Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for 'delete account' in content posted in Suggestions, Comments and Support.

  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • News
    • Forum Announcements
    • Science News
    • SFN Blogs
  • Education
    • Homework Help
    • Science Education
  • Sciences
    • Physics
    • Chemistry
    • Biology
    • Mathematics
    • Medical Science
    • Engineering
    • Earth Science
    • Computer Science
    • Amateur Science
    • Other Sciences
  • Philosophy
    • General Philosophy
    • Religion
    • Ethics
  • SmarterThanThat Forums
    • SmarterThanThat Videos
  • Other Topics
    • The Lounge
    • Politics
    • Suggestions, Comments and Support
    • Brain Teasers and Puzzles
    • Speculations
    • Trash Can

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


Website URL


Skype


Location


Interests


College Major/Degree


Favorite Area of Science


Biography


Occupation


Member Title

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. Speculation along the same line; what if another account online is a sock puppet of one @studiot have noted?
  4. May just check IPs. Might be an idea to ban a dummy account to test.
  5. 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".
  6. 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)
  7. 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.
  8. As a simple member of this forum, what I would accept is: "We deleted your post"' I propose the following: create a new account called "moderators staff" and use this one when you want to delete someone's post. Then it will be clear that it not the act of any Imatfaul or other, but the result of some concertation between the staff members, a collegial work. And why is Imat hiding behind the protection of other mods. Is he too young and feable to defend himself?
  9. It is not the responsibility of the Moderators to read rules to you which you already agree to when creating your account. I recommend you review the Guidelines. You will find the your answer there.
  10. There are no qualifications required. The existing team decides whether or not a nominated individual should have the permission to move, delete, and edit posts/threads added to their account. That's really it.
  11. That's against the rules here (§2:9) and the staff will almost certainly ban the new account. Just FYI. You agreed to this yourself when you signed up. http://www.scienceforums.net/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=boardrules "Registering more than one account to yourself is not permitted without administrative approval. "Sockpuppet" accounts (those registered with the intent of using them to spread the original member's ideas, or for other malicious purposes) will be banned on sight, as well as those registered to evade a ban." On another note, it's "so long" FFS!!
  12. You don't get me I was asking you to zero them in either direction i.e. to delete them all and you can tell them the listing. Years ago I don't even remember giving rep points at all.
  13. There is probably a plugin you can get for IP.Board that will allow you to do so. But I would say closing older threads wouldn't solve anything really. Just keep with the regular rules. If a post to an older thread is made that isn't sufficient to the rules of the forum, then delete it. Why solve a problem that doesn't exist?
  14. How much data does an account contain? Looking at my profile, including pictures, avatars and all, that's about 2 MB? Assuming that's the average: On a 50 euro, 500 GB harddisk you can store 25.000 accounts. That means that 1 account represents a whopping 1/5 of a cent (0.002 euro). I guess that's how much motivation there is to delete stuff.
  15. I don't know if it's XRumer causing the problem with WebShield in the OP or not; I was...erhm...speculating, yeah speculating. (Sounds better than wild ass guessing don't it?) I do know XRumertest is here because I have been seeing it as logged in at the 'Show Registered Only' who's online list. >> http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/87156-sand-making-machine-makes-great-contributions-to-sand-production-line/When it's there it is grayed and you can't get to a profile the same as when a banned member logs in but can't do anything. Whatever it's doing it can't be good for the board. I reported it to an Admin but got no reply so can't say if it matters or any action was taken. My suggestion was to delete it as a member. As to malware, well it's often bootjacked (or is that shoehorned? Hat-banded?) into spam. Any port in a storm. (Any gird in a loin?)
  16. Regardless, tell “staff” not to edit my things. ESPECIALLY if they don’t at least add who it is that’s editing the posts, and ESPECIALLY not without consent... Like wtf is this, a joke? Do not troll me that way. It is a big deal. God forbid the day someone hacks my stuff and posts things that aren’t from me. Think of the legal consequences, especially if someone makes some kind of threat from my account. But anyway whatever I’m over it.
  17. I’ve known people here who left on their own while having virtually only up votes to their account with a ratio of posts to upvotes 2:1. They leave mainly because of politics being a big part of scienceforums and not because they got a lot of downvotes. On the other hand, the ones who left or got thrown out with a lot of downvotes were not the people I would like to learn anything from. What Im saying is, the downvotes are not an issue in this case.
  18. Over time it might. Let's say a new member who wants to learn has -10 the first month, but after 6 months is a -15. They have actually improved but the reputation system says otherwise. If you want them to care about rep they would be better off opening a new account. If I see a good question but know the science is incorrect I never down vote it but some do, especially if the poster has asked a similar question before. I tend to not want to up vote it if the science is incorrect. If someone is poor mannered they are more likely to get away with it if their science is correct, so a double standard with regard to that seems to be in place. So yes, ideally they gain it back over time, but I really don't think it happens readily for those just learning. So they can carry negative rep for some time.
  19. If no attachments, please moderator to delete
  20. Why staff wouldn`t delete them? I think more space in the server will be occupied.
  21. No, you can't delete your account, as that would mess up thread continuity. You can, however, simply never log on again.
  22. Humor I think is usually good as it makes the discussion less combative and more interpersonally comfortable, and I think most SFN members would concede to this. But when it's ambiguous internet sarcasm that makes a false assertion directly pertinent to the discussion, as was the case in Ophiolite's anecdotal example if I recall the contents of that thread correctly, it does not have a place besides the end of a DELETE command.
  23. Hi, Is it possible for me to edit a topic that I created if I wish to rephrase my question? Is it possible to delete the topic so that I may just make a new one? The only reason is because I don't want to flood the forum with multiple threads of the same topic only slightly rephrased. Of course I know if its not possible then I can just add a comment, but I's much rather edit. Please help. Thanks, pyroglycerine
  24. You can edit posts (with the Edit link in the lower right) for a few hours after you post them; after that, editing is no longer possible. You can't delete your own threads though.
  25. From: BAL-TORR (BALTORR) Posted: 3/11/99 5:18 AM "Ok, I read this thread (all that hadn't been arbitrarily deleted), and I thought to myself "This guy could be on to something, or he could be completely wrong, I need to hear more to be sure"...Boys and girls, that's called having an open mind. Some of you guys and gals cuffed and stuffed the man for no good reason except that what he was saayin was way out, according to your frame of reference. You know that is not right. Give things a chance. I'm not sayin the guy is right or wrong, but there is really no reason to jump on him with both feet without knowing all the facts. You wouldn't do it on the street, why on a message board? I don't know if his invention or his idea works, and I may never know. Depends on if I decide to research it or not. But I wouldn't want to go down in history as one of the first to trash Fulton, Edison, or Einstein without knowin what I was talking about. You guys know I have nothin but respect and friendship for some of you. On the other hand, I don't see how you stand by and let someone who has no qualifications, scientific or otherwise, delete messages in a string that deals with this kind of subject matter. How are we to develope an opinion or learn anythuing about a possible real breakthrough, if someone who has a closed mind and NO expertise in the sciences is allowed to delete parts of the discussion? Just another reason I don't chat in Copsonline anymore...But aside from that...you guys give new ideas a chance, maybe the guy is on to something, maybe he isn't. Neither is a reason to just shut the door. Nice to talk to y'all again..Bal-torr"
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.