The reason for the decline in forum membership - anyone?
- Thread starter Quantum Quack
- Start date
- Status
Simple: everybody prefers to while away on http://physics.stackexchange.com
When did I call QQ stupid? See, this is your problem, Reiku: you make claims that you can't back up. You said I was a hypocrite earlier and balked when asked to knuckle up and show some proof. So I ask again, where's the beef? Show me where I've been a hypocrite?
And for the record, I could care less if you call me stupid. I don't worry about that kind of stuff coming from someone who tries to pass off things like "braincell" as a word. It's the derogatory use of the word "retard" that bothers me. I've never called you or anyone else that, and I never would.
Oh I am sure you think it. That's enough for me
Nice non-sequitur.
I contribute a fuck-ton more than you do. And you know what I don't do? Steal other people's shit. Even if I contributed nothing, you're in debt intellectually to this site.
Us all? You don't speak for me. I don't know this mr R. An i give this mr A. a shot till the administrators do something. But you said not even James, you speak for him? Its not nice to wrongly accuse someone, with out some form of evidence. I will trust JamesR and the other mods to act accordingly. I hope If mr A is who he says he is. He don't take all the accusing to heart.
And I will clarify that when I say those mods to act accordingly. I mean that they should consider we are way off topic an do something. This is not a Reiku thread. Or bash Aethelwulf thread.
The name says the reason for the decline in forum membership.
MR. B & A please continue your bickering in PM. An I don't think Aethelwulf imo needs a infraction for calling you a retard this time. It seems to me he was baited.
The name says the reason for the decline in forum membership.
MR. B & A please continue your bickering in PM. An I don't think Aethelwulf imo needs a infraction for calling you a retard this time. It seems to me he was baited.
Assessement number 2000123 - 12:
Balerion has the hots for Reiku, Reiku rejects Balerions solicitations. Balerion in a fit of jealous retirbution, seeks to destroy any association with Reiku but ends up reinforcing it instead.
Assessment number 2000123 -13
The limitations involved in ban enforcement need to be seriously considered here. It is impossible to keep someone out of the forum, especially if he has been turned into a hate filled terrorist who doesn't care how much it costs him for "masking software" to invade a space he has been banned from. The administrators can not enforce a ban against someone who is committed to frustrating that ban.
James R knows this and so to do most moderators.
Apparently Balerion beleives they can somehow wave a magic wand and exclude as they wish to... Balerion being deluded as usual.
Even if A is found to be R and A gets the ban again... how many other members that are R's already here at sciforums.... If I was a smart R, I woud have about 20 or so dormant memberships just waiting to be used. [ and I already know R was a pretty clever individual who is maybe a tad nuts as well ]
So banning A or R is not the solution is it...cause as ARNEY S. once said "I'll be back"
@Balerion,
so Balerion I ask you ... what is your solution, given the limitations of enforcement?
Hint: there is only one realistic solution.. possible.
note: Other forums are just as vulnerable, when the necessary "good will and food faith" is destroyed by the weak self-esteem of some members.
Balerion has the hots for Reiku, Reiku rejects Balerions solicitations. Balerion in a fit of jealous retirbution, seeks to destroy any association with Reiku but ends up reinforcing it instead.
Assessment number 2000123 -13
The limitations involved in ban enforcement need to be seriously considered here. It is impossible to keep someone out of the forum, especially if he has been turned into a hate filled terrorist who doesn't care how much it costs him for "masking software" to invade a space he has been banned from. The administrators can not enforce a ban against someone who is committed to frustrating that ban.
James R knows this and so to do most moderators.
Apparently Balerion beleives they can somehow wave a magic wand and exclude as they wish to... Balerion being deluded as usual.
Even if A is found to be R and A gets the ban again... how many other members that are R's already here at sciforums.... If I was a smart R, I woud have about 20 or so dormant memberships just waiting to be used. [ and I already know R was a pretty clever individual who is maybe a tad nuts as well ]
So banning A or R is not the solution is it...cause as ARNEY S. once said "I'll be back"
@Balerion,
so Balerion I ask you ... what is your solution, given the limitations of enforcement?
Hint: there is only one realistic solution.. possible.
note: Other forums are just as vulnerable, when the necessary "good will and food faith" is destroyed by the weak self-esteem of some members.
like so?
[video=youtube;WgPePk3kGZk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgPePk3kGZk[/video]
[video=youtube;WgPePk3kGZk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgPePk3kGZk[/video]
I think the problem with the moderation of this forum and passably why a lot of people just don't bother anymore is that some of the moderators of the sub forums are superposed experts in that particular subject. Which sounds like a good idea for a forum but really isn't.
The danger of having someone like this moderate a science forum is that they might have too much of intellectual investment in it.
In a political sense it makes them narrow and intolerant of anything that diverges even the slightest from their perceived norm. Kind of like academicians of the 19th century.
It's like having the Pope moderate the Religion forum. I've personally felt insulted by the way a few of my post have been dealt with and I'm not alone in feeling like this. Some are not inclusive; and people, good people who have a lot to offer this forum as a whole just vote with their feet and leave.
My suggestion is that it might be politically expedient not to allow supposed experts in certain subjects to moderate them. If they have a problem with a Post they can report it. And it can be dealt with by a moderator who can't possibly be perceived to have a vested interest in any theory or doctrine.
The danger of having someone like this moderate a science forum is that they might have too much of intellectual investment in it.
In a political sense it makes them narrow and intolerant of anything that diverges even the slightest from their perceived norm. Kind of like academicians of the 19th century.
It's like having the Pope moderate the Religion forum. I've personally felt insulted by the way a few of my post have been dealt with and I'm not alone in feeling like this. Some are not inclusive; and people, good people who have a lot to offer this forum as a whole just vote with their feet and leave.
My suggestion is that it might be politically expedient not to allow supposed experts in certain subjects to moderate them. If they have a problem with a Post they can report it. And it can be dealt with by a moderator who can't possibly be perceived to have a vested interest in any theory or doctrine.
My official response is as follows: You have made an inappropriate comment, and I have reported it as such.
My unofficial response is this: Really, man? You've been reduced to blaming my disagreements with Reiku on a spurned sexual advance? Most people don't start by scraping the bottom of the barrel.
Well, I can't wait to hear your "one realistic solution," because if it's anything like your "one realistic possibility" regarding the finches of Galapagos, then it's sure to be a laugh-riot on par with the Creation Museum's displays of cavemen riding a triceratops. In the meantime, I'll offer my own humble answer, which is to keep with the status quo. Reason being, while it is truly impossible to enforce a permanent ban in this age of dynamic IP addresses and proxy servers, allowing members that repeatedly break site rules to remain active only degrades the forum. Especially someone like Reiku, whose contributions are typically in the form of meaningless garbage that other posters have to spend most of their time tearing down rather than having meaningful arguments over legitimate disagreements.
In a way, it's like dealing with household pests: no, you'll never be able to keep ants or spiders out forever, but there are effective measures that provide medium-term solutions. Reiku is a good example of this. He made a few attempts to return under new names, but those were foiled until this latest incarnation. Yes, he's back, but we enjoyed five whole months of Reiku-less peace in the meantime. (Not to say the void was not filled by others, but dealing with one mega-troll at a time seems better than dealing with several.
And it isn't even as if Reiku hasn't been given the proverbial second chance...more than once! The previous visitation of Reiku followed a similar perma-ban/sock-puppet/sock-puppet/sock-puppet string that eventually resulted in James telling him that if he promised to behave, he would lift the ban. Reiku agreed, and proceeded to repeat all of the offenses that got him perma-banned the first time. This time he's here because he changed his IP, but already he's been temporarily banned for insulting another member, barely two weeks into his latest stay. And this is on the heels of him once again flooding the Physics subfora with absolute garbage and even plagiarizing another member's work again. (I don't know why that went unpunished, but that's beside the point) Your solution is to allow that to go unchecked? Even if "permanent bans" only amount to de facto temporary bans, it's worth it because it keeps him off of the boards for breaking the rules. Let him jump through hoops and come back every few months to last a month or two before getting banned again. That's his prerogative. But we shouldn't reward the behavior by throwing our hands up and saying "Oh well, he's going to keep coming back anyway!"
no it's not
To minimise the drain on a moderators time when there is a need to act swiftly you simply have to create a "members only" view, subforum called the Mediation forum.
Only the OP starter or poster and moderators can post to the thread/topic moved to this forum.
This means that if a poster returns under a proxy and a moderator is suspicious he/she can simply move the thread to Mediation where it can sit for ever if necessary. No fuss, easy and no significant time consumption.
This renders a sock puppets posting futile as his post will invariably end up in mediation yet maintains the esteem [ on the face of it]
It removes the incentive to flame the board.
But most of all it removes the incentive to post any topic if the poster knows the mods are suspicious of him.
Think of the mediation forum as a potential dumping ground, out of view to the pubic and unable to be posted to except by the OP starter and moderators.
It doesn't matter if there are thousands of threads dumped there in the end as long as the flak of a flame war as seen recently is removed from inhibiting the other members from their quiet and respectful enjoyment of the forums.
I think you get the idea... the details can be worked out I am sure.
It makes banning unecessary except for a few exceptions. Futility then drives the posters behaviour and eventual loss of interest in continuing to post.
The key is to render the activities of a proxy poster as futile to him to do and discourage any thead troling or flaming activity as he waits for his threads in mediation to be judged, reinstated or locked.
Only the OP starter or poster and moderators can post to the thread/topic moved to this forum.
This means that if a poster returns under a proxy and a moderator is suspicious he/she can simply move the thread to Mediation where it can sit for ever if necessary. No fuss, easy and no significant time consumption.
This renders a sock puppets posting futile as his post will invariably end up in mediation yet maintains the esteem [ on the face of it]
It removes the incentive to flame the board.
But most of all it removes the incentive to post any topic if the poster knows the mods are suspicious of him.
Think of the mediation forum as a potential dumping ground, out of view to the pubic and unable to be posted to except by the OP starter and moderators.
It doesn't matter if there are thousands of threads dumped there in the end as long as the flak of a flame war as seen recently is removed from inhibiting the other members from their quiet and respectful enjoyment of the forums.
I think you get the idea... the details can be worked out I am sure.
It makes banning unecessary except for a few exceptions. Futility then drives the posters behaviour and eventual loss of interest in continuing to post.
The key is to render the activities of a proxy poster as futile to him to do and discourage any thead troling or flaming activity as he waits for his threads in mediation to be judged, reinstated or locked.
Last edited:
It would not affect banning at all, since the poster would have to be attempting to circumvent a ban for this "mediation" forum to be of any use whatsoever. The other problem with this idea is that if suspicion were enough to warrant essentially shutting down a potential sock-puppet's threads, then banning and deleting all of the puppet's posts is a more effective and efficient approach. However, as James pointed out, they require proof before they take any action.
So you aren't really addressing the problem of sock-puppets at all, you're just lowering the standard of evidence and somehow also complicating the process. A cleaner approach would be simply to lower the standard of evidence and then ban and delete. The ban/delete prevents the sock-puppet from posting more, and the delete means they don't get the pleasure of their posts living on.
Fair enough, but I wonder how that addresses the issue of membership decline when the ability to use proxy IP addresses and various other malicious devices is becoming more and more easy of access.
Would it not be better just to make the sock puppets actions futille so that he goes away voluntarilly and not by unenforceable moderator action?
"Futility is a much better "stick" to wield than banning..." because the effect is more enduring and likely to be more permanent than banning any one.
Also there is a possibility that the poster may redeem themselves and eventually become an asset to the community.
It doesn't. None of this addresses the issue of membership decline. I mean, as far as I can see, we only have one member who is returning as a sock-puppet. Or at least there's only one that's made any trouble. That's not enough to make a dent in membership.
Yes, but banning is the best method of making their attempts futile. As I said before, there is no way to keep them out. Even using a registration system that requires administrator approval wouldn't be foolproof, and such a measure isn't plausible on a site this large.
I do think they should ban Aethelwulf permanently, but I understand that they don't want to risk banning someone wrongly.
Well, if Reiku really had the desire to become an asset to the community, and had posted quality material as Aethelwulf, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Not only would no one be suspicious, but no one would care. I mean, if you told me Aqueous Id, for example, was some perma-banned troll from five years ago, I wouldn't campaign for his removal and I doubt James would care if I was, because Aq is a quality poster.
When people say they are not Reiku, they usually end up being Reiku.
This is what happens
Reiku comes back as a sockpuppet.
James R says, poor wickle Reiku, we will give him one more chance, if he promises to be really good.
Reiku promises to be good.
Reiku is good for a while.
Then Reiku gets bored with being good and posts his theories on the Physics forum.
Reiku and Alphanumeric start arguing, Reiku getting increasing Bolshy until he gets banned.
James R says, "Depart from Paradise, Reiku, Ye may never return", and sets a fiery angel at the gates of sciforums.
Reiku curses the site and vows revenge.
He disappears for a while.
Then he comes back as a sockpuppet.
James R says, poor wickle Reiku, we will.........
etc
- Status