The Flat Earth Society

The Flat Earth Society => Suggestions & Concerns => Topic started by: SteelyBob on January 10, 2021, 07:59:05 PM

Title: Moderation question
Post by: SteelyBob on January 10, 2021, 07:59:05 PM
Hello all

I recently posted in the FE Theory forum in response to a new OP (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=17558.0 (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=17558.0)). My post was removed for some reason, and I was banned for a week.

I'd really like to better understand why this was. The OP asked a question about an idea for a new map. I came up with a particular problem I could see with the map. I'm at a complete loss as what is wrong with this, especially given what was said in some of the subsequent posts - it certainly doesn't seem to be 'off-topic', as my ban message says.

Here's the post that got me banned, containing the tail end of the OP's question:
Quote
Quote
What do you guys think about this map ? Is it in any way realistic ?

Aside from the stuff beyond the ice wall which I'll leave for others to discuss, like most FET maps, I would ask how two people, one in South Africa and the other in Western Australia could be looking at the night sky at the same time, observing the same southern pole star, Sigma Octantis, looking due south from both of their positions, despite 'south' being roughly 90 degrees apart according to that map. How would that work, exactly?

I'd be really grateful if @Pete, or whoever it was who decided to ban me, could explain why my post was 'off topic' in a little more detail. I genuinely want to add to the discussion here, and I'd clearly like to avoid being banned.
Title: Re: Moderation question
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 10, 2021, 08:14:09 PM
Bans aren't issued for single posts, and none of your posts were removed. You received three warnings, and the final one came with an indication that it is, well, final. Shortly after that warning, you doubled down, because apparently you took it as a personal challenge to do even worse.

Aside from the post you already quoted (which is an obvious off-topic rant of "aside from [the thread's topic], here are other things I dislike about FET") here are a few examples of the quality posting that earned you your warnings, and started you on the path of short bans.

A long diatribe about how great RET is, in response to a question about FET which you don't even attempt to address:
Gyroscopes, as used in aviation and other navigation applications, are pretty compelling evidence that the earth isn't flat. [...]

Either all of this stuff is part of some grand conspiracy involving every aircraft designer, and every avionics maintenance engineer (bearing in mind the kit wouldn't have worked properly if non-existent errors were being corrected), and every pilot etc, or the world is, in fact, a rotating oblate spheroid. I know which one I believe.

followed by a declaration that there obviously isn't an answer to the question:

Indeed. Well put Ronj - thanks

There is no FET answer, is there? It doesn't exist. The earth isn't flat.

A thread in which you complain how mind-boggling it is that others might not share your position on things: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=17466.msg227036#msg227036

Arguing with a literal spambot, because checking whether you're talking to a real person is too much work when there's some "I DISAGREE!!!" to post: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=17459.msg226838#msg226838

There was, of course, the lamp post thread fiasco, in which you simply refused to address your opposition, instead declaring that no response was given to you and restating the same position six times.

In short: if you cannot participate in debates without either just shouting "EARTH ROUND RARRRRGH!!!" or arguing in terrible faith and pretending that your arguments are the be-all-end-all of a discussion, then you shouldn't be posting in the upper fora. The fact that you chose to ignore all warnings and pushed things to the point of your second ban does not inspire much confidence, either.
Title: Re: Moderation question
Post by: SteelyBob on January 10, 2021, 08:51:13 PM
The OP presented a map with many things on it. I said 'aside from' to focus on the area inside the ice wall, not to diverge from the entire topic. They didn't specify the area outside the ice wall alone, they asked what we thought about the map, and whether it was realistic. I came up with a reason why I thought it wasn't realistic. I fail to see how that is off topic, and it certainly isn't a rant.

Also, just for my further education, am I supposed to get three warnings, or just one, before a ban? Because the final warning I got on 1 Jan was the first warning I'd had since you banned me on 24 December.

And to be absolutely clear, I am absolutely not viewing your bans or warning system as a personal challenge. I posted the above in the interest of a good debate, just as I did with my point regarding the problem of the WW2 Pacific campaign being feasible on the bi-polar map being discussed at the time - it's a perfectly reasonable point, whether you agree with it or not. Surely historical military campaigns would have to be explicable on any credible FET map?



Title: Re: Moderation question
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 10, 2021, 09:04:05 PM
Also, just for my further education, am I supposed to get three warnings, or just one, before a ban? Because the final warning I got on 1 Jan was the first warning I'd had since you banned me on 24 December.
Your final warning was issued on the 24th Dec (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=17508.msg228063#msg228063). The promise of three warnings before we start banning you is a good will gesture - people make mistakes, and we should give them a chance to adjust. After the three, the training wheels are off, and warnings are generally used at moderator's discretion. If you come back from a ban and immediately resume the behaviour you were banned for, it's not uncommon that you'll be banned again right away.
Title: Re: Moderation question
Post by: SteelyBob on January 10, 2021, 10:20:18 PM
Well ok, that answers that question then, but that still doesn’t explain how my pointing out a flaw in a map, in response to a question asking ‘is this map realistic?’ represents an ‘off topic rant’. You’re implying that my ‘aside from’ meant ‘aside from your question’ or ‘aside from this thread’, but it absolutely was not doing that - I was addressing precisely the question the OP asked, namely whether the map was realistic. I’d be grateful if you could explain how that is off topic, as if I am to avoid further bans, I really need to get this clear.
Title: Re: Moderation question
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 10, 2021, 10:48:03 PM
I'm afraid that won't be happening. I'm sorry if my judgement call is one you disagree with here, but right now it's pretty obvious to me that you've come here to troll, and I won't waste more time on you than is absolutely necessary.

You do not need to worry about singular posts - if you eliminate the overwhelmingly negative pattern of behaviour I outlined in my first response, occasional slip-ups or disagreements won't be a problem.