Vanishing Topics?

[100%JR]

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from moderation.

But what makes the moderator(s)who "decide" on what's right or wrong correct?Using the "cool" emoji at the end of that sentence speaks volumes
Moderators are a bit like Magistrates.....both have some superiority complex and always believe they are correct(IMO) and woe betide anyone who dares to question their "authority"

We can say anything we want to on this forum, but a line is drawn regarding insults, swearing and threats. Keep it clean and arguments are fine.

Fine...in theory but:-
Insults:-Open to interpretation.One persons insult is another persons banter.
Swearing:-?Where do you start?I know folk who think "damn" is unacceptable!"Swearing" is just part of language.If you don't like it don't use it.Personally i don't regard any word as a "swear" word.
Threats:-How can a "threat" on a (mostly) anonymous Forum be considered a "threat"at all

As I've stated many times there are too many "offended/outraged/incensed/hurt/insulted/wounded/and generally too fragile to be on the internet" people posting.The main problem is the Mods seem to cater for these types as a default setting
How some folk cope in the real World bewilders me at times

[Tangled Metal]

The difference is in the real world you can do something about it.

Plus in the real world things don't get so concentrated as online forums.

[Vorpal]

Fine...in theory but:-
Insults:-Open to interpretation.One persons insult is another persons banter.
Swearing:-?Where do you start?I know folk who think "damn" is unacceptable!"Swearing" is just part of language.If you don't like it don't use it.Personally i don't regard any word as a "swear" word.
Threats:-How can a "threat" on a (mostly) anonymous Forum be considered a "threat"at all

As I've stated many times there are too many "offended/outraged/incensed/hurt/insulted/wounded/and generally too fragile to be on the internet" people posting.The main problem is the Mods seem to cater for these types as a default setting
How some folk cope in the real World bewilders me at times

If someone finds something insulting, I 'm inclined to believe them, especially when it comes to prejudices. Things on the internet don't come off the same as in real life, and not everyone on the forum speaks English as their first language. Banter is something you do with colleagues or mates, not on an internet forum.
As for threats, it is easier than many folks realise to figure out who someone is in real life. So, threats are generally taken seriously.

P.s. how about just being nice & avoiding insults?

[mattheus]

I wondered how accurate the stuff on Wikipedia was. A while ago I sat down with a friend who is a prof of AI at the Sorbonne and asked her to look at articles related to her spheres of knowledge. She said they were accurate and well written. She's a pretty serious academic being the only woman on the science committee of a fairly high powered EU "think tank" and also an editor at Springer, a leading academic publisher. In other words the articles passed muster regarding peer review.

That's not too surprising, most of the people I know who are heavily academic or technical make a point of editing errors or updating wiki articles.

As a starting point you can't go far wrong with Wiki but then if you're serious about the subject then Wiki is probably somewhat lightweight so you'd dig deeper elsewhere anyway.

Yes, it's incredibly useful AND incredibly unreliable! Some sections are lovingly maintained (as above) - others are vulnerable to abuse.
Google something like "females scientists deleted from wikipedia".


Meanwhile a friend corrected a page about a local bridge (the number of arches!); then got nasty reprimands from a more senior Wiki dude, who had no relevant knowledge. Bizarre, but probably a rare incident.

[661-Pete]

I have now been told (privately) who the banned person was, but of course I'm not going to divulge that. I didn't see any major issues with that individual's posts, but then I may have missed stuff before the Mods stepped in.

What sets me wondering, is in what way the "Auschwitz" thread went toxic? Of course there are many ways in which a post might have offended. Please understand that I do not conflate criticism of Israel with anti-semitism. Others may, but I do not - and I am a (lapsed) Jew.

[kwackers]

Yes, it's incredibly useful AND incredibly unreliable! Some sections are lovingly maintained (as above) - others are vulnerable to abuse.
Google something like "females scientists deleted from wikipedia".

Yep, but think about that.

It's open to criticism which can be easily discovered and then be corrected quickly and easily.
Remember books? How many books sit in a library that are wrong and with no indication that they're so?

In the past corrections were so difficult we even invented stuff in order to avoid voiding all the books!
Current flow for example is from positive to negative - except there's no such thing. It's an artificial construct we came up with when it was discovered that electrons where negative and moved from negative to positive.

[661-Pete]

Remember books? How many books sit in a library that are wrong and with no indication that they're so?

I often find it amusing, in Moby Dick, that whales are constantly being referred to as "fish". I suspect that Herman Melville was being tongue-in-cheek: I'd hazard a guess that his narrator knew full well the true taxonomy of whales...

I recently finished reading Umberto Eco's The Name of the Rose, which is set in a fictional 14th-century monastery housing an immense library: of which, by the Abbot's own admission, "there are books containing falsehoods". In consequence he does not permit any of his monks, except the librarian and deputy, to visit the library. Of course in those days "falsehood" would mean anything that conflicts with Christian doctrine. Nevertheless no attempt is made to expunge the offending books. At the end of the novel the library is accidentally destroyed by fire, but that's a separate issue.

Current flow for example is from positive to negative - except there's no such thing. It's an artificial construct we came up with when it was discovered that electrons where negative and moved from negative to positive.

True, but quantum mechanics admits of the presence of 'holes' (missing electrons in a crystalling structure), especially in semiconductors, which behave like positive particles and migrate from positive to negative. I remember a bit of my physics!

[kwackers]

True, but quantum mechanics admits of the presence of 'holes' (missing electrons in a crystalling structure), especially in semiconductors, which behave like positive particles and migrate from positive to negative. I remember a bit of my physics!

Holes were that very construct.
Notionally they make sense, no reason why you can't measure the absence of something but the concept arose entirely due to the fact we'd got it wrong to start with.
Current flow was then determined to be "hole flow" and thus all our textbooks were rescued...

I wonder how it would have been handled these days?
One things for sure, we need to find better ways of filtering out old and incorrect information. Amazing how often search results throw up such stuff in preference to more up to date stuff.

[mattheus]

Current flow for example is from positive to negative - except there's no such thing.

I know a proton who would be very offended by this.

[PH]

How some folk cope in the real World bewilders me at times

They cope in the same way as they cope on this forum.
The problems arrive when some people don't behave on the internet in the same way as they would in real life. I've had plenty of heated discussions in my local, it never gets to the point where people hurl the sort of personal insults that you sometimes see on here. If it did the landlord would step in and tell drinkers to calm it down, if they didn't they'd be barred. That's the real World, why should the internet be different? The idea that it's OK to attack someone because if they don't like it they can walk away is bullying, there's never been a situation in my life where that's been acceptable, why should it be on a forum?
Are you being restricted from expressing your opinion? You seem to be making it clearly without insult or swearing or anything else that's likely to get you moderated or banned. In what way is your freedom being curtailed? You've made some robust criticism of the moderators, I disagree, but see it as an example of the freedom of expression we have on this forum. What is it you feel you're not able to say?

[mattheus]

<good post by TM>

For example, I've had those to and fro' discussions on political threads many times. Many people make it work by reaching the point where they acknowledge we're not going to agree. The classic agree to disagree step away. That's an honorable and respectful way to go. Other times I've even gone so far at actually saying that but the person debating with me carries on, picking at opposing opinions and posts.

Easy solution stop but let's be honest here there's a masculinity aspect to debates. Competition creeps in and I don't think there's many not guilty of that at times.

I don't think I've ever seen it happen on the internet, but what we very often need is some banging-heads-together from someone, so that this happens more often.

MOD: look Sally and Simon, you've done this to death, just agree to disagree. Either talk about something else, or wait and see if someone else has any fresh ideas.

"Moderation" which is only banning and censhorship is quite limited. We need marriage counsellors

[Tangled Metal]

I've tried to and succeed occasionally to agree to disagree. More likely it's one sided so I simply disappear from the thread until the other person loses interest.

I must admit that it's good when I see two people come to an understanding like that. I've been in that position before now. It makes me respect the other person more tbh.

[Oldjohnw]

Thumbs up to the mods from me.

[pete75]

I have now been told (privately) who the banned person was, but of course I'm not going to divulge that. I didn't see any major issues with that individual's posts, but then I may have missed stuff before the Mods stepped in.

What sets me wondering, is in what way the "Auschwitz" thread went toxic? Of course there are many ways in which a post might have offended. Please understand that I do not conflate criticism of Israel with anti-semitism. Others may, but I do not - and I am a (lapsed) Jew.

Pretty obvious really to anyone who knows < SNIP >.

[John1054]

[/quote]
I don't think I've ever seen it happen on the internet, but what we very often need is some banging-heads-together from someone, so that this happens more often.

MOD: look Sally and Simon, you've done this to death, just agree to disagree. Either talk about something else, or wait and see if someone else has any fresh ideas.

"Moderation" which is only banning and censhorship is quite limited. We need marriage counsellors [/quote]

The above is a perfect example of how our moderation usually works. Sometimes, probably over 50%, common sense applies and only the poster realises what's gone on. Unfortunately sometimes the poster will not respond to advise, forum rules or a polite recommendation. In these cases, we take action to correct issues. This action can be moving posts, editing posts or moving threads out of public view. Ultimately it can result in a temporary or permanent ban - actions not used lightly. Most banned posters are those who would flood our forum with illegal or undesirable rubbish. Occasionally posters who will not conform to the rules/standards that they signed up to when they joined are banned. Their posts are usually held out of view, in case future problems necessitate reviews of what happened in the past. All is done in an open way that is observable by the moderation/admin team. Of course there will be some issues that crop up that may not make sense to anyone who does not have moderator privileges. We try to help everyone understand, but cannot explain everything to all without long and tedious posts that would congest and detract from threads.