Search the Community

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.

! 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?

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

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.

Theres really not many things less relevant than this but I thought that bringing this up may help with some other SFN database issues that might come up. Looks like deleting your status triggered the apropriate DB behaviour so its a lesson for the future - if something doesn’t work, just delete it

The box is empty. There used to be little bit of Hope but it has run out now. I hadn't looked at trying to do this with the new forum. It is not as obvious as it used to be, but it is still there. Under the Activity tab at the top of the page (this is on the desktop view; haven't tried it in the mobile view) click on My Activity Streams and select Create New Stream. You can then select they types of things you want to see (content, unread, etc). Under Content Types select Topics. A little gear icon and down arrow appears next to it. Click on that and you can choose which subfora you want to see in the feed. Save this feed (give it a name first) and then you will see, by the name at the top, three little icons (Edit, Delete and Tick mark). The last sets this as the default feed and it will replace the default "Unread Items" at the top right of the page.

We don't delete ever, as part of our transparency policy and also because members take their valuable time to participate in science discussions. We're being respectful of everyone involved, in the best way we can. The fact that it looks like your head is on a pike as a warning to others is purely coincidence (and entirely your fault, yes?). But I'm assuming that's your grievance, that the posts make you look bad? If I'm wrong, please correct me.

! Moderator Note I will reiterate our position: we do not delete accounts. We generally do not delete posts unless they break the rules, either. If you don't want it on the internet, don't post it. We can ban you, if you wish. That's as far as we go.

I persistently repeat my demand. Delete my account and all my posts, please.

We're limited by the software that we run. If you have things in your profile you don't want viewed, you can edit them. But we don't delete accounts. Anyone is free to leave. It's easy. Log out and don't come back. As you've noted, email isn't PII, and it's trivial to get a "burner" email address of one so desired. Any association of identity with an email address lies with the service providing the email address, not us. IP addresses only resolve to regions, but even then there are those who use proxy servers (whether intentionally or not). I've run across a few examples in efforts to hunt down sockpuppets. A dozen or more different users who have used the same IP bloc, even though they don't physically live anywhere near each other. An IP address doesn't identify you, but as with other information, it could be used as a piece in a puzzle to do so. The bottom line is that any PII that is provided happens because a member volunteers it. And that genie will not go back in the bottle.

Surely it would be an option to allow users to delete their accounts without deleting their posts and answers. I'm sure other websites manage this; it just means said user's profile is no longer viewable and their email isn't plugged into the website and linked to the account.

Their excuse is that post counts can vary. Moderators can see posts that were hidden for breaking the rules; posts may be deleted after members already referred to them by number; and posts may be in the mod queue awaiting approval. I could refer to post #48, but its number may be different by the time you look at it, because post #47 was deleted. I suppose every post could be assigned a permanent number, displayed at the top right, and if #47 is deleted the thread simply skips from 46 to 48, but then you could see when we delete things, and the more censorious forums would get upset that their members could see behind the curtain.

That's mainly in a threads title not a user name. In the ADD NEW Thread function the last test should be. If the Thread Title contains "http" etc then BAN(user_name), Delete thread, Hide posts and exit

It doesn't delete it -- it makes the rest of the post bold, as you can see in studiot's example. It assumes the tag ends at the end of the post. I don't recall IPB 3.6 having this behavior, and I'd rather it leave the tag untouched than assume it should apply to the rest of the post.

Doesn't seem to be anything to do with cookies. My browser is set to delete all cookies at the end of a session. If I've checked "Keep me logged in" then I still get automatically logged in when I come here. I connect via a cellmodem so the IP address is different every time - that doesn't seem to affect it either.

if you delete system file 32 in your computer folders, your pc will be faster i remember getting virus on my android device ojnce, closing the tab didnt take care of the ads that kept poping out, sometimes they install themeselves and you have to go through your system files and manually delete it,its a hassle, but at least the virus will be gone

Why do we want you to stick around ? Because we've gotten used to you. This forum is a community of friends. I've disagreed with and probably pissed off quite a few people, yet I respect and would buy a drink for any one of these guys if I ran into them. ( have to hurry and delete my address from my profile, if Ophiolite looks me up, I have to buy him that expensive, single malt crap )

I was wondering if its possible for a mod to delete my account? I don't wish to be a member of this community anymore. If that is possible, I'd like to have it deleted please. Not banned. Thanks.

I find the quote system cantankerous at best but one tip I have discovered Write some text, any text you can always delete it later, before you invoke the quote function. You can then come back, at any time, and paste into the quotes at will.

As it isn't possible, this isn't really relevant, but I thought I should clarify anyway - my thinking was more along the lines of a new category of forum user, trusted members chosen from the active userbase given an upgrade and not any Tom, Dick, or Harry newbie. As they'd only be able to hide the spam and not actually delete the content (or even ban offending posters) as that would fall to a full moderator to do, it should help prevent any abuses of power - something that recently happened to another forum a couple of months back - and if any of the spam-hiders were found to be playing games they could easily have their privileges revoked. But as the forum software doesn't have the capacity for that level of customisation it's a moot point.

If that was a potential course of action, would the forum software allow for a sub-moderator account status that had the ability to hide spam threads until a full moderator can delete it and ban the spammer?

This is not a problem. Multiple reports of the same post are automatically merged by the software. We only have to close 1 report. As iNow said — we don't want legitimate contributors to have to wait to begin participating. That's a higher priority than the minor annoyance of spam. And as Klaynos said — the staff wants to be efficient about this. A lot of the spam is pretty obvious. It shouldn't be a big deal to not click on it for the short time it takes before a mod can delete it.