Posts posted by Aethelwulf
I wonder if it would be appropriate for non-staff members like me to openly call for a ban of these asshats to give the mods some cover when they ultimately have to make that decision and terminate their accounts.
Quite a strong proposal from someone who likes to verbally defile peoples parents.. perhaps you should be banned also?0
. I love the moderators here. I really do. They do a wonderful job and I am now taking the opportunity to express that sentiment.
I agree, I think the mods here are good. There are however some nip and tucks required.
You really are such a nice man, we bow down to your great knowledge of science o great one
In what way? I only take my place as participating in science threads I think I can participate in... what's the other poster done that is noteworthy? I haven't seen him place great amounts of time into the science forums. Rather it seems, he like to ''bitch'' about those ''bitching''...0
Is what you said supposed to have anything at all to do with my comment?
You've been doing nothing but bitching,
You really are an idiot. Neg rep me folks, ''I have an opinion''!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hiding behind your bugs bunny avatar, I bet you don't even have much knowledge in physics. Ironically, I have not seen you bitching about anything, or even a scientific comment outside of my God thread... makes me think you are incapable of even discussing science.-5
All of this mutual admiration and complaining is starting to make me ill.
Oh diddums.. If only life was seen through your rose-tinted spectacles... no one would have a problem, right?-2
When anyone is under the spotight they may just remain quite so I wouldn't expect a response from the moderator. What the moderator doesn't acknowledge is that we too don't like being under the spotlight. They seem to ignore that fact.
One rule of us... and one for them.0
Yeah, I know. The purpose of this thread is to not leave that as a possible excuse.
As I said before in my last thread, these are the ''Legal Strawmen''
my thread has been closed pending review... very interesting. Leaving it open would have said far less.0
I'd suggest you te read them.
Indeed, these are not bullying tactics. These tactics are addressing those on the verge of being hyprocrites.0
I am not responding to the majority of this in accordance with the above mod note as well as due to reasons I have already stated.
I will however respond to your first sentence. Unless my text is surrounded by a green or red box, I'm not acting in my capacity as a moderator, I am approaching the thread as a member. Please do not confuse the two.
It's quite clear you have actually (Engaged or) disagreed with the response of negative reputation... if you hadn't, I would expect a totally different response from you.
I keep seeing the comment off topic commng up when people want to ask questions about moderator actions. For that reason I started a new thread Moderating a forum which can be found at
I think of ''off-topic'' as the legal straw man. The only kind of straw man allowed.0
The off-topic comments are nonsense. I don't know these moderators personally, but obviously the talk about it being off-topic is rubbish.
in my experience, someone proclaims off-topic posts even when it isn't, is topics they don't want to discuss.0
My mod actions are indifferent to the discussion as long as that discussion falls within the rules. My actions are also indifferent to those taking part in the discussion.
In thread is not the place to complain about mod actions on that thread. More generally this thread is not really the place for that discussion.
What is the rules? It sounds like you have came in here shaking your scepter because you did not like the subject. But it heavily falls within the rules, this is about the reputation system, if you haven't noticed... whether the name ''mod'' falls into it shouldn't count.0
Really? Seems to me this is about what you assume is my displeasure with the neg rep system based off something that someone told you. This is hinting towards becoming personal, which is why I asked you to defer your questions - which do not seem related to the OP so much as directed at me specifically - to PM.
In the meantime, I have answered your questions for you.
No, you being a mod should not come in this thread all ''high and mighty'' about a subject with, which to me, seems clear you have values on. You either like or do not like the reputation system... better yet, why don't you be a backseat mod and only complain on the things you feel should?
This is certainly not off-subject, since you clearly have views about it. You want a PM? Yes, why not --- if there is no truth in the other persons claims, then you are quite right to speak it here instead of PM's where there will be no influences.-2
No, it is not. This is once again off topic though. I would prefer that you place your baited questions in PM, unless they have relevance to the OP.
Off topic? this is about you having a displeasure about the reputation system.... interesting response.
I call you a liar, unless the other poster is. In which case, it certainly is not off-topic and I will apologize if there is absolutely no truth behind it.0
And you have proof of this, I assume?
i was told off another member that you pulled them up them negatively repping your post.
Is this true or not?0
I answered the question you asked of me in the post I quoted. To answer this question, to my knowledge, no I have not. Can I ask you what the relevance of this is to my post?
Comments and discussions relating to moderator action do not really belong in this thread.
Please keep to the topic of the reputation action. I'd rather this thread didn't end in closure.
Wait a minute... mod action and reputation actions are different, don't close the thread because you don't like the subject.
If it is a mod who complains about reputation action, don't make the choice just because the subject is hitting home... you will pretty much put up with anything else!
Like some one verbally defiling someones dead mother... for instance.0
Just because they don't explicitly justify their reasons to you, does not mean that their reasons are unjustified.
They are. We don't neg rep people in place of warning them about rules violations as that is not what the reputation system is for, nor is it an effective way to ask a member not to do something. They are separate systems used for separate tasks, hence I see no relevance in your questions.
However, since you are so persistent, no I haven't complained about any neg rep I've received as I can normally figure out why I have received them and I see no reason to call someone out on it or to ask someone else to fix them. If another member happens along and disagrees with the way my posts have been repped, they might take it upon themselves to counter it, but that is entirely their prerogative and it is not something I have ever concerned myself with.
Again, I will ask, have you ever complained about the negative repping system to anyone? You are avoiding the question empirically.0
I am failing to see how this might relate to the comment of mine that you quoted.
You said that negative reps and moderation systems are completely different.
As a moderator, have you ever complained (To anyone) about it?
So please, just answer my question. Have you ever had a problem with anyone negatively repping you?
Comments such as exagerations llike
".. we are not here to serve your every whim"
".. back-seat moderating is not appropriate"
tell me about it. I hate these comments lol0
And yet when we analyzed a thread, we saw that all of the posts that were negatively repped were actually of poor quality, owing to shortcomings like dodging the question or being condescending.
You doth protest too much, methinks.
The greater percent maybe... does the lives of many outweigh the few? I think the unjustified nature, (the fact many do not justify their reasons) is reason enough to realize the system is at fault.0
When people talk about homosexuals they say "They dont have a choice" "its genetic", i refuse to believe that, i dont think you can be born gay, but by the experiences people venture through that makes them gay. Also i dont believe in the gay gene because growing up, most of my friends and i didnt like girls till around 4th and 5th grade. i went through that "girls are icky" phase pretty much. Anyways i dont believe the gay gene exists and i do believe its a life choice, people have their free will to choose or not in my opinion, if the gay gene does exist then its a very confusing part of genetics. what do you guys think?
I think it could be genetic. After all, homosexuality is observed in nature, in many arrays of animals.1
If I give you negative rep because I think the quality of your post is poor I owe you no justification for doing so. I am free to express my opinion whether of not you agree or disagree with it.
Who are you to negatively rep anyone though? You may have some contradictory ''good intentions'' by negatively repping a post. I bet half or more of those neg reps are actually not backed up without any verbal attire.
If I had a black and white view of the world (which let's face it, many people do), I would be negatively repping people all over the place.
Because the reputation system and moderation of posts and members by staff are two completely separate things.
Bolded mine. This is not true. We sometimes add a small bit at the end of a mod note asking members not to respond in thread, but instead to use the PM or the report feature. The reason for this is simply because responding in thread can massively derail it from the OP, which os obviously not something we want to have happen.
Are they? Have you ever pulled someone up on negatively repping someone? Be honest now, please.0
There is no breakdown. It's a way for the membership here to vote up or down the quality of the content of a post. The only one's offended are those that make poor quality posts like ad hominem attacks that get voted down by the membership.
Don't even start. Of course, there is a breakdown. This has been established time and time again, even by moderators here. The breakdown comes a number of ways... can you name them? Have you really thought about this deep enough to recognize those problems?-1
So the reputation system is fine for feedback, and there's no justification for it? And for people who can't discuss things at your level but can still evaluate the quality of a post, are to have no voice whatsoever? Sounds incredibly contradictory to me.
That's right, there is no justification for it. Who justifies in the end, their negative rep?
Those who do actually justify a neg rep, have something to say. Otherwise, it's utter nonesense.
feedback should have comments written with it. Do you judge a book by it's cover?0
Look Juan, the wave nature of particles is certainly NOT speculation or a myth. It's a matter of hard scientific facts. Experimental physics led to this understanding, that a particle is not just a wave but a particle as well. The reason is rooted from the double slit experiment.
Indeed, a particle moved as a wave through the two slits, however it exhibited a particle nature as well when it reached the screen as a ''dot''.0
I quite agree. Moderators really shouldn't use the moderator function to be rude to members, even when they have a legitimate point to make.
I think, if moderators don't like something being negatively repped, then they should redirect that dislike to this very thread. They either
A) Agree to this reputation system (despite it's flaws) or
B) They really don't agree with it
If a moderator displaces dislike to it, then the nature of the breakdown of this system runs deeper than those who actually attend this place outside of the free members.0
I am far from being a physicist, so I will not comment on specific content here, but I would like to make some more general remarks. The purpose of the Speculations forum isn't to punish OP's and having a thread here doesn't necessarily mean that the content is wrong. It is simply for speculation and for positing ideas that are not always in line with currently accepted science. If you think that you have written a thread containing your own scientific speculations or hypotheses, then this is certainly the place to put it. If you can explain them and back them up, all the better.
I think the biggest speculation is the Induced Time theory. Ok, my own creation but it is rooted from hard scientific disciplines involving moving clocks in relativity which possess a frame of reference... I don't know.When is a speculation a speculation?
Is a speculation backed by evidence a reason to say it can be mainstream?0
Moderating a Forum
in Suggestions, Comments and Support
However some moderator actions are left open to discuss.