Search the Community

There is nothing illegal about observing the obvious fact that you have created a sock-puppet account. However, that is against the rules the forum.

??? this account please

Another rule is you can only have one account. Do you want to keep this one or the AUDI R6 account?

Science DISCUSSION forum. We sit at an imaginary table and talk about science. We don't jump on top of the table and start shouting everyone down. We don't attack people, we attack ideas to make them stronger or show they're rotten. That's how the methodology works in science. The only real problem here is that you're trying to present your "opinions regarding the mind" (paraphrasing) to people who have studied what mainstream science has observed, and they've found several points where your opinions don't reconcile with what's known. They've pointed those out, but you continue to post your pre-prepared book excerpts without taking any criticism to heart. It seems like you're trying to advertise and ignore critiques, both of which are against our rules, so that may account for the differences in your expectations.

5/15 on https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/119001-mental-momentum-short-essays-about-mind-and-brain/, I tried to post my ideas about how our mind and brain work (exactly the same material I posted in our thread). From then on, I’ve been receiving attacks from the moderators, not on the validity of my theory, but on my person. After I’ve addressed the issue, the moderator Strange made an insincere apology. Afterward, Strange constrained his/her posts on a theoretical level, but continued to deliberately impede me to publish my ideas without pointing out how my theories are scientifically invalid. Around six hours after Strange’s insincere apology, another moderators swansont came in and posted a moderator note saying that I’m making the thread as my personal blog to soapboxing my ideas, while not engaging in discussion. swansont then said “if you think that you, personally, have been attacked, you should use the "report post" link at the top right of the post to report it, rather than bring it up here.” Finally, swansont said the thread will be closed if I continued to post my ideas while leaving others’ questions unclarified. From then on, the moderator Strange keeps soapboxing superficial questions nagging for clarification. My dear moderators, I have a question to ask you: Is this forum a place to openly discuss science, rather than a place to impose policies and protectionism? Despite that I’ve kindly and patiently replied to comments that pertain my opinions of mind, including those with very hostile tones, I’m still tagged as ‘not open to discussion’. I don’t think so. I think you, my dear moderators, only want to impose your dogmas on our members. You want all others to accept your reasons while yourselves are not open to either reason or discussion. Science talks about evidence, and here they are: The Moderator Note made by swansont were made six hours after Strange’s insincere apology, not anywhere near my post containing my theoretical excerpts. swansont, while questioning my sincerity in engaging in discussion, 1) said I should use ‘report post’ to report personal attack, and 2) threatened to close the discussion thread. Should I report the posts of mods so that every personal attack they made will be dealt with by themselves, rather than be open for all to see? But anyway, our dear mods clearly know how to delete individual posts without closing the whole thread. So why would swansont said to close the thread instead of just deleting the posts he thought I was soapboxing? Because our mods are on the losing ground in the discussion here in this thread, and they want to find a pretext to close it.

Yeah. And I once lost a posting, because I did not tick that checkbox. I was writing a posting, was interrupted, and only after more than an hour I wrote further. But when I pressed 'Submit Reply' I got the message 'You are not logged on' or something like that. If I remember correctly, when I I logged in again, my later additions were gone... Maybe it was even everything. So I think this would be the best way: use 'Remember me'', and have your browser delete all cookies when you close it. So the combination of Strange's advice, and that of Stringjunkie, is the ideal combination. It has one additional advantage: by having to type in your password once a day, you will remember it in the end. (OK, beecee logs in at least 10 times a day, don't you? ). Real cases I encountered at other fora: users whose email address (with which they opened their forum account) was infiltrated, and they had to open a new one. Then, a few months later, their computer broke, and they got a new one. So they have to login again, but because they always had 'Remember me' activated, they forgot their password, and their password could not be retrieved anymore, because you need your email address for it. So they had to open a new account.

I started a thread about debunking 9/11 conspiracies a couple years back and it was closed before anyone could reply. I was told by a Moderator that such a thread may attract an unwanted element (trolls and conspiracy nuts) to the site. My thread didn't contain anything objectionable and hadn't broken any forum rules yet was closed. I accept the Moderators choice as they felt it was beat for the site. I don't consider it unfair. They are many reasons for a thread to be closed and no single rule can account for all scenarios.

! Moderator Note 1. iNow is not a moderator 2. We don’t delete threads 3. Thread closed

Can you delete it for me as a moderator?

How do I delete bad threads I made that got blocked by moderators?

How do I remove a warning point on my account on this website?

We don’t delete posts. We do hide them. I’d rather not give RC the air time, personally.

Here is a few handy rule of thumb, if your unsure of something ask it in a question mode. Don't hijack threads to do so however its best to create your own thread when asking questions unless its particular to the OPS post. If your answering questions make sure you can back up every answer you provide with a peer review source, believe me the number of times I've had to defend my answers over the years this is a crucial step. If you want to Speculate on a non mainstream (Ie found in textbooks) idea, start a thread but within the Speculation forum and be prepared to follow the guidelines. A good theorist wants people to blow holes into his idea, it saves him from years of work if someone can point out flaws that he cannot account for. One of those guidelines is never reply in another persons thread with your own speculation. I tend to take this one step further, to never reply with personal favourite models but reply with an answer you know you can find existing in a textbook.

I know I am not supposed to say this in threads (for some reason) but that points to a sock puppet of an older banned account or something then does it not? If they already know a lot about you before you have disclosed that info then maybe they are remembering conversations as other avatars or something. I could be wrong - maybe he found your gender from reading other posts of yours or talking to someone else. I quite like talking to him as it goes.... apart from the departure from reason when he looses a point in the discussion and it just slips back to 'thus sayeth the lord'. I am not sure how to get through to him that you can't just quote the bible in an argument and expect people to take it as fact. I guess that's how he has been trained and conditioned to argue from years of churching... I used to be like it myself.

Yes, clamp down when needed, absolutely. But I see little need on this forum to clamp down except on lewdness, vulgarity, accusation of lying and fabrication of evidence. The fabrication can be simple error, possibly as in the case of the sailor swallowed by the whale near the Falkland Islands and recovered alive, which because it was Smithsonian I accepted as fact without close examination, and when accused of fabrication (NOT by a moderator at least in a moderator ID) I examined closer and saw the the case is not closed whether true or false. Yes, clamp down on accusation especially those which can be interpreted in law as libel and slander. Absolutely. We're not drunken teenagers. Maybe I make too much of this, but character assassination is not pleasant to the character being assassinated, and turning the other cheek too often without rebuke can cause an image of the smacked one as being a masochist. But a wandering statement which is a matter of interpretation as to whether it's off topic or not, whether it is intended to divert from the topic or or merely enlarge the scope of the topic? Being so new to the forum I'm still not sure that if OT statements split off into a hijack thread can be commented on? I seem to have run into a case where I can't comment, but I participate too often when tired, so can't right now point to the example. Even with tickets for parking and speeding there is grace, quiet warnings issued sometimes, and of course you will say you do that here too. Why did I jump to thinking about felonies? I guess that shows my deepest thoughts about some of the behaviour here. You are aware of the cases of bullying that lead to suicide. Of course this forum won't lead to that kind of thing, but it CAN lead to depression, a hopelessness that yet one more source of pleasure and information has been turned into mayhem. A reason to take a drink at least. Open wide. And of course my acknowledgement of my doubt in BB, and my belief in the KJV bible not only sets me up as a target for those who think BB is the only answer, and the KJV is a terrible translation, it sets me up for attack by denominations who view the KJV as Protestant, which it is not, while I am a lamb (God make that a true statement please) without a defined flock, but not lost. And it sets me up for attack by those who vehemently deny God and Bible of any translation. Those prejudices WILL OFTEN affect mod interpretation of my words, intents and actions unfavorably, and in my opinion account for most or many mod criticisms of my time here, along with a dark view of those who find reason to doubt BB. I avoid membership in religious denomination and even regular affiliation because of their many prejudices. I don't join astronomical clubs for the same reason, 'oh, you don't believe BB is true? Poor mentally challenged infant' their attitude will be. 'Ever hear of Pasucal Jordan?' the infant asks. 'Who?' the learned one responds. I already see I was in error about the mod boxes always being big black and bold. I saw a pastel coloured one today. It was pleasant, except for the big exclamation point.

If you are thinking of the recent set of posts on rockets (and similar posts in the past by the same person under multiple names) then I assume they are deliberately trolling. (I did wonder about the "very young" option that DrP suggests, but I would expect more engagement in that case. Maybe very young and autistic? But it doesn't "feel" like the right explanation - we have plenty of members on the autistic spectrum who engage well in discussions.) If people are serious but ask a question that is too brief, then the only solution is to ask for more details or clarification. That usually works, although some people don't find it easy to organise their thoughts well to ask good questions, so it can take some iterations to get to what they are really asking (a background in customer support helps!) People who post too much are often a bigger problem. Trying to get them to précis or even identify the key point can just lead to another equally long screed. Related: I used to be a member of Stack Exchange and answered lots of questions there. But I got fed up with the non-stop snobbery about "the wrong sort of question" or "questions that attract the wrong sort of answer" and so I deleted my account. If you think down-votes are a problem here, they are like a disease on Stack Exchange!

Some people don't care and want to troll. Some are kids that just want a quick answer as a short cut for their HW. Look at this RBVFRTY guy and his many incarnations - he asks questions so broad you can write a book in reply. There is no interaction or response beyond further similar styled questions in reply to any answer or request to be more specific. I can't work out if he is genuinely wanting help and is a young person at school or a disgruntled past member trying to troll/time waste.... then he starts a new thread with a closely related question that could have addressed in his first one..... after 4 or 5 questions he opens a new account and starts again... it's like troll spam. Maybe I am being too harsh on him - maybe he is just very young and wants to ask random questions about rockets. Then there are those that just want to lecture/rant about their opinions on science and reality and to tell us all how things are from their own deluded perceptions. I think that the serious threads and the serious questioners probably get it right or are helped and tolerated if they are trying to learn. You are a lot more active (and helpful) here than me so maybe you see more of it or it effects you more as you are a regular helper of people. mods- sorry - I know we aren't supposed to talk about sock puppeteers in threads - but it seemed relevant to the conversation.

In the science forums, I agree but in the politics section, which is more opinion-based, I give more lattitude. In subjects like politics we use evidence to support our personal view or agenda but that evidence is usually not so unequivocal and can be interpreted with a bit of confirmation bias thrown in as well. Politics is more street-level and so we have a certain lack of formality; this should be taken into account.

Phi did not make a legal pronouncement. Attacking the person who claims to be the victim of a crime is considered 'victim blaming'. What Phi was suggesting (and I agree with) was that your continued attack of Ford was indecent. e.g. "Taking into account the timing, delay and obvious motive of her accusation, to me she's not a victim, she's a liar." "In the tiny chance that she IS telling the truth..." "This Dr. Ford, if her story is true, let a man that she knew was a would-be rapist carry on his evil way, presumably doing the same thing over and over, all because she didn't report it. Not very public spirited of her. His wicked ways could have been nipped in the bud 36 years ago, if she's telling the truth. The safety of other potential victims doesn't seem to be something she ever cared about." Considering how much you seem to abhor bias, you seem to be showing a bit of it yourself.

Speculation along the same line; what if another account online is a sock puppet of one @studiot have noted?

May just check IPs. Might be an idea to ban a dummy account to test.

Maybe I'm not 'with it' but I think he is airing his unfiltered view in his own way. I would call it ''sharp' rather than offensive... but maybe that's just me. Yes, it's true that there will be outsiders looking in and passing judgement; I've not really taken that into account. I do think though, by and large, we are keeping it around the bounds of civility...just. Some peoples views might be seen as offensive but I'm seeing them as having a different but sincerely held view. Because it diverges so much from the 'popular' view (of women) it's seen as "offensive".

Yeah, that's weird. They definitely come up as being banned, and yet the last visited time is more recent. It's possible they can still access their account and read messages but can't post. (to see that they have been banned, for instance, and perhaps they can only do this once — I don't know)

Well I think the Lone Ranger (AKA Swans) got on top of it pretty smartly when he arrived. What worries me is that there were several new starters around the time with unusual and a bit controversial posts, some a bit similar to the troll's provocations. And I wondered it he had slipped in another puppet amongst them for later use? He must have realised the eventual outcome of his unacceptable actions. Subsequent to the original bans I also saw both the original account and subsequent puppets listed simultaneously in the members list as online on several occasions.

Maybe it would be possible to modify one of the existing, not used mod profiles to hide posts and delete all other abilities, creating a new mod profile from scratch would most likely be a pain. I wasn’t aware there is an automated funcionality in the software to flag content, if its actually there it definitely failed the test this time.