The most absurd moderation in Sci history
- Thread starter Norsefire
- Start date
heh, exactly! though i'm much handsomer (and thinner), but i've got the schnoz, the hair, and (vastly more stylish) specs.
For those of you just tuning in, please know and note that the above post is not an actual white-supremacist huzzah. For those readers already familiar with people from Sardonia... never mind.
Bells
Staff member
I asked him to present something to substantiate his claim. He refused. He even went so far as to tell me that history doesn't have to be correct. But just so long as that is what he believes.
You are asking me to buy that? Why?
Yes. I stand by the fact that I asked someone to substantiate their claims. That makes me a bad person in your book? Fine. I can live with that.
Which would be what? To expect that people be able to provide even a minute amount of proof to support their claims? The horror! We should be banished to the depths of hell for expecting that!
Here is the thing, I asked him for proof to discuss it with him. He refused. Because hey, history doesn't have to be right. You just need to believe in it.
Ah gee Sam.. What was the end result of the war? Apparently they brought it all upon themselves for being Jewish in Europe and apparently controlling the world banks and somehow creating the conditions that forced Hitler to try to wipe them out.. Hmm.. nooo.. not anti semitic at all there.
Poor Hitler. Such a maligned fellow when he really was a loveable little rogue. He didn't mean to order the destruction of all Jews. So we'll just blame it on the Jews because well, they're Jews..
It's always easy to blame the victim than to blame those truly guilty of the crime. If we were to take your view, does that mean the Palestinians are bringing about their own conditions for voting for Hamas for example? What about the rockets being fired into Israel? Is it as true for them?
Why not?
You see, if you felt I was truly in the wrong.. that I had acted so fundamentally badly in banning Norse as I did and setting the conditions that I did, then you should report me.
Fine.
Again, I can live with how you feel. And if you feel that way, then please, report me. Seek a review from the owners of this site.
As for directing the debate. Pray tell, how did I do that? I asked him to provide proof of his claims. Can I point you to this:
C. Stating Opinions
If you have an opinion, back it up with evidence, a valid argument and even links and references if possible.
(From our Rules)
If you have an opinion, back it up with evidence, a valid argument and even links and references if possible.
(From our Rules)
So how was I abusing my power by requesting evidence? Do you think the rules themselves are unethical?
Are you telling me you never once requested evidence when you moderated Biology? So if someone goes into the biology forum and says that they do not believe in evolution and persists in stating that the bible is correct in how man was 'created', you would accept that at face value? Yes? No? I think it can be fair to say that at least I gave him the chance to substantiate his views and opinion so that it could be discussed.
Do you believe that asking him for evidence of his claims instead of banning him outright was stifling debate? That's interesting. Should I have taken a page from your book and simply deleted it completely because I found it went against the grain?
I'm sorry. Next time I'll be sure to treat him like he's stupid and not have the expectation that he could or should back up his claims.
Tell me, did follow this rule when you deleted and issued warnings, without even asking for some evidence to support his claims, nor providing any evidence, to Nutter, about his opinions about creationism, as one example? Was deleting his opinion completely and warning him a good scientific tactic? Yes? No?
Indeed.
So scientists just delete and warn off anyone who disagrees with them? Like you perhaps?
I mean, you've worked in science. Do you simply delete any opinion that goes against the grain in science? Yes? No? I mean poor Nutter didn't even get a request from you to back up his claims. You did him in for "Trolling / Meaningless Post Content" and deleted his post completely.
Unlike you, I gave him the opportunity to back up his claims. He refused. And as per the rules, I was acting well within my powers to ban him.
:: Edit to add your edit ::
You might want to apologise to Nutter then.
And opinion has no part in it? So Norse, in stating his opinion that he felt Jews were responsible for both world wars... I shouldn't have requested evidnece of his claims? Yes? No? Or should I respect it as an opinion.. but then you say "opinion has no part in it".. Which kind of goes against what you have been demaning here.
I asked him for evidence and we could have discussed the issue. He refused. In your world of what science is supposed to be like, his opinion shouldn't have even been part of the debate.. I guess had he posted his opinion in Biology when you were moderating, you'd have just deleted it.. But wait.. that would be stifling debate, correct? Or no? Maybe? Care to make up your mind? You have virtually claimed in this thread that it was wrong of me to demand he provides evidence for his opinion. And now you say that "opinion has no part in it"?
My my.. Now, do you think my asking him to back up his claims is unscientific? If yes, how so? Do scientists take everything simply at face value without trying to determine or ask for evidence? So lets say you are a scientists and someone walks up to you and says that 'gays are responsible for AIDS'. You would what? Accept it? Ask for evidence? Tell him to fuck off? Do you understand what I am saying here Sam?
Last edited:
The first thing I did when I started modding Biology was to elaborate the rules of moderation. They were not arbitrary or based on personal or subjective standards. I believe Hercules has [mostly] retained them so feel free to glance through them
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=89335
wrt Nutter: he was talking about religion. Religion, strangely enough, is not biology. I have never banned anyone for expressing an opinion, not in Biology, nor in Science and Society. Not even an unscientific one. And definitely not because they could not produce evidence on demand within a time frame. I cannot believe its not obvious how ridiculous that is.
Last edited:
Bells
Staff member
Ah, but the thread was about the denial of evolution. One could easily argue that his claim that creationism was non-religious was on topic.. So why did you simply delete his post and warn him for trolling? Why didn't you do as you are demanding of me and let him have his say and provide evidence to support your side? You didn't even request he support his claim but just deleted? You not only controlled the direction of that thread and took sides, but you deleted any post you did not agree with and issued warnings (red cards mind you) for anyone who posted with something that went against the grain.. ie.. posted something religions about evolution in an evolution denial thread.
So please, do not now come and tell me that I am an unethical moderator for asking a member to substantiate his claims or face a temporary ban from this site.
And as for Herc, he is a brilliant moderator. I am surprised you are not calling him unethical for acting within the rules.. Especially this:
Similar to the rules of this forum as a whole really.. Provide evidence to support your claims. Which is exactly what I requested from Norse and which he refused.
Sorry I made it very clear that in Biology I was biased towards the scientific method. Note that I merely told him not to post solely about religion [I believe he and Saquist were two of the easiest people to speak to regarding stuff like this]. The Denial of Evolution thread on the other hand is filled with creationist arguments and refutations thereof. Unless you hear an argument from the other side how can you refute it? How is silencing a view you don't like conducive to debate?
When he starts a 24 hour clock and demands evidence or threatens to ban, believe me, I will tell him about it.
A suggestion to provide evidence is very different from a threat and ban after a demand for it.
When he starts a 24 hour clock and demands evidence or threatens to ban, believe me, I will tell him about it.
A suggestion to provide evidence is very different from a threat and ban after a demand for it.
Last edited:
Bells
Staff member
So you made it clear that you were biased to one particular side?
That side being "the scientific method"?
Righteo..
So you'd already taken sides before you'd even begun?
You mean you took sides and did not even give him the chance to substantiate his claims? You deleted without asking for any evidence? And you're accusing me of what again?
I see. So you deleted Nutter's posts, for example, which was of a creationist nature, because of why? Oh yes, you believed that his version of creationism was too religious? So you directed the discussion and took control over where it went? You decided what was and was not allowed in that thread?
In other words, you moderated?
I silenced him by asking him to provide evidence, which he refused? I gave him 12 hours to provide proof. He openly refused to do so. You? You deleted and issued warnings without even letting Nutter have his say or give his view or even give him the chance to substantiate his argument.
Glass houses Sam. Don't throw stones when you live in one.
Well at least I gave him that. At least I gave him the chance to actually substantiate his view. I wonder.. Would you have been supportive if I had simply deleted his posts, red carded him for trolling and meaningless content?
I mean, should I take a page out of your book and do that? Just delete everything I don't agree with and call it the scientific method? Or should I give people the chance to substantiate their claims?
Yes, I was under the illusion that this was a science forum. However, I was swiftly disillusioned of that fact when I realised that political opinion and religion holds greater sway at sciforums than the scientific method.
It wasn't. It had nothing to do with evolution or creationism. In that thread which was started for the express purpose of debating denial of evolution, I initially deleted all rubbish pointless posts to start as I meant to go on. The idea was to provide a platform for discussion of both sides of the issue, not inane trolling. After a few pages, I simply let the posters take over.
If you cannot see the difference between requesting evidence and demanding it, then banning the person after putting him on a time frame, this discussion is pointless
Bells
Staff member
I'm sorry, but aren't you the one who complained that theists were treated unfairly on this forum because it held greater sway over the scientific method than the beliefs of theists?
So... You're saying that you decided what was rubbish and what was not? You actually deleted posts because you thought they were rubbish? And you saw their posts as inane trolling? You mean in your opinion, their posts were rubbish and pointless and inane trolling? And you didn't even give them a chance to substantiate or provide evidence? So much for:
Sam said:
Enough said really.
Bells
Staff member
Do you realise that its not your position to give him a chance to substantiate his view under threat of ban? Do you realise that this is a discussion forum where people are allowed to express their opinions, right or wrong?
The right thing to do woud be to request evidence as I did of you and James, neither of whom presented arguments but gave general links and suggested I look for myself [at least you did, James merely made snarky allegations about my antisemitism]. By your system, I should have demanded your repsonse on a clock and banned you if you did not comply.
How stupid is that? What would it accomplish? What I did was accept that both of you were unwilling to refute Norse with evidence for whatever reasons. And stated that all of you had failed to provide any evidence for your views. Thats all that is required here.
No. I never said anything even remotely like that.
Bells
Staff member
Hmm..Sam said:
Interesting..
As I said, at least I gave him the chance to provide evidence within a particular time frame and I stand by that decision. At least I did not simply delete because I disagreed with it... Which is effectively what you did when you moderated. So really.. Again.. that little thing about glass houses..
If you think that I was being unethical in my actions of asking he substantiate his claims and then banned him when he refused, then please, for the love of all that is holy, report me. Otherwise, this really is pointless.
Bells
Staff member
Err yes.
We discuss what goes on in all of the forums. There is no "watch list".
Maybe I should have made my position like yours. Just delete it because I disagreed with it.Sam said:
I acted within my powers, just as you did when you moderated. He was not afraid to discuss or express his opinion. He repeated it enough times in this thread and in the other. I, unlike you, gave him the chance to substantiate his opinion. He refused.
Had he provided evidence, I would not have banned him. He refused point blank. I gave him more than 12 hours. Quite a bit more actually. He refused.
By your system, he wouldn't have even gotten that far. By your system, I'd have deleted his post and warned him and/or banned him for trolling and meaningless content.
Do you understand now?
I acted well within the rules, just as you did when you went on mass clean up's in Biology and deleted anything you found went against the scientific method.
How stupid is it to simply just delete what you don't agree with? What does that accomplish?
I mean, why are we even here? Why did you moderate as you did? What did it accomplish?
You're telling me that you've never once complained that theists got the raw end of the stick in this forum because of their religious beliefs?
Bells
Staff member
And you are free to do that.
Now if I was as you say, I'd have banned you long ago, for daring to question me, because you know, as an unethical moderator and a bullying one at that.. that is what I would have done. And you get that. Next time I'll be sure to be a good moderator and simply delete anything I disagree with or that I feel does not belong there or that I feel just goes against the grain....
If you feel that I am bullying and unethical, then please, report me directly to Plazma. He will look and decide whether my requesting evidence and banning Norse when he refused to provide such evidence amounted to bullying.
I did not agree or disagree with Nutters post. His post was completely irrelevant to the topic. It was not about the topic, it was some one line snarky comment. The reason I deleted it was to avoid the discussion becoming about religion. Its not a perspective or a personal bias, its simply moderation to keep the thread on topic. He could have posted that comment in any thread in S&S and I would have let it go. In fact, unless I am mistaken that thread is perhaps the only one where I visibly deleted the posts [rather than soft deleting them] so later posters would see that trolling was being discouraged.
Meanwhile, I do not believe that except for shorty and company, there were any issues with how I moderated the sub forums. I do not recall any complaints with regard to bias.
I do not feel that you are bullying and unethical, I am stating that your actions with regard to Norsefire were unwarranted and extreme. They were unethical as a scientific tactic. They were bullying because no one should be forced to reply in a forum and be banned if they refuse to comply. No one should be forced to respond unless they want to. Its common civility.
Meanwhile, I do not believe that except for shorty and company, there were any issues with how I moderated the sub forums. I do not recall any complaints with regard to bias.
I do not feel that you are bullying and unethical, I am stating that your actions with regard to Norsefire were unwarranted and extreme. They were unethical as a scientific tactic. They were bullying because no one should be forced to reply in a forum and be banned if they refuse to comply. No one should be forced to respond unless they want to. Its common civility.
Last edited: