The reason for the decline in forum membership - anyone?
- Thread starter Quantum Quack
- Start date
- Status
would you consider actually explaining your comment in a way that is productive?
Do you wish to alter published forum policy?
and if so what changes would you like to see?
From Note Archive: "Hacking web forums takes many forms and not just by way of malicious robots"
For me a warning flag goes up as soon as I see a poster repeatedly trying to block others from the freedom of respectful expression... yeah I happen to agree with some aspects of the US constitution. and I am from Australia.
Last edited:
just posted by an upset member to one of the boards.
maybe this sort of complaint has more to do with declining membership..certainly one could analyse the board with a "smart program" and make that assessment.
for those researching how to set up a forum there is a famous quote by "you know who" that reads:
"Evil only exists when the Good do nothing"
I guess what i am trying to say is that if the the Good members of this forum feel the forum is worth saving then they need to act in ways that are productive to the future of the forum.
which is the main reason why I posted this thread...I happen to feel that this forum is worth saving
"It is not only defending your own right to respectful expression but also defending the right of others to express themselves like wise"
Last edited:
arauca:
We have two subforums entirely devoted to Religion. There are plenty of vocal religious posters here. They are not banned.
As for your comment on homosexuals, I don't quite know how you can determine a person's sexual preference on an internet forum, unless they tell you. But, if I had to hazard a guess, I'd say that the vast majority of the moderators and administrators here are heterosexual.
Not that it matters. Our policy here is that we do not allow hate speech, and perhaps this is the gripe you have. You'd like to be able to give full reign to your irrational fear and hatred of homosexual people, but you're not allowed to. Is that it?
Note that the same policy applies to other types of hate, such as sexism and racism.
We have two subforums entirely devoted to Religion. There are plenty of vocal religious posters here. They are not banned.
As for your comment on homosexuals, I don't quite know how you can determine a person's sexual preference on an internet forum, unless they tell you. But, if I had to hazard a guess, I'd say that the vast majority of the moderators and administrators here are heterosexual.
Not that it matters. Our policy here is that we do not allow hate speech, and perhaps this is the gripe you have. You'd like to be able to give full reign to your irrational fear and hatred of homosexual people, but you're not allowed to. Is that it?
Note that the same policy applies to other types of hate, such as sexism and racism.
There are always the wonders of projection, bringing into existence what doesn't exist ...
The only purpose I can even see for a science forum would be to discuss fringe science.
Many people do come here however with questions they could easily answer with 5 minutes of reading elsewhere on the internet because they are too lazy to look it up. They will often get correct answers if they can sift through some of the BS responses.
However contrary to what Captain Kremmon states about Sciforums population being 60% students, I feel that the majority of posts here come from retired ancient codgers with opinions set in stone, and happy to quote from their 1953 science texts. I believe that if I said the "Pyramids were not built by slaves" It would be tossed into the cesspool even though it is now accepted that there was a paid work force involved. This is just an opinion.
I have been on this website for many years, and I have never seen:
a) a moderator state he was wrong.
b) a member change their opinion because of a well written argument.
c) new science welcomed.
I will use the LENR thread as an example of that. I have shown that over the past several years Mitsubishi, Toyota, National Instruments, NASA,Dr Brian Ahern, Dr George Miley, and others have confirmed excess heat in a Nickel/Hydrogen/Carbon reaction. The confirmations have been increasing exponentially, so doubts have been squashed across the globe.
If someone considered the implications and realized that this is perhaps the most exciting science news in centuries, then we could discuss it. HOWEVER; the members here treat the subject with so much disdain I am surprised it is not in the Cesspool.
That is just one example, and please do not argue against that topic in this thread (doubt people will listen), as it would be off topic for this thread.
I am just saying that if people are not willing to look at exciting and new science on Sciforums then they will and have (at least in my case) found better conversations existing elsewhere on the topic.
New science is frowned upon, yet old science is already known. Why does Sciforums exist?
Many people do come here however with questions they could easily answer with 5 minutes of reading elsewhere on the internet because they are too lazy to look it up. They will often get correct answers if they can sift through some of the BS responses.
However contrary to what Captain Kremmon states about Sciforums population being 60% students, I feel that the majority of posts here come from retired ancient codgers with opinions set in stone, and happy to quote from their 1953 science texts. I believe that if I said the "Pyramids were not built by slaves" It would be tossed into the cesspool even though it is now accepted that there was a paid work force involved. This is just an opinion.
I have been on this website for many years, and I have never seen:
a) a moderator state he was wrong.
b) a member change their opinion because of a well written argument.
c) new science welcomed.
I will use the LENR thread as an example of that. I have shown that over the past several years Mitsubishi, Toyota, National Instruments, NASA,Dr Brian Ahern, Dr George Miley, and others have confirmed excess heat in a Nickel/Hydrogen/Carbon reaction. The confirmations have been increasing exponentially, so doubts have been squashed across the globe.
If someone considered the implications and realized that this is perhaps the most exciting science news in centuries, then we could discuss it. HOWEVER; the members here treat the subject with so much disdain I am surprised it is not in the Cesspool.
That is just one example, and please do not argue against that topic in this thread (doubt people will listen), as it would be off topic for this thread.
I am just saying that if people are not willing to look at exciting and new science on Sciforums then they will and have (at least in my case) found better conversations existing elsewhere on the topic.
New science is frowned upon, yet old science is already known. Why does Sciforums exist?
kwhilborn:
Then you'd be confusing a Science forum with a Fringe Science forum.
Science is not the same as Fringe Science. Science is mainstream. Scientists are, these days, paid professionals who usually work in teams to generate new knowledge. Science has a rigorous peer-review process that vets new work for adherence to certain standards of data collection, results disclosure and evidence.
Fringe Science is ... fringe. Fringe scientists are mostly under-educated, unpaid amateurs who often do their "work" in isolation (even if they are keen to present their results to other people, most often like-minded ones). Fringe science typically has lax or no standards of peer review. Anything goes.
sciforums has both Science areas and Fringe areas. In the Science areas, interested people can ask questions about mainstream science, even cutting-edge research, and hope to get an answer from somebody who is educated and knowledgable about the area. In the Fringe areas, backyard quantum mechanics can present their "theories".
Where sciforums differs from many other forums is that we're not just a haven for cranks, yet neither do we shut out well-meaning amateurs. Instead, we give everybody a fair hearing. This often means that cranks who are used to being admired on other "fringe" boards suddenly find themselves subjected to real, probing questions and challenges to their ideas by people who are actually qualified (and sometimes paid) in the relevant area. I understand that this can be confronting and upsetting for some, particularly those who have invested years of their life in their garden shed hammering out a pet theory that fails at the first scrutiny by a real scientist. But somebody has to tell them.
The majority of sciforums members are relatively young - from late teens to mid- to late-20s. Some of them are students. Many are non-scientists and have no formal science training beyond school level. Our moderators tend to be a little older, and quite a few of us do have formal science training at university level - in a few cases to PhD level.
The total number of regular members who are over 60 here would be less than 20, I'd estimate, and perhaps less than 10.
As to (a), you simply haven't looked hard enough.
As to (b), it does happen, rarely, but it is far less likely to occur in the midst of any heated debate. Out of interest, when was the last time you changed your opinion because of a well-written argument here, kwhilborn?
As to (c), we've had several threads on the Higgs Boson just in the past couple of weeks. You don't get much newer than that.
I believe we have at least one open thread on that, with many posts.
It is not a significant topic in mainstream science right now. The evidence for LENR is just too borderline and unreliable. That could change, of course. It's up to the LENR people to make their case, just as it is with any new scientific claim.
We're a social community. We host intelligent discussions of a range of different topics. We provide an educational service to some of our members. There are other reasons.
Perhaps you should take a look at the introductory material in the Site Posting Guidelines.
Then you'd be confusing a Science forum with a Fringe Science forum.
Science is not the same as Fringe Science. Science is mainstream. Scientists are, these days, paid professionals who usually work in teams to generate new knowledge. Science has a rigorous peer-review process that vets new work for adherence to certain standards of data collection, results disclosure and evidence.
Fringe Science is ... fringe. Fringe scientists are mostly under-educated, unpaid amateurs who often do their "work" in isolation (even if they are keen to present their results to other people, most often like-minded ones). Fringe science typically has lax or no standards of peer review. Anything goes.
sciforums has both Science areas and Fringe areas. In the Science areas, interested people can ask questions about mainstream science, even cutting-edge research, and hope to get an answer from somebody who is educated and knowledgable about the area. In the Fringe areas, backyard quantum mechanics can present their "theories".
Where sciforums differs from many other forums is that we're not just a haven for cranks, yet neither do we shut out well-meaning amateurs. Instead, we give everybody a fair hearing. This often means that cranks who are used to being admired on other "fringe" boards suddenly find themselves subjected to real, probing questions and challenges to their ideas by people who are actually qualified (and sometimes paid) in the relevant area. I understand that this can be confronting and upsetting for some, particularly those who have invested years of their life in their garden shed hammering out a pet theory that fails at the first scrutiny by a real scientist. But somebody has to tell them.
The majority of sciforums members are relatively young - from late teens to mid- to late-20s. Some of them are students. Many are non-scientists and have no formal science training beyond school level. Our moderators tend to be a little older, and quite a few of us do have formal science training at university level - in a few cases to PhD level.
The total number of regular members who are over 60 here would be less than 20, I'd estimate, and perhaps less than 10.
As to (a), you simply haven't looked hard enough.
As to (b), it does happen, rarely, but it is far less likely to occur in the midst of any heated debate. Out of interest, when was the last time you changed your opinion because of a well-written argument here, kwhilborn?
As to (c), we've had several threads on the Higgs Boson just in the past couple of weeks. You don't get much newer than that.
I believe we have at least one open thread on that, with many posts.
It is not a significant topic in mainstream science right now. The evidence for LENR is just too borderline and unreliable. That could change, of course. It's up to the LENR people to make their case, just as it is with any new scientific claim.
We're a social community. We host intelligent discussions of a range of different topics. We provide an educational service to some of our members. There are other reasons.
Perhaps you should take a look at the introductory material in the Site Posting Guidelines.
The internet is one of the few places left in the world in which regulation is largely still a matter of choice rather than legislation. Yet legislation is still the recourse of choice, in a forum like this one. Sciforums, in its adherence to mainstream thought, has forgotten how to dream.
There is a difference between ruling, and overruling.
There has always been, and always will be, a conflict between the spirit of law and its application. Those who value the application of the law, over the spirit in which that law was conceived, will usually be those in control of it. There is a reason we hate lawyers; the perceived necessity for law over justice.
Sciforums basic quandary has always been the question of whether or not to moderate to law, or to to justice.
In the absence of Strength, Law will always prevail. Most often, Law will prevail in spite of Strength... Strength rarely prevails in the face of an overwhelming numerical advantage. This is simply a function of social evolution.
This was the generalisation. On to specifics.
Sciforums believes in the right to opinion. This is not a bad thing, in itself; however, Sciforums also believes in the right to express an opinion on a public forum ostensibly dedicated to the advancement of knowledge.This is a fundamental conflict.
The vast majority of those opinions, expressed by those who feel they have a right to do so, have no bearing on the topic at hand; nor do they necessarily enhance or add to it. Delete them. In the absence of your willingness to do so, introduce a "like" system where those who like a post can do so by pressing a button rather than posting a meaningless message of support. I am seriously tired of wading through pages of off-topic, meaningless posts in order to find something I was looking for. Tired of wandering through the murk of unintelligent, verbose crap in order to find anything of relevance. How many good threads have been wasted because Sciforums believes every post has merit. How many have been wasted because they drift off-topic. How many members have taken advantage of it in order to further their own agendas.
You moderators out there need to learn how to be Tyrants. You need to earn how to use the "delete' button without feeling guilty. You need to learn which threads have merit, and should be left to run without the meaningless, verbose, bulllshit which on far too many occasions accompanies them, and moderate with impunity.
You need to leave behind your ideals, and moderate as befits an intelligent entity with the power to do so. Yes, I understand that this is the most difficult of things to achieve.
You need to be dedicated. You need to become far more than you are now. You need to become tyrants. You need to become that which some of you never believed you would be capable of being.
What this place is, and what it might be or it becomes... it's on you.
Dream, damn you. Dream.
There is a difference between ruling, and overruling.
There has always been, and always will be, a conflict between the spirit of law and its application. Those who value the application of the law, over the spirit in which that law was conceived, will usually be those in control of it. There is a reason we hate lawyers; the perceived necessity for law over justice.
Sciforums basic quandary has always been the question of whether or not to moderate to law, or to to justice.
In the absence of Strength, Law will always prevail. Most often, Law will prevail in spite of Strength... Strength rarely prevails in the face of an overwhelming numerical advantage. This is simply a function of social evolution.
This was the generalisation. On to specifics.
Sciforums believes in the right to opinion. This is not a bad thing, in itself; however, Sciforums also believes in the right to express an opinion on a public forum ostensibly dedicated to the advancement of knowledge.This is a fundamental conflict.
The vast majority of those opinions, expressed by those who feel they have a right to do so, have no bearing on the topic at hand; nor do they necessarily enhance or add to it. Delete them. In the absence of your willingness to do so, introduce a "like" system where those who like a post can do so by pressing a button rather than posting a meaningless message of support. I am seriously tired of wading through pages of off-topic, meaningless posts in order to find something I was looking for. Tired of wandering through the murk of unintelligent, verbose crap in order to find anything of relevance. How many good threads have been wasted because Sciforums believes every post has merit. How many have been wasted because they drift off-topic. How many members have taken advantage of it in order to further their own agendas.
You moderators out there need to learn how to be Tyrants. You need to earn how to use the "delete' button without feeling guilty. You need to learn which threads have merit, and should be left to run without the meaningless, verbose, bulllshit which on far too many occasions accompanies them, and moderate with impunity.
You need to leave behind your ideals, and moderate as befits an intelligent entity with the power to do so. Yes, I understand that this is the most difficult of things to achieve.
You need to be dedicated. You need to become far more than you are now. You need to become tyrants. You need to become that which some of you never believed you would be capable of being.
What this place is, and what it might be or it becomes... it's on you.
Dream, damn you. Dream.
The time I was banned I did not produced any speech, I just used the word " Homo " and the hell broke loos by Fraggle R. and others ,
Yes there is a clan of you that hunt , you yourself banned me once for plagiarism , I never had intention to honor myself with someones work, you are to fast to jump to conclusion .
By the way there are other forums , Chemistry and Biology here are practically dead .
see what I mean?
@ James R, (to answer your previous post)
Let's see...
The last time I was swayed by an argument on Sciforums was most recently here.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...on-sciforums&p=2951926&viewfull=1#post2951926
in post # 106.
I have no problem admitting I am wrong if it happens (rare), as seen above.
When I state Fringe science I mean new science. This is my definition of fringe. I mean it to be conceptual/factual but on the border and worthy of discussion. I am already well versed in your opinion of pseudoscience.
I think our views of fringe science may differ. I consider our "god particle" fringe science, although many would argue it is mainstream. It is new it is relevant, and it is highly discussed.
I am excited to see the discussions surrounding the Higgs Boson. That is worthy of discussion, and I have been following these threads keenly, although I am not versed enough to comment on it. I have done further reading on it, and there seems to be a freaky amount of perspectives on this topic, and some of it seems unlikely. I think I will ignore it for a few years and revisit it when they have more facts worked out.
If you look at this thread you will see how well it was accepted here.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...hey-say-that&p=2958443&viewfull=1#post2958443
The Higgs Boson is exactly the kind of science I would like to see here, and not regurgitated 1953 textbooks.
Sciforums should encourage openmindedness to thrive. If people took a bad idea and tried to expand on the notion of it and work it into our existing framework then maybe Sciforums could contribute to new science.
These were my suggestions for keeping memberships alive.
Let's see...
The last time I was swayed by an argument on Sciforums was most recently here.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...on-sciforums&p=2951926&viewfull=1#post2951926
in post # 106.
I have no problem admitting I am wrong if it happens (rare), as seen above.
When I state Fringe science I mean new science. This is my definition of fringe. I mean it to be conceptual/factual but on the border and worthy of discussion. I am already well versed in your opinion of pseudoscience.
I think our views of fringe science may differ. I consider our "god particle" fringe science, although many would argue it is mainstream. It is new it is relevant, and it is highly discussed.
I am excited to see the discussions surrounding the Higgs Boson. That is worthy of discussion, and I have been following these threads keenly, although I am not versed enough to comment on it. I have done further reading on it, and there seems to be a freaky amount of perspectives on this topic, and some of it seems unlikely. I think I will ignore it for a few years and revisit it when they have more facts worked out.
If you look at this thread you will see how well it was accepted here.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...hey-say-that&p=2958443&viewfull=1#post2958443
The Higgs Boson is exactly the kind of science I would like to see here, and not regurgitated 1953 textbooks.
Sciforums should encourage openmindedness to thrive. If people took a bad idea and tried to expand on the notion of it and work it into our existing framework then maybe Sciforums could contribute to new science.
These were my suggestions for keeping memberships alive.
This is not on topic. Delete it. Give the guy a warning, if you want to be a wuss. Then ban him if he continues.
Bells
Staff member
Ah yes, that incident.
How unfortunate that you fail (and it seems continue to fail) to recognise that it was not just the word, but the context in which it was used.
In short, your gripe was that homosexuals were given human rights and in your mind, that was a bad thing. Much like your complaint now that "atheists and homosexuals" apparently rule this site.
So really, this is not a new theme for you, but yet another homophobic rant and one that we have seen before. Your options are simple. You can either just stop or you can keep supplying yourself with more rope. Our options are simple. We can and will apply the rules of this site when you breach its rules. This can and will involve bans and if you keep going as you are, that ban will become permanent. If you do not like it, don't let the door hit you on the way out.
In short, we won't tolerate your homophobic complaints.
In short, don't give him the time of day - delete it, then PM him with an explanation.
Perhaps it would be best to simply redirect such posts to a subforum for those who have issues and let us all see it to determine for ourselves if his issue is valid. Either way, it does not belong here.
And pay some poor bugger to do it. Money provides incentive, you know.
Perhaps it would be best to simply redirect such posts to a subforum for those who have issues and let us all see it to determine for ourselves if his issue is valid. Either way, it does not belong here.
And pay some poor bugger to do it. Money provides incentive, you know.
Why do we have to be tolerant towards homosexuals, but we do not need to be tolerant towards homophobic's? It's not a choice to hate gays, you are born with it. Right?
Bells
Staff member
I don't know Chipz. Were you born to hate and be intolerant?
Or was it learned behaviour?
rather well said and yes with areas that I could take issue with. There is nothing wrong with an eloquently stated opinion especially if it is on topic.. IMO
can i ask you and others [ including James R ]?
Would allowing moderators to move "off topic" posts [ not the thread ]. Rather than delete them move them to a "members only" forum for review, negotiation, voting and then either re-instatement or deletion be of use to sciforums?
A similar process was employed at a few forums I have attended and appears to work remarkably well as it does not offend the moved poster directly and allows the forum to decide whether the post was valid or not.
Including a member poll with every move can be automaticaly created and if the members vote to have that post reinstated then it can be. Members alone can not vote for deletion.
This process or a more refined one would be relatively easy to set up and remove most of the "value" angst posters have.
It also allows members to self educate and self govern their behaviour.
A note must be left in the thread that indicates where members can find the posts that are moved so they can vote on re-instatement or not.
Main Benefit:
Obviousy with this method deliberate off topic posting will eventually become entirely futile thus be reduced to those not familiar with the system.
cleans up the threads
Values all posters in some way.
and no doubt more....
edit: my apologies as I didn't read the entire thread before posting.. I see it is already suggested by Marquis [that makes 2 in favour]
For example: It means that overtly Homophobic posts can be moved "with out prejudice" to the posters esteem
Yes, mainstream science is easily referenced, and tells of what has been proved, as well as what is likely, although some may wish to learn it here by blundering, but that is human nature. So, the real excitement is in going into areas not yet proven, trying to make progress with them or an alternative.
Give us science, but if not possible, then logic, but if not possible, math perhaps, but if not, then some kind of indication, but if none, then imagination, but realize that what is imagined is only of the human basis to do so, but please don't give us nothing at all, which is what outright claims of universal negatives are—that have no positives, but this is only human nature, too, and so it bids us to go on to see what makes this happen, and that gets us back to science.
Give us science, but if not possible, then logic, but if not possible, math perhaps, but if not, then some kind of indication, but if none, then imagination, but realize that what is imagined is only of the human basis to do so, but please don't give us nothing at all, which is what outright claims of universal negatives are—that have no positives, but this is only human nature, too, and so it bids us to go on to see what makes this happen, and that gets us back to science.
Do I have the right to express my view on homosexuality ? Of course you probable been one , you don't like, About human rights , you have it I assume homosexual are human , do they need additional rights ? ( You can either just stop or you can keep supplying yourself with more rope. Our options are simple. ) Who the hell are you ? are you part of the management ? I was going to swear but I will not you are not wordy .....................
- Status