, scientific discussions.
But essentially, that original offense which I referred to at the beginning of the topic, just for reference, was to post seemingly irrelevant quotes from the Bible while offering no commentary whatsoever. There was some discussion of more inflammatory posts, but I never saw them. But it's just a trip down memory lane.
Read through the religion archives in general. Compare the fights we had then to the fights we have now. There's 3+ years of history to be amused, confused, dazzled, or bored senseless by.
Consider, for instance, my running exchange with Adam: we probably don't disagree on nearly as much as it seems. That's one of the tragedies of it. The bigger disagreement, for me, is the simple fact that I've put up with posters who do such things as we've fought about for a long time. It used to be every once in a while, but since shortly after the arrival of that unnamed poster in the early part of 2001, it's pretty much been the growing standard.
And before that unnamed poster, I had my scuffles; but they weren't nearly so frequent. There's been a fight going on here for so long that our newest posters might possibly think that's the intended tone.
How many people remember the days of banner ads at Exosci? I used to wonder what the advertisers thought if they ever went out to see where their ad landed. In the beginning, perhaps we looked like a viable, intelligent, growing market. But by the time Sciforums dropped its ads, I would not have advertised at the site because it would have been too much a gamble to say that the market was viable.
The other day I got away with saying that the Creationists were trying to revoke the scientific method. Such a stance used to warrant pages of debate in which Christian-advocates would try to demonstrate that the science was the religion of the anti-Christians, or that Creationism was, in fact, a better science than any other.
And for those of you who might ask me for examples? Not at present; there are a couple of posters who have been here long enough to consider the sequence of events I've proposed, and I'm sure they'll tell me if they disagree. To the other, I'm not out to start a war today.
two cents or so,
Tiassa
i have read the first post and a couple others... enough to know that i fall firmly into the shitty category. The only justifications i would use; when i first began posting i didn't concern myself with categories, it was all open discussion to me (apologies there). And chat lines are too fast too, cut-throat and blatant unintellectual banter. This (chat perspective), is on a 24 hour turn around(where possible) which allows one to learn and/or gather supporting evidence in their favour.
SciForums appealed to me because of it's members, the subject matter and informed debates. There are a lot of educated and informed people out there, i'm just glad i found a good cross section here on one site.
I'M here to learn, and post stupid questions that seem to me, logical conclusions drawn from a scattered aray of pre-existing actuallities in various fields. None of which, may or may not, have any relation to each other. Hence the question. In saying that, i have learnt more here in three weeks than i have, without internet, in three years. Thank you.
SciForums appealed to me because of it's members, the subject matter and informed debates. There are a lot of educated and informed people out there, i'm just glad i found a good cross section here on one site.
I'M here to learn, and post stupid questions that seem to me, logical conclusions drawn from a scattered aray of pre-existing actuallities in various fields. None of which, may or may not, have any relation to each other. Hence the question. In saying that, i have learnt more here in three weeks than i have, without internet, in three years. Thank you.
nroweatherman
Registered Senior Member
You unmasked me
yes I'm Howard Stern.
yes I'm Howard Stern.