Sci Forums question

Stryder, can you check and see whether the reason I was banned by Kittamaru from Sci Forums for a week is legit? I basically posted a thread about defining trolls in Site Feedback, which upset Kittamaru, who then vindictively said I had to provide evidence that his claims in the "Proof of the supernatural" thread were untrue. That's bullshit. Nobody has to provide evidence for a claim being untrue. On the contrary, claims have to be backed by evidence from the person making them. I even pointed that out, called him out on his trying to ban me, and decided to ignore him, at which point I was suddenly banned. Does this seem right to you? I'd appreciate you looking into this and rectifying it if possible. This is a long pattern by Kittamaru of infracting and banning people because he can't make his argument and getting upset about it and then intentionally targeting posters for rules violations.

Unfortunately I can't help you there MR.  

Back on New Years Eve I quietly resigned being a moderator of that site.  I've not logged in there since, so I wouldn't know if they left privileges on my account or not. I'd spent many years there as a moderator and poster prior, but the site has radically changed over the years in both membership and moderation.

I've taken a different approach to this forum for that reason in the sense that you won't find me moderating posts unnecessarily (In fact so far I don't think I've moderated any).  The difference of course being is I know what this forum/site is about in regards to a direction (It's a Causal forum with a Science related theme).  Sciforums on the other hand, the owners never really defined if they intended a pure science site or something more casual.  This left it a bit of both and made moderators rationalise what type of site it was and decided individually how to moderate causing discrepancies in how moderation is conducted there.

(Mar 19, 2015 01:56 PM)stryder Wrote: Unfortunately I can't help you there MR.  

Back on New Years Eve I quietly resigned being a moderator of that site.  I've not logged in there since, so I wouldn't know if they left privileges on my account or not. I'd spent many years there as a moderator and poster prior, but the site has radically changed over the years in both membership and moderation.

I've taken a different approach to this forum for that reason in the sense that you won't find me moderating posts unnecessarily (In fact so far I don't think I've moderated any).  The difference of course being is I know what this forum/site is about in regards to a direction (It's a Causal forum with a Science related theme).  Sciforums on the other hand, the owners never really defined if they intended a pure science site or something more casual.  This left it a bit of both and made moderators rationalise what type of site it was and decided individually how to moderate causing discrepancies in how moderation is conducted there.

Shucks. That's too bad. You were one of the only truly fair mods over there. This group is so much better in how it is run. If only we could get a few more members. I try to post interesting threads here. Over in Sci Forums they even overmoderate that. Well, I'll wait out my ban then. Gives me a chance to get out and enjoy the spring weather.
Thanks for your help anyway and creating this great forum.

(Mar 19, 2015 06:42 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: Shucks. That's too bad. You were one of the only truly fair mods over there. This group is so much better in how it is run. If only we could get a few more members. I try to post interesting threads here. Over in Sci Forums they even overmoderate that.

SF has been moderated into boredom; perma-banning some long time members and goading others to just move on. Even a philosophy board with a lone general science forum or a miscellaneous forum tacked-on as an afterthought would be more stimulating. SciVillage is a peach; maybe someday the unseen or seldom-seen members will get more active. If a new board hangs around long enough with any modest amount of continuous activity, something will hopefully boom eventually.

(Mar 20, 2015 12:07 AM)C C Wrote:

(Mar 19, 2015 06:42 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: Shucks. That's too bad. You were one of the only truly fair mods over there. This group is so much better in how it is run. If only we could get a few more members. I try to post interesting threads here. Over in Sci Forums they even overmoderate that.

SF has been moderated into boredom; perma-banning some long time members and goading others to just move on. Even a philosophy board with a lone general science forum or a miscellaneous forum tacked-on as an afterthought would be more stimulating.  SciVillage is a peach; maybe someday the unseen or seldom-seen members will get more active. If a new board hangs around long enough with any modest amount of continuous activity, something will hopefully boom eventually.

Well we could of probably had about 20-30 usernames exist as extra's, however I'm a stickler for getting rid of spammer accounts since while they might make it look like the forum has hundreds of members.

In short the current low number is a mixture of reasons ranging from a low reach (The forum software lacks some features that would of been rather useful to make posts easier to find elsewhere online), the absence of site specific content (content only found here) and the fact that it is relatively new compared to older sites.  (Although there was a short lived pre-cursor a some years back, it's not an evolution of that)  Sites that have been around a while get spidered well by search engines and they can take 2-3 months to update content in their records.

In any event I thank you all that post for not just your patience as this site grows but your additions as content and discussion material.  Any suggestions for boosting the site in any means (content/people/eclectic spaceships etc) I'm open to suggestions.

(Mar 20, 2015 12:07 AM)C C Wrote:

(Mar 19, 2015 06:42 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: Shucks. That's too bad. You were one of the only truly fair mods over there. This group is so much better in how it is run. If only we could get a few more members. I try to post interesting threads here. Over in Sci Forums they even overmoderate that.

SF has been moderated into boredom; perma-banning some long time members and goading others to just move on. Even a philosophy board with a lone general science forum or a miscellaneous forum tacked-on as an afterthought would be more stimulating.  SciVillage is a peach; maybe someday the unseen or seldom-seen members will get more active. If a new board hangs around long enough with any modest amount of continuous activity, something will hopefully boom eventually.

There's certainly alot of fodder here for future discussion. I don't know if its a matter of people just not knowing about this group or of science forums generally having a sort of snobby reputation much as Sci Forums has. Most people are just looking for places to process their lives in the forms of casual conversations among non-trolling acquaintances. I think once we demonstrate the laid back mood here of just saying what's on your mind without fear of being attacked or moderated for it then it will start taking off.  

(Mar 18, 2015 09:42 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: Stryder, can you check and see whether the reason I was banned by Kittamaru from Sci Forums for a week is legit? I basically posted a thread about defining trolls in Site Feedback, which upset Kittamaru, who then vindictively said I had to provide evidence that his claims in the "Proof of the supernatural" thread were untrue. That's bullshit. Nobody has to provide evidence for a claim being untrue. On the contrary, claims have to be backed by evidence from the person making them. I even pointed that out, called him out on his trying to ban me, and decided to ignore him, at which point I was suddenly banned. Does this seem right to you? I'd appreciate you looking into this and rectifying it if possible. This is a long pattern by Kittamaru of infracting and banning people because he can't make his argument and getting upset about it and then intentionally targeting posters for rules violations.

Stryder - I apologize in advance, as I registered here primarily to defend myself from this libelous attack upon my person.

Magical Realist - I did not ban you - I issued a standard infraction based upon your (repeated) refusal to provide any actual evidence to back your claims (and your eventual decision to instead continuously troll). To wit:

You claimed 

Magical Realist, post: 3284793, member: 158779 Wrote: We know that paranormal activity comes in waves and then subsides over time. But we don't know why.

I challenged you to support this claim - you refused to do so.

You claimed:

Magical Realist, post: 3284741, member: 158779 Wrote:Nope..the evidence for the paranormal is indisputable and clear.

I challenged you to back that claim - you refused to do so. I challenged you to prove that more mundane explanations were impossible - you refused to do so.

When you signed up at SciForums, you agreed to be bound by the rules that govern the site... these rules include the following:

James R, post: 3236597, member: 4402 Wrote:13. Appropriate supporting evidence or explanations should be posted together with any opinion, especially on contentious issues. Sciforums is not your personal blog, and should not be used to promote your unsupported opinions. Links and references are always welcome, though a convincing argument will often do just as well or better.

14. Post coherently. The aim of writing anything is to communicate something to somebody else. Make your posts readable – use paragraphs, punctuation, correct capitalisation and correct spelling. Make your point clearly and succinctly.

15. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. If you’re claiming that Einstein was wrong, or that evolution does not occur, or that aliens are visiting Earth, be prepared to provide strong evidence in defence of your argument. If you only have an opinion, avoid posting on topics such as these.

16. Avoid using logical fallacies in arguments.

Your failure to follow these rules is entirely under your control... and do recall, it was you who requested the rules be more uniformly enforced (previously, you had been given quite a bit of leeway with regards to your lack of supporting evidence)

There is nothing "vengeful" or "vindictive" about the infractions I have issued you... you simply seem incapable of following the basic rules of the forum. Even a mouse learns to stop pressing a button when it keeps getting electrocuted by it...

A total lie. I have it on record in that thread that you were targeting me because of my posting the "Defining trolling" thread. You even say it here, saying that thread was somehow my request to have your ever flexible "post evidence" rule enforced more. I never said that. My thread there was simply asking how we are to define trolling and why mods are letting it happen so often. Instead of actually addressing that issue, you then tell me your going to start enforcing your new stricter "post evidence" rule in the "Proof of the supernatural" thread. You then go off on me saying I have to provide evidence your explanations for the voice are untrue or impossible. That's simply false. At no time must anyone provide evidence that a statement is untrue or impossible. That's when I said YOU need to back up YOUR claims with evidence. At that point you were ticking me again like I was on a clock, waiting to infract me knowing full well that would get me banned. Realizing you couldn't infract me for proving your statements weren't true, you then jumped on the next thing I said to river, that paranormal phenomena comes in waves, something well known among paranormal investigators. At that point I called you out on trying to ban me and decided to ignore you, at which point you banned me. That's how it went down, and that's how you targeted me for a rules violation which, if enforced strictly, would stifle all discussion in the forum.

BTW, your supposed rule actually says this: "Appropriate supporting evidence OR explanations" All my claims come with supporting evidence OR explanations. The supporting evidence is in the video/audio itself, and the explanation is in the argument I make for it. So once again, you're simply twisting a rule to bludgeon posters you don't like with. You're using your mod power to get back at people for simply asking legitimate questions in the Site Feedback section.
As if expecting mods to enforce the no trolling rule is somehow a personal attack on you. Why would that be?

(Mar 22, 2015 07:21 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: A total lie. I have it on record in that thread that you were targeting me because of my posting the "Defining trolling" thread. You even say it here, saying that thread was somehow my request to have your ever flexible "post evidence" rule enforced more. I never said that. My thread there was simply asking how we are to define trolling and why mods are letting it happen so often. Instead of actually addressing that issue, you then tell me your going to start enforcing your new stricter "post evidence" rule in the "Proof of the supernatural" thread. You then go off on me saying I have to provide evidence your explanations for the voice are untrue or impossible. That's simply false. At no time must anyone provide evidence that a statement is untrue or impossible. That's when I said YOU need to back up YOUR claims with evidence. At that point you were ticking me again like I was on a clock, waiting to infract me knowing full well that would get me banned. Realizing you couldn't infract me for proving your statements weren't true, you then jumped on the next thing I said to river, that paranormal phenomena comes in waves, something well known among paranormal investigators. At that point I called you out on trying to ban me and decided to ignore you, at which point you banned me. That's how it went down, and that's how you targeted me for a rules violation which, if enforced strictly, would stifle all discussion in the forum.

BTW, your supposed rule actually says this: "Appropriate supporting evidence OR explanations" All my claims come with supporting evidence OR explanations. The supporting evidence is in the video/audio itself, and the explanation is in the argument I make for it. So once again, you're simply twisting a rule to bludgeon posters you don't like with. You're using your mod power to get back at people for simply asking legitimate questions in the Site Feedback section.
As if expecting mods to enforce the no trolling rule is somehow a personal attack on you. Why would that be?

You "have it on record" that I was "targeting you because of your posting in that thread" hm? I would be curious to see that indeed  

You did imply you wished to have the rules more strictly enforced - the "pseudo science" and "woo" sections generally were relaxed in their interpretation of the rules as they are just that - woo-woo. You wanted, by your own posts, to have the rules about trolling enforced more strictly. I think it would be quite foolish, frankly, to selectively enforce only some of the rules, so as I stated - they will, as a result, be more strictly enforced. 

Yes, you do need to prove why the simple, mundane, and, quite frankly, more reasonable explanation is somehow "impossible", since you are using them "not being possible" as your evidence for the supernatural.

*shrugs* I know you won't take to heart anything I say here - you have made up your mind that you are the victim, and that those of us demanding scientific proof are somehow "conspiring" against you. The truth is evident to anyone who wishes to see it.

Quote:You did imply you wished to have the rules more strictly enforced - the "pseudo science" and "woo" sections generally were relaxed in their interpretation of the rules as they are just that - woo-woo. You wanted, by your own posts, to have the rules about trolling enforced more strictly. I think it would be quite foolish, frankly, to selectively enforce only some of the rules, so as I stated - they will, as a result, be more strictly enforced.

As I showed in the OP of the Defining Trolling thread, trolling is acting like a prick because you can. It is intentionally insulting someone or saying something inflammatory against someone, either sarcastically or directly. Trolling has absolutely nothing to do with not posting evidence for a claim. And it certainly IS NOT failing to provide evidence AGAINST a claim. So obviously you just used my thread as an excuse to ban me. Simple as that. It's what you do. As for your renewed zeal to enforce the "evidence for a claim" rule, you'd better be doin that for everybody then. Did you infract Spidergoat for not providing evidence for HIS claim that the voice could've come from a human-sounding dolphin in the river? Did you infract Bells for not providing evidence that the 4 rescue workers were all lying just to make the evening news? Did YOU provide evidence for a noise coming from the car that could be mistaken for a female voice? No you haven't have you? You wouldn't DARE enforce your new rule against your buddies. You only enforce it when it is to your advantage. IOW, when you want to get rid of someone you can't effectively argue with. Because that's just the kind of person you are: a vindictive and immature abuser of moderator power.