The Flat Earth Society
The Flat Earth Society => Suggestions & Concerns => Topic started by: Tontogary on June 04, 2018, 02:57:03 AM
-
So i have had a run in with the Mods, Again.
A few days back, Pete sent me a PM saying i should not call anyone an Idiot, (I think Tom had thrown his toys out of the pram, (buggy/stroller) but no names were mentioned. In fact i think I only suggested Tom was an idiot, and cannot recall doing it to anyone else)
Anyway Junker was obviously having a bout of PMT, so called someone an idiot yesterday, so instead of calling him out in the forum, I reported the post.
Queue another message from Pete saying that Junker might not have been right, but I was still wrong............
I thought mods set the tone of these debates, and when you get told not to do something, which is then directly done by a Mod, it is rather galling.
So ranting here I am, and fully expect to get another nice PM, telling me I cant criticise Mods................
It’s like debating with one hand tied behind your back. FEers can post low content shit posts (think Baby Thork) pretty much with impunity, whilst if I comment on low content posts of a Mod, I get warned. Also warned for replying to a thread because I copied something Tom had written????? (Still cant my head round that one)
Of course I understand that people who ask difficult questions need to be put in their place, after all what audacity we have for questioning the FE Hypotheses of others, but to unfairly use the Mods authority to allow one side free range over dissent is not doing this site any favours.
-
I agree all the mods are crooks.
-
Interesting how you chose to leave any and all meritorious detail out of your post. Let's recap:
First, you wanted us to take action against Thork for the views he espoused. I explained to you that we don't restrict people based on *what* they say. In the upper, virtually all debate is allowed so long as it's done in a civil manner. So yes, Thork can say he thinks feminism is a satanic cult or whatever, because Thork knows how to behave himself.
Then, a number of reports were made against you because you decided to start making posts consisting of little else but childish insults, and by lacing your other posts with hilarious "lol I spelled your name wrong, REKT XD" jokes. I made a personal judgement that you're a sensible enough person that simply asking you politely to stop would be better than the usual approach of immediately warning you and threatening you with a ban.
At that point, you somehow decided that you should report posts containing the word "foolish" from now on. The flaw in your reasoning was that the word is in no way restricted - it's how you use it*.
Finally, and I think that's the most important part, you chose to report junker's post for containing this "magic word". I clarified to you that while I don't agree with what junker has said, he has not broken any rules. This is what you chose to deliberately misrepresent here as "junker not having been right, but you still being wrong".
What you fundamentally fail to understand is the separation between the execution of rules and my personal opinions. You seem to demand that I factor in my personal agreement with someone into whether or not I should take action against them. To be clear, this is not going to happen.
I really don't appreciate you lying here. I can now see that I was mistaken in thinking that I can talk you into following the rules. I'll revert to the default behaviour.
* - this, by the way, is what you still fail to understand. You *can* come here and tell us we're biased. In oft-repeated terms, I disagree with you, but it's not against the rules by default. What *is* against the rules is you rambling about junker's PMS (leave her alone you misogynist! >o<) and self-righteous rants about how you already know the answer to your own question (usually along the lines of "my opponents are stupid and/or evil"). Work on your form, you'll be much happier for it. Not just here, but in life as a whole.
-
I don’t have a huge problem with the moderation on here but there is definite bias in the way rules are applied, long-standing FE members are definitely given more latitude than RE members although maybe that is more because of the “long standing” than the FE. I have been given spurious warnings for posts that I am pretty sure other members would not have been warned for.
Also, junker is female?!
-
There is definitely a problem with Junkers way of "moderating" this forum. A moderator insulting other people by calling them a "moron" (Junker to me: "Don't derail threads, moron.") or accusing them of hate etc. just because they disagree with him or asking him to clarify his statements is a no go (see the last thread where he "joined the discussion").
A moderator should have a neutral position in the discussion, he should not be biased to one side. The later one is very obvious regarding Junker. His friends can do low content posting as they like, can make fun remarks and jokes and he himself can insulting as he likes, while anything that only comes close to this results in accusations by him.
What you would need is either a really neutral moderator or a so-called "round earther" moderator to compensate for the bias.
-
The post i was referred to and received a message about was this one referring to our dear Mr Bishop
He is clutching at straws, and makes himself look a fool.
And the post I referred to from junker is;
This will help prevent you from looking as foolish as you do here. Best of luck, friend!
Hmmm, not a lot of difference I recon.
There is a lot of personal bias in the way the “rules” are appl,ied, and it seems like I am not the only one who thinks so.
I have not lied, but i guess if Pete is being over sensitive and upset because i didnt do as he wants (toe the line etc) then i can not help that.
Also look at the post I made in AR, and the response from a MOD, who pretty much told me to post the OP in this section.
Anyway good luck with the Biased Modding, it does not do this site any justice at all.
-
there is definite bias in the way rules are applied, long-standing FE members are definitely given more latitude than RE members although maybe that is more because of the “long standing” than the FE.
I think that's unavoidable. The bias is not conscious, but I'd be a fool to pretend that we're not subject to unconscious biases. I'd like to think that it has more to do with the "long standing" than the "FE" - not only are we more used to regulars (and thus perhaps more forgiving of occasional antics?), but also they're much more experienced with the forum's culture, and thus probably able to better navigate the rules.
Junker to me: "Don't derail threads, moron."
Has this happened outside of CN/AR? If so, that's an issue.
What you would need is either a really neutral moderator or a so-called "round earther" moderator to compensate for the bias.
I think we'll be the ones to decide what we need, thanks. That said, I'm in favour of finding a couple of RE mods who would actually enforce the rules (n.b. not "compensate" for anything). I even had two suggestions for candidates recently, but unfortunately they both seem to have left us.
Hmmm, not a lot of difference I recon.
Yes, stripping any and all context from the post would do that. I already clarified this to you, and yet you chose to provide everything but the crucial context. It's almost as if you were trying to spin a narrative and couldn't do so with accurate information.
The difference you're missing is: you were trying to provoke other users. Junker's failure was letting someone else provoke him. Yes, one will be treated differently from the other.
-
That said, I'm in favour of finding a couple of RE mods who would actually enforce the rules (n.b. not "compensate" for anything). I even had two suggestions for candidates recently, but unfortunately they both seem to have left us
If only you knew a RE person on here who has experience running his own forum ;D
(I'd be up for policing the "lol, earth is round" posts or spammers if given rights to do so. I find them as tiresome as anyone)
-
If only you knew a RE person on here who has experience running his own forum ;D
But you're also firmly for flipping the culture of this place on its head. It's not my call, but personally I'd be strongly against modding you for that reason.
-
Not on its head, no.
Personally I'd let a little more go in the upper fora but I'm not the one making the rules.
I'd try to be more consistent between FE and RE posters although accept biases are hard to eliminate completely.
I actually think long-standing posters do deserve a bit more latitude as they've earned it.
There have been instances of spammers or people just signing up to post abuse that if I had the power to I'd have dealt with but I don't care that much
-
Junker to me: "Don't derail threads, moron."
Has this happened outside of CN/AR? If so, that's an issue.
It's part of a reply of him to one of my posts which he obviously didn't liked and then removed together with his reply. But I don't care, where he is personally insulting me. Even if it is a personal message or whatever, he has no right do behave in that way. He needs to show a minimum of respect. But it is obvious that he has problems to keep his personal aversion against people who do not share his world view under control. And this leads to a blatant abuse of his position as a moderator.
The word moderator has the same origin as the word modest. You and your friends should keep this in mind.
-
But I don't care, where he is personally insulting me. Even if it is a personal message or whatever, he has no right do behave in that way. He needs to show a minimum of respect.
Right. Well, that's not how things work around here. The rules provide you with a helpful guide to this:
1. No personal attacks
Keep your posts civil and to the point, and don't insult others. If you have run out of valid contributions, simply do not post. The exception to this rule is in Complete Nonsense and Angry Ranting, where personal attacks are par for the course. If you do not like this, then don't post in those fora.
(Emphasis mine.)
-
But I don't care, where he is personally insulting me. Even if it is a personal message or whatever, he has no right do behave in that way. He needs to show a minimum of respect.
Right. Well, that's not how things work around here. The rules provide you with a helpful guide to this:
1. No personal attacks
Keep your posts civil and to the point, and don't insult others. If you have run out of valid contributions, simply do not post. The exception to this rule is in Complete Nonsense and Angry Ranting, where personal attacks are par for the course. If you do not like this, then don't post in those fora.
(Emphasis mine.)
Only problem is, that I have not posted in Angry ranting. I have no influence on Junker moving my posts there and insulting me personally. I have not chosen to post there which gives Junker a possibility to insult me according to you guidelines. In my eyes this a abuse of moderating power to move the discussion to a place that allows the moderator to personally attack the poster.
But there many any other examples with borderline post by Junker in the normal forums where he very frankly articulates his aversion against people who do not agree with him. E.g. his accusation of hostility yesterday here: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9854.msg154402#msg154402
A post like that from a "round earther" would lead to immediate banning by him. This is clearly double standards in the moderation of this forum.
-
Only problem is, that I have not posted in Angry ranting. I have no influence on Junker moving my posts there and insulting me personally.
That's okay. Nobody's forcing you to go there nonetheless. If you're genuinely unwilling to view these posts, there's a simple way of accomplishing this.
A post like that from a "round earther" would lead to immediate banning by him. This is clearly double standards in the moderation of this forum.
This is categorically false. Outside of spambots, pretty much nobody will get "immediately banned" for anything. Aside from that, I've seen the occasional RE'er tell people to read the FAQ, and I haven't noticed them receiving any flak for it. If anything, I wish more people encouraged it.
-
The problem of misbehave and insult is not solved but just pretending not to read it. There is pattern in Junkers behavior of moving posts and afterwards insulting the people.
Regarding the thread I linked in my last post. Any of the posts Junker did there done by a "round earther" would be commented by Junker with a "low contend be warned" post. The forums are full of them. After 2, 3 warnings he is banning the people. The specific post I linked was not his first one in the thread. After so many of them followed by his usual warnings, he would ban the people immediately.
Personally, I can understand that you as long time collaborators are not enforcing all the rules to each other. I also would hesitate to ban a long term friend, but maybe you should try to do this not in such an obvious way.
-
The problem of misbehave and insult is not solved but just pretending not to read it.
I'm sorry that you dislike how this place works. It will continue to work the same way. If you don't like the fact that someone's insulting you in AR, you have the option of not visiting AR. If that's not enough for you, you have the option of not being on this site at all. There are plenty of other online forums which may suit you better.
I mean this sincerely - there's no need for you to suffer in an environment that you're not happy in. However, it is also no justification for you to demand that your hosts change everything for you.
Any of the posts Junker did there done by a "round earther" would be commented by Junker with a "low contend be warned" post.
Well, no. It's the instigator that normally gets warned if he provokes someone - the person being provoked might get privately asked to tone it down, but that's that.
Your approach is an interesting one. You talk about things that "clearly" or "obviously" happen, but when faced with someone who disagrees, you're only capable of repeatedly restating your loaded assessment. It just doesn't inspire much confidence, you know?
-
However, it is also no justification for you to demand that your hosts change everything for you.
Bit of a straw man, Pete, and one you've used on me.
No-one is demanding that the hosts change everything any more than claiming I want to flip the culture "on its head".
If I thought things were that bad here I wouldn't have signed up in the first place.
Nothing radical is being suggested here. What is the point of this section of every suggestion is going to be met with "well, this is how it is, if you don't like it you can get lost".
-
Nothing radical is being suggested here. What is the point of this section of every suggestion is going to be met with "well, this is how it is, if you don't like it you can get lost".
It's not every suggestion. If your suggestions are like "the designated board for insults and angry shouting should no longer have insults" then yes, that's flipping an aspect of this forum on its head.
Similarly, your proposal for how we handle low-quality RE posters was that we work super extra hard to appease them and give them everything they want. It's not gonna happen, because currently we're pushing in the precise opposite direction. You seemed less-than-ecstatic about it, but you at least acknowledged that we'll do what we want to do.
Hexagon over here is of the opinion that we have no right to have AR in its current format. I genuinely can't muster any response other than "Well, we do have the right." I can see that he's taking it very seriously and personally, but I can offer no advice other than stepping back from the source of his frustrations.
-
The problem of misbehave and insult is not solved but just pretending not to read it.
I'm sorry that you dislike how this place works. It will continue to work the same way. If you don't like the fact that someone's insulting you in AR, you have the option of not visiting AR. If that's not enough for you, you have the option of not being on this site at all. There are plenty of other online forums which may suit you better.
I mean this sincerely - there's no need for you to suffer in an environment that you're not happy in. However, it is also no justification for you to demand that your hosts change everything for you.
Any of the posts Junker did there done by a "round earther" would be commented by Junker with a "low contend be warned" post.
Well, no. It's the instigator that normally gets warned if he provokes someone - the person being provoked might get privately asked to tone it down, but that's that.
Your approach is an interesting one. You talk about things that "clearly" or "obviously" happen, but when faced with someone who disagrees, you're only capable of repeatedly restating your loaded assessment. It just doesn't inspire much confidence, you know?
Just have a look a Junker's list of postings and show me the ones that would not be counted as low content posting if done by someone else.
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;u=5232
Or could you explain me the substantial difference in content value between this two posts:
"This is typically the reply of the ignorant round earth logician. All hostility, no humility."
and
"i cant continue a debate with someone that doesnt exhibit intellectual honesty."
For the second one you gave a warning, the first one seems to be acceptable. Maybe you can explain why, so that in the future we have a better understanding of the forum rules and their interpretation by the moderators.
-
For the second one you gave a warning
I did no such thing. I politely asked the user not to target me personally. I would generally avoid moderating someone if I'm directly involved in the discussion - I'd ask someone else to have a look. In this specific case, I haven't done that either - it doesn't warrant moderator action at all.
That said, there still is a difference, and one I highlighted more than once. In the event where one individual is provoked by another and fails to step back in time, it is the provoker who should be penalised, not the victim.
-
Hexagon over here is of the opinion that we have no right to have AR in its current format. I genuinely can't muster any response other than "Well, we do have the right." I can see that he's taking it very seriously and personally, but I can offer no advice other than stepping back from the source of his frustrations.
This is not true. I have no problem with this, if anyone decides by himself to go there and make discussion in an insulting form. That's totally fine.
My problem is, that my posts are moved there and then an insulting response by a moderator is added there. It was not my decision to have a discussion with Junker there. I just read it while I was searching for my lost post.
I also have no problem with Junker removing my posts. If he doesn't like them, ok. It's fine. But there is no need to add insulting comments to them.
But my problem is, that posts by long time flat earth forum members that also do not fulfill the forum rules, are not moved and not even getting a warning.
-
Sheesh. Way to double down on the straw manning...
It's not every suggestion. If your suggestions are like "the designated board for insults and angry shouting should no longer have insults" then yes, that's flipping an aspect of this forum on its head.
Which they aren't, but do carry on. Oh, you did...
Similarly, your proposal for how we handle low-quality RE posters was that we work super extra hard to appease them and give them everything they want.
And I proposed that where? Why are you making stuff up?
All I'd do if I ruled the world (which it is increasingly and inexplicably apparent I do not) is be a bit more lenient in the upper fora and try and achieve a bit more consistency in modding decisions regardless of the poster. That's it. Hardly flipping anything on its anywhere.
-
That said, there still is a difference, and one I highlighted more than once. In the event where one individual is provoked by another and fails to step back in time, it is the provoker who should be penalised, not the victim.
So you think, Junker is always the victim that is only provoked to be insulting or low contend posting?
So if I post something, Junker doesn't like for whatever reason, I should be penalized? Seriously? That's a wired debate culture...
-
All I'd do if I ruled the world [...] is be a bit more lenient in the upper fora and try and achieve a bit more consistency in modding decisions regardless of the poster. That's it. Hardly flipping anything on its anywhere.
That's a brand new approach from you, and one that's much less unreasonable than your previous one (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9685.msg151310#msg151310). Now, it's possible that nobody on the FE side of the fence quite understood what you were saying, but the general understanding seemed to be that you wanted us to do more in order to appease the totally-and-completely-justified RE whine brigade.
Which they aren't
But Hexagon's are. Try to follow the chain of replies.
So you think, Junker is always the victim that is only provoked to be insulting or low contend posting?
No. We're talking about one specific thread.
-
i've been posting here since this forum opened, and i've never even been warned. it's easy: just don't make posts on the upper boards that aren't directly contributing to the thread or advancing an argument or whatever. and if you want to make an "omg you're fucking dumb" post, just do it in AR or CN.
sexpest alluded to the only breaks anyone gets around here: if you're a long-time regular, then you usually get a little slack. but only a little.
ultimately the problem is that a bunch of y'all are taking this place way too seriously. i don't mean that to sound insulting, but there's just nothing here worth being bothered by. and don't get me wrong, a bunch of the new folks are cool, fun posters with lots of interesting things to say, and i hope you'll all stick around for some more debates. i guess i just feel like you'll all have a better time if you stop worrying about convincing anyone that you're right. tom is never ever gonna tell you how awesome your argument is. ever. abandon that pretense.
better yet: come on down to the lower fora and call thork a perv for banging ciri, or explain to rushy why trump is an ape, or make fun of junker's favorite sports teams, or try to prove to tom that prayer can cure cancer, or start a new thread on whatever else.
i don't mean any of this to be insulting. just like, you know, relax and stuff, and you'll have more fun here. there isn't any corner of the internet quite like this one.
-
That's a brand new approach from you, and one that's much less unreasonable than your previous one (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9685.msg151310#msg151310). Now, it's possible that nobody on the FE side of the fence quite understood what you were saying, but the general understanding seemed to be that you wanted us to do more in order to appease the totally-and-completely-justified RE whine brigade.
It's not a new approach, in that thread I was talking about something different.
There I was talking about how, in my view, you could improve the standard of debate on here. You disagreed, fine, but that is what I was talking about there.
Here I'm talking about the style of moderation which should ideally treat all posters the same (with a side-dish of some latitude for long term posters - either FE or RE - who have earned it). And I would be a little less strict in the upper fora.
-
So you think, Junker is always the victim that is only provoked to be insulting or low contend posting?
No. We're talking about one specific thread.
No, just as an specific example. I also linked to all the post of Junker, and at least I couldn't find any post on the first pages of that list by him that would not be regraded as low contend posts if they would be posted by some outside the core team of flat earth believers on this forum. And I don't mean his "you're warned" or "fuck you" posts, I mean the post that seemed be to be contributions to discussions.
-
ultimately the problem is that a bunch of y'all are taking this place way too seriously. i don't mean that to sound insulting, but there's just nothing here worth being bothered by.
I fully agree, but the problem is, you're in general not allowed to formulate this or discuss about this. Which I think should be be part of a honest discussion.
-
I fully agree, but the problem is, you're in general not allowed to formulate this or discuss about this.
Who's stopping you?
-
I fully agree, but the problem is, you're in general not allowed to formulate this or discuss about this.
Who's stopping you?
You, Junker? Usually threads or posts with meta-discussions about the concept of flat earth as such, perception of flat earth/earthers, mindset of flat-earthers and so on are removed from the standard forums. E.g. yesterday you moved a whole thread to angry ranting, even though no one was either angry or ranting.
Or take the post where Junker called me a moron afterwards, I was just explaining that in the scientific community your whole idea and movement is neither taken serious nor of any relevance. This is just a description from inside the scientific community. Why is this moved to angry ranting, its just a description of the status quo? For me this looks like, you don't apprecheate this kind of discussion.
-
Usually threads or posts with meta-discussions about the concept of flat earth as such, perception of flat earth/earthers, mindset of flat-earthers and so on are removed from the standard forums. E.g. yesterday you moved a whole thread to angry ranting, even though no one was either angry or ranting.
You're trying to conflate "removing" something with "moving" it. Isn't that a bit silly? As far as I can tell, the discussion is still going on.
In the upper fora, we discuss ideas, not individuals. If you want to discuss individuals or talk about who you think is and isn't relevant, that takes place in the "anything goes" boards.
Or take the post where Junker called me a moron afterwards, I was just explaining that in the scientific community your whole idea and movement is neither taken serious nor of any relevance. This is just a description from inside the scientific community. Why is this moved to angry ranting, its just a description of the status quo?
It doesn't matter whether your insults and ad hominems are mainstream. You're more than welcome to continue them in the appropriate board.
For me this looks like, you don't apprecheate this kind of discussion.
So what? We still allow for it to continue, practically unrestricted. If anything, moving these threads out of the "clean" boards remkces restrictions.
So, I ask again. Who's stopping you from continuing your discussions? It certainly isn't us.
-
I don't like places where moderators are fine with commenting posts with "fuck you" etc. If you need this style of discussion for what ever purpose, I'm fine with that. But this style is not for me. In that sense this practically restricts this type of discussions for me.
-
Then I can only repeat my heartfelt recommendation to find a place that suits you better. Unfortunately, your ad hominems will live in AR. If you can't handle being insulted, you'll just have to deal with not insulting people around here.
-
Then I can only repeat my heartfelt recommendation to find a place that suits you better. Unfortunately, your ad hominems will live in AR. If you can't handle being insulted, you'll just have to deal with not insulting people around here.
It is not insulting to tell you that scientist are not taking the flat earth idea serious. Or do you know a real, active scientist working at a university or equivalent scientific institution taking this idea serious? I don't know any and never heard about one. It's just a description of the status quo, if you like it or not.
-
Beside that I'm still waiting for you pointing out some non-low content posts in the list of Junker's posts to convince me that the moderation on this forum is fair and neutral.
I still have the impression, that the core flat earth believer members of this forum can post whatever they like and don't have to care for the forum rules, while other people get warnings, bans or have their posts and threads removed from the public forums, because moderators, especially Junker, are biased in doing their job.
-
Hex, I agree that the moderation is not entirely fair and neutral. Even Pete conceded there is some bias.
But it's not true to say the core flat earth believers can post whatever they like.
It's more that they've become core members because they don't post whatever they like.
I've seen Tom post stuff that I know a new RE member would have been warned for and he hasn't been.
But if Tom went completely postal at someone then I don't think he'd get away with it.
(Much as I have problems with his debating style I have to concede he remains remarkably calm under some serious bombardment).
-
Beside that I'm still waiting for you pointing out some non-low content posts in the list of Junker's posts to convince me that the moderation on this forum is fair and neutral.
What list of posts? Junker hardly ever posts in the upper. I've addressed the one recent case that you've been whinging about.
I still have the impression
I can't help you with your impressions.
-
So I've read this whole thread and I can't sit by and stay silent any longer.
Hex. Junker is a mod but he's also a member. He has all the rights and privledges you do. Thus, if he wants to call you a moron in AR, he can call you a moron in AR. He is not bound to some higher standard you've made in your head.
You also seem to think that you're insulted because you're RE. Well, that's not true. I'm RE. I'm also a long standing member. I get insulted when I say something stupid or wrong. You too, I suspect. Don't like it? Don't be wrong.
-
Beside that I'm still waiting for you pointing out some non-low content posts in the list of Junker's posts to convince me that the moderation on this forum is fair and neutral.
What list of posts? Junker hardly ever posts in the upper. I've addressed the one recent case that you've been whinging about.
See my post here:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9867.msg154653#msg154653
-
Hex, I agree that the moderation is not entirely fair and neutral. Even Pete conceded there is some bias.
But it's not true to say the core flat earth believers can post whatever they like.
It's more that they've become core members because they don't post whatever they like.
I've seen Tom post stuff that I know a new RE member would have been warned for and he hasn't been.
But if Tom went completely postal at someone then I don't think he'd get away with it.
(Much as I have problems with his debating style I have to concede he remains remarkably calm under some serious bombardment).
Regarding low content post, they can do. Go to the profiles of them and look through the lists of posts by them and count all the one-liners they post. And then go through the forums and compare their posts with the posts by other people that got a low-content warning by Junker and you will see that the bias is eye-catching.
Or compare the posts Junker moved to angry ranting and compare them to posts by flat-earther believers where they rant about NASA, scientists, etc. calling them liars, fake, stupid, etc. Good example is the post where this Bishop guy called entire Astronomy non-scientific on the same level as Astrology. On the other hand if you call flat-earth theory a pseudo-science chances are quite high to get a warning.
Other example I posted above, where Junker insulted a so-called flat earthers as such, while a few posts later a round earther for something very similar got an implicit warning.
The excuse was, that poor Junker was provoked and we have to understand his reaction. But it seems to me, to provoke Junker you just have to disagree with his flat-earth believe. I'm pretty sure that if the roles where assigned the other way round in this dispute, the argumentation would be turned around also.
-
See my post here:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9867.msg154653#msg154653
I have, and after reading a few pages of junker's recent posts, I responded as follows: Junker hardly ever posts in the upper. I've addressed the one recent case that you've been whinging about.
If you have other cases you want to present, do so. I can't really address you being under the impression that something's happening if you can't demonstrate that it does indeed happen.
-
So I've read this whole thread and I can't sit by and stay silent any longer.
Hex. Junker is a mod but he's also a member. He has all the rights and privledges you do. Thus, if he wants to call you a moron in AR, he can call you a moron in AR. He is not bound to some higher standard you've made in your head.
No, the rights and privileges are not equal. I can not take his posts, move them to angry ranting just for the purpose of insulting him. He can do whatever he likes with my posts.
I have no problems with moderators doing there job, and cleaning up threads, removing posts if they do not go along with the forum rules and style. That's fine. But to comment all removed posts with insulting remarks, is an abuse of the role as moderator.
-
I can not take his posts, move them to angry ranting just for the purpose of insulting him.
Nobody does that. Posts get moved out of the upper if they don't belong to the upper. The purpose is to keep the boards compliant with the rules.
I have no problems with moderators doing there job, and cleaning up threads, removing posts if they do not go along with the forum rules and style.
Good. You're making progress.
But to comment all removed posts with insulting remarks, is an abuse of the role as moderator.
Abuse? Goodness gracious. Nobody's forcing you to read stuff in AR. Also, not a single one of your posts has been removed.
My proposal, should you choose to accept it, is that we restrict your access to Angry Ranting. You're clearly too sensitive for it, and you lack the restraint to stop viewing things which upset you. We could help you out with that one.
-
See my post here:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9867.msg154653#msg154653
I have, and after reading a few pages of junker's recent posts, I responded as follows: Junker hardly ever posts in the upper. I've addressed the one recent case that you've been whinging about.
It's not about how often he is posting, that's obvious that he stays out of the most discussions. I'm talking about the occasions where he is doing it. And upon them you will hardly find a post that does not qualify as a low-content post according to your own forum rules.
-
It's not about how often he is posting, that's obvious that he stays out of the most discussions. I'm talking about the occasions where he is doing it. And upon them you will hardly find a post that does not qualify as a low-content post according to your own forum rules.
Okay. Show me. I've gone through a fair few pages of his posts and haven't found that to be the case.
Again: If you have cases you'd like to present, do so. Don't just tell me that they totally-for-certain exist. I don't care about that.
-
I can not take his posts, move them to angry ranting just for the purpose of insulting him.
Nobody does that. Posts get moved out of the upper if they don't belong to the upper. The purpose is to keep the boards compliant with the rules.
I have no problems with moderators doing there job, and cleaning up threads, removing posts if they do not go along with the forum rules and style.
Good. You're making progress.
But to comment all removed posts with insulting remarks, is an abuse of the role as moderator.
Abuse? Goodness gracious. Nobody's forcing you to read stuff in AR.
My proposal, should you choose to accept it, is that we restrict your access to Angry Ranting. You're clearly too sensitive for it, and you lack the restraint to stop viewing things which upset you. We could help you out with that one.
I only read them, cause I was looking what happened to my post.
It's not too sensitive. I told you, if you need this low level of discussion for your personal satisfaction, I'm fine with that. But I don't like to be involved in this.
-
I only read them, cause I was looking what happened to my post.
Sounds like a personal problem to me. Perhaps you should write about it on your blog. If you really can't stand junker's posts in AR that much, you could always ignore (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?action=profile;area=lists;sa=ignore) him.
It's not too sensitive. I told you, if you need this low level of discussion for your personal satisfaction, I'm fine with that.
And yet you keep repeatedly trying to argue that we have no right to say mean things about you in AR. Make up your mind.
But I don't like to be involved in this.
And what do you expect us to do about it? If you don't want to be involved in something, then, well, stop being involved in it. We're not demanding that you read AR. Hell, I've even suggested that you should find a forum that suits you better. If you don't like to be involved, then don't be involved.
-
It's not about how often he is posting, that's obvious that he stays out of the most discussions. I'm talking about the occasions where he is doing it. And upon them you will hardly find a post that does not qualify as a low-content post according to your own forum rules.
Okay. Show me. I've gone through a fair few pages of his posts and haven't found that to be the case.
Again: If you have cases you'd like to present, do so. Don't just tell me that they totally-for-certain exist. I don't care about that.
High content posts?
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9854.msg154386#msg154386
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9575.msg150824#msg150824
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=8460.msg142361#msg142361
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=7985.msg134868#msg134868
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=7898.msg134851#msg134851
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=7003.msg127379#msg127379
Just a random collection of posts over the last months.
See also his tendency to add little implicit or explicit insulting remarks, like in the last post ("I really try to keep it simple for RE logicians").
What would he do with a post by me starting with "I really try to keep it simple for FE logicians"?
-
How about this one for which i was warned; yet i was posting a link to a previous comment, which was completely relevant. Read back the three posts before it, and my only “crime” was to open a new post instead of modifying the post before it.
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9653.msg150826#msg150826
And yet read this one......
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9358.msg154952#msg154952
See the similarities????
-
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9854.msg154386#msg154386
Already discussed and addressed. I asked for other examples.
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9575.msg150824#msg150824
It's only fair that junker should leave a message before permabanning someone.
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=8460.msg142361#msg142361
Again, a statement of moderation action. Seems to contain all the content needed.
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=7985.msg134868#msg134868
I see no problem here.
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=7898.msg134851#msg134851
Looks like another case of someone attacking junker and him responding. Also, this is over half a year old now. I'll take it as confirmation that you haven't indeed witnessed many issues.
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=7003.msg127379#msg127379
Once again, I fail to see the problem. Yes, it's a heated discussion, but what rules do you propose were broken?
Just a random collection of posts over the last months.
It was indeed rather random. Please don't waste my time again.
What would he do with a post by me starting with "I really try to keep it simple for FE logicians"?
That depends on how you ended your post, and what the overall balance of content was.
See the similarities????
I do not. Your "crime" was posting a quote with no context, providing no contribution to the thread. Did this particular instance deserve a warning? I dunno, I wouldn't have issued one. Tom's post is providing a video in response to a question. The question was referenced, and an answer was given. How is this at all similar to you providing an out-of-context quote with an addendum of "hi here is a quote"?
Finally, you are fundamentally missing an important aspect of our system: getting a single warning matters extremely little. You guys love to get upset over the fact that someone asked you to behave. You will note that, outside of particularly irredeemable cases, bans are hardly ever issued. Usually, for occasional offenders, we just keep issuing "super duper final warnings" ad nauseam.
So, should you have gotten a warning for that post? In my view, no. Does it matter enough for either of us to waste our time on this? Absolutely not.
-
Now the subject has been raised, I have a similar concern. I was warned three times by PM, but anonymously, that my posts were ‘spamming’. Finally I was banned for 3 days by Junker for ‘low content posts’.
My issue is (1) that I don’t think my posts are ‘low content’. I did a PhD on the subject of the geometry of the visual field, including work by one of the top mathematicians in the country (the late John Mayberry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Penn_Mayberry), who was also my undergraduate supervisor). The subject is closely related to how we perceive or represent 'flatness'. I could explain this in more detail if anyone asks.
And (2) if they are felt to be low content, then please warn me publicly, rather than by anonymous mail. Then at least I can get a sense of why the content is thought to be low. The ban was as a result of a thread including posts like this (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5525.msg154151#msg154151)
I said mathematically true. Mathematics is what mathematics is. It is indifferent to RE or FE models. If I claim that 2+1=3, is this RET? How?
Incidentally, that is just the kind of thing Prof Mayberry might have said.
In addition, I thought it was rather low to do this while I was debating with a mod.
-
I don’t think my posts are ‘low content’.
That's simply not for you to decide.
if they are felt to be low content, then please warn me publicly
This is already common practice. In fact, if you look at hexagon's complaint above, he's very bothered by the fact that warnings are issued publicly.
Here are a couple of times where I publicly informed you that your posts were not appropriate for the upper:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9819.msg153882#msg153882
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9813.msg153950#msg153950
Coincidentally, the reason for your ban has been made public, and it's not what you claim it is. Funnily enough, not a single of your warnings originated in the thread you assert.
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9797.msg154169#msg154169
In addition, I thought it was rather low to do this while I was debating with a mod.
Do you think rules should be ignored just because you're talking to a moderator? I'm a forum member all the same. I would understand this complaint if I was both your discussion partner and the person issuing warnings to you, but this is not the case.
-
OK he is entirely serious.
I told you...
If you have nothing to add to the thread beyond musing about sandokhan's posts, then I will ask you to refrain from derailing the thread. Take it to CN. Warnings for both.
EDIT - Turns out both of you are sitting on three warnings already. So why don't you both take a few days off to review the rules.
I see. So 'take a few days off' meant literally not posting for a few days. When I did post, that prompted the ban, yes?
-
I see. So 'take a few days off' meant literally not posting for a few days. When I did post, that prompted the ban, yes?
Almost. "Take a few days off" in this case meant "I am banning you for a few days, thus preventing you from posting".
-
Regarding this thread https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9813.msg153950#msg153950 which you mention, you wrote
I'm going to be charitable and not issue two warnings for the same offence within 24 hours. Please keep your complaints about individual FE'ers to Angry Ranting. Since you're already on three warnings, short bans will follow soon.
The only complaint about individuals was this:
I don't know about the distance from Paris to London but there have been claims made that the distance between New York and Paris is unknown:
The distance from New York to Paris is unknown.
That seems a perfectly valid comment. It was true that Tom Bishop said this (he was quoted) and this related to the subject of the thread. Have I missed something?
-
That seems a perfectly valid comment.
Once again, I do not care about what may or may not "seem" to be the case to you.
Have I missed something?
Yes. You missed the OP. Not only are you misquoting Tom's claim in the thread's subject (and very obviously targeting him), the thread you've created consists of nothing but "You're wrong. Why are people still wrong?". As I said, you are welcome to discuss ideas in the upper, or individuals in CN/AR.
-
OK I get it. Don't criticise Tom Bishop.
-
Don't criticise Tom Bishop.
Criticise his ideas (without misrepresenting them), not the individual. If you really want to complain about him as a person, do so in Angry Ranting or Complete Nonsense, which are more or less our "anything goes" zone. It's where people go to call me an "obnoxious prick," among other things ;)
Meanwhile, the upper fora are meant to be fairly clean and well-behaved.
-
Don't criticise Tom Bishop.
Criticise his ideas (without misrepresenting them), not the individual. If you really want to complain about him as a person, do so in Angry Ranting or Complete Nonsense, which are more or less our "anything goes" zone. It's where people go to call me an "obnoxious prick," among other things ;)
Meanwhile, the upper fora are meant to be fairly clean and well-behaved.
So if I opened a thread about distance from London to New York, and explained how distances measured by lat/lon are different from distances measured by triangulation (which was the implicit point of the OP) then that is OK?
-
Sure. If your post references a specific claim and addresses it without slighting the individual, there's no problem there. I can't promise you that such a thread would be popular, but it wouldn't be in breach of the rules, in principle.
-
So I've read this whole thread and I can't sit by and stay silent any longer.
Hex. Junker is a mod but he's also a member. He has all the rights and privledges you do. Thus, if he wants to call you a moron in AR, he can call you a moron in AR. He is not bound to some higher standard you've made in your head.
No, the rights and privileges are not equal. I can not take his posts, move them to angry ranting just for the purpose of insulting him. He can do whatever he likes with my posts.
I have no problems with moderators doing there job, and cleaning up threads, removing posts if they do not go along with the forum rules and style. That's fine. But to comment all removed posts with insulting remarks, is an abuse of the role as moderator.
I never said he didn't have MORE than you, I said he has the same as you.YOU have the right to insult him in AR. HE has the right to insult you in AR. Both have the same rights. He just has a few extra powers that you do not. But that does not mean he can't do what you can do. He can totally do everything you can do.
And for that, I'm gonna pull a junker.
(you know, without mod powers so you understand it can be done even by an REer.)
-
. He can totally do everything you can do.
Yes, you're right, but I never neglected that. My point is the other way round. I never called him a moron or said "fuck you" to other people. It's not the way I prefer to communicate or discuss with other people.
What I don't like, is to be forced into such discussions. And I don't see any forum rule, that says, if you're post is removed that is followed by an insult by the moderators.
And it tells me a lot about the people here, if they think that's something needed and appreciated.
I don't know how this works in the US, but if this would be a forum in Europe, the owner of the forum would get into sever trouble for treating people in that way or tolerating that behaviour...
-
What I don't like, is to be forced into such discussions.
Nobody's forcing you to do anything, remember?
I don't know how this works in the US, but if this would be a forum in Europe, the owner of the forum would get into sever trouble for treating people in that way or tolerating that behaviour...
Omitting the fact that "server trouble" is not really a thing, nobody would get into any sort of trouble for telling people to fuck off on a private forum.
-
I received another warning just now.
edby,
You have received a warning for spamming. Please cease these activities and abide by the forum rules otherwise we will take further action.
Regards,
The Flat Earth Society Forum Team.
I made two posts today. One agreeing with Tom Bishop, the other posting a map of the Great India Survey. Which of these were 'spamming' please?
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9899.msg155075#msg155075 1st post
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9883.msg155079#msg155079 2nd post
-
I made two posts today. One agreeing with Tom Bishop, the other posting a map of the Great India Survey. Which of these were 'spamming' please?
You know, this really isn't that hard.
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9899.msg155075#msg155075
-
. He can totally do everything you can do.
Yes, you're right, but I never neglected that. My point is the other way round. I never called him a moron or said "fuck you" to other people. It's not the way I prefer to communicate or discuss with other people.
What I don't like, is to be forced into such discussions. And I don't see any forum rule, that says, if you're post is removed that is followed by an insult by the moderators.
And it tells me a lot about the people here, if they think that's something needed and appreciated.
I don't know how this works in the US, but if this would be a forum in Europe, the owner of the forum would get into sever trouble for treating people in that way or tolerating that behaviour...
Seriously, did you not see what I wrote in AR?
If not, then problem solved.
Would you prefer your posts be deleted and then you insulted? I'm sure Junker can be persuaded to do that.
-
So I have also been PM'd about spamming.
I was unable to reply so directly so here I am.
I wont post the messages again for fear that this also counts as spamming, suffice to say one was quite long and related to some debate that was being made surrounding making observations of the constellations in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. Part of my post related to this by adding another method but then digressed into other areas. I'm not sure if this is to be deemed 'spamming' if so, geez I'm in trouble. I live to digress. It makes life so much more interesting.
So, that post was deleted I think but I managed to re-post it in the 'general' discussions topics area. I figured it might be better there as it dealt with more than one thing.
I then posted another message in the 'questions' area. This elaborated on an area touched on in my original message where I recount my efforts putting an balloon with cameras up to 100 000ft + . I end with a question relating to the observations that were made. Still no sign of spamming if you ask me!
I did look for advice on what constitutes spamming and for guidance on what the 'debate' thread should actually look like but couldn't find it. I would appreciate links if they do exist.
all in all, it seems a bit strict to warn me for spamming given that this adjective is usually reserved for more extreme 'bot' or 'troll' type behavour. My posts were made in good faith (or at least as much faith as an atheist can muster).
I await your goodly advice dear Sir's and Madam's.
-
Here's your thread. As always, no posts have been deleted, because we generally don't delete posts.
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9978.msg156289#msg156289
It's really not that hard to figure out.
-
Dear Pete,
some questions to help me move forward:
1. Where are your forum rules?
2. Where is the guidance regarding what a 'debate' question should look like. The substance of the post was concerning how observations in the North and South hemispheres can be used as evidence in the FE vs RE debate. Is it the subject heading that you objected to? Was it the discussion of what constitutes the Scientific method? Basically a bit more info would be useful.
3. Why did you change the subject heading?
If you are going to put posts written in good faith under the defamatory heading 'angry ranting' and then further nest them under newly made up subject headings you might as well delete them.
-
1. Where are your forum rules?
You explicitly agreed to follow them when you set up your account. Have you forgotten to read what you're agreeing to?
Oh well: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=977.0
2. Where is the guidance regarding what a 'debate' question should look like.
If the majority of your post is a ramble about how you dislike FET, then it belongs in Angry Ranting.
3. Why did you change the subject heading?
It's what we do. Angry Ranting and Complete Nonsense are our "garbage dump" boards. You're not expected to care about what occurs there and, as you may have noticed, people take a very tongue-in-cheek approach to that section.
If you are going to put posts written in good faith under the defamatory heading 'angry ranting' and then further nest them under newly made up subject headings you might as well delete them.
You're always welcome to delete your own posts. Personally, I'm not going to invest too much time on dealing with spam, even if you write a passionate and loaded plea about it.