Mendel
Senior Member.
Use the "report" link. I get best results when I cite the rule being broken.
I want to BELONG
- Thread starter 14hm14
- Start date
Well, the thing is the feeling of inconsistency. Like I was well aware that I was walking on eggshells and going pretty far off-topic in the "Fire alone" thread, so I wasn't surprised by that ban. But then in the WTC 7 thread, I genuinely thought I was pretty reasonably on-topic, but got clapped anyway. So that was confusing to me.
And the downside of that is when you ban the one truther (me) and the one other person with questions (Thomas B), all the threads just die immediately lol.
It's a feature for new users, not a bug. Maybe that's been fixed now because it was brought up a few months back.
Mendel
Senior Member.
you say that as if that was a bad thing
econ41
Senior Member
Don't I know it. My patience is a lot less than it was 2007-8 thru to about 2015 when 9/11 debate died on most forums as trolling took over. But I still live in hope.
There are several sub issues subsumed in that. Is it better that "truther trolls" DON'T join the forum? I don't think it is..
BUT after a false claim has been presented and rebutted TWICE it is time to close off further repetitions. I probably sin against my own "two posts rule" by exceeding that personal rule.
I also have reservations about the implicit but not always followed requirement for the theme to be debunking with the pre-requisite need for "bunk". I think there is a place for accurate explanations of "what really happened"... not limited to debunking. And I get frustrated by the glass ceiling limitation of "where are your sources" - I don't need "sources" when I am explaining something fundamental in my own profession. Most physics can stand in it's own right without needing a Bazant as authority- especially on those issue Bazant gets wrong... Ditto my sometimes misunderstood objection to using NIST as an absolute authority - thereby treating another "glass ceiling".
End of my $0.02 worth
We return watchers/listeners to the scheduled program.
Last edited:
Well, usually on discussion forums you probably want people who disagree, otherwise there's not much interesting discussion going.you say that as if that was a bad thing
But it's not that big of a deal, a lot of those discussions were going around in circles anyway and I largely feel like I've said what I wanted to say about the 9/11 collapses.
econ41
Senior Member
Why are you posting here if you don't want debate of you claims? Especially when you have a selection of persons of various levels of expertise available to give accurate explanations.
Mendel
Senior Member.
Truthers are welcome, trolls are not
Metabunk is a debunking forum, not a discussion forum
and most of that 9/11 stuff has already been examined for bunk
(which is why staying ontopic is important, so debunks can be more easily found)
Uh, what do you mean? I've been debating/discussing that stuff for close to 300 posts here and in many PMs as well.
Well, bunk is in the eye of the beholder lol. I don't see a contradiction between scientific skepticism, rationalism or whatever you want to call it and 9/11 "conspiracy theories". From my point of view, the official explanations are bunk.
Mendel
Senior Member.
Yes, and the evidence supporting your point of view has been examined before. Which is why nobody but you is really interested in re-examining it.
econ41
Senior Member
Then why do you resort to quote-mining of my comment? Persistently repeating "the official explanations are bunk" as bare assertions bereft of any semblance of reasoned argument is NOT what the forum is about. You have persons of expertise here who are able to help you learn the truth. If you are determined to never learn this is not the forum for you There are many "Truther echo chambers" with members who will agree with you.
And, as I have explained several times - I don't care much about the "official explanations". Many members here will accept and defend NIST. I won't. My purpose, my expertise is explaining what really happened. Whether or not the "official explanations" are correct or less than perfect.
econ41
Senior Member
Hence my "two posts rule".
Which is a limitation which I find frustrating especially since the explanatory discussion of my preferred topics has died on my two other serious forums. But "them's the rules here." And it is the best option currently available.
And settled on middling high explanations which I find frustrating. Especially all the "NIST says" stuff. NIST is mostly right but why accept NIST as the authority for issues that stand in their own right? And an old Grade #4 debunk of a Grade #2 or #3 false claim is not automatically the current best answer when "our side" could do better with a Grade #5 debunk. Why settle for "just good enough" debunks when a better standard is available?
Valid for the purpose including the presumption that "once debunked is sufficient for all including those who come later".
deirdre
Senior Member.
you say that as if that was a bad thing
@Henkka as you can see, the King of Reporting people disagrees with you. and apparently so does the staff. and econ. Echo chambers are, after all, all the rage these days.
if you dont want to go off topic in 911 threads, just start 4,000 new threads every time you have what may be a slightly off topic question. and post a link to the new thread "i have an off topic thought/question. link here___"
and know that if Mendel enters a thread you are in, you are screwed. Everyone one will be allowed to do whatever they want but he will only report you. It's not any of the older members you speak with...i moderated for years and none of them ever reported anyone for trivial things or things they themselves were doing.
and where did Szamboti say that? and where does he live? The only reason his posts would take a long time to be approved is if he was posting when NY time was sleeping. But i dont recall him ever being in moderation...are youthinking of Gerry can?
then why are you in those threads?
"able" is a relative word. It's not the students job to learn how to learn, it's the teacher's job to learn how to teach. If you feel that Henkka honestly does not want to learn, then stop talking.
circular conversations take two to tango.
since when is allowing discussion, or explanations, not allowed on MB? are you telling me ALL those 911 threads with 37 pages don't allow discussion or explanations
? come on. I know they do because i had to read those boring a** things.
and there is a whole forum called "Open Discussion".
well, if you are determined never to learn, i guess MB is not the forum for you.
Ann K
Senior Member.
This is a debunking forum, not a mere discussion forum. Just "disagreeing" is for talk radio shows. This place wants alternate views with reasoned arguments or (better yet) hard evidence. And if you find a topic boring when people agree with each other, then metabunk has achieved an objective which most readers find satisfactory.
deirdre
Senior Member.
this is very and sadly true. hence the popularity of pundit shows.
Yeah that is a thing that is confusing to me. It feels like a pretty awkward and unnatural way to have conversations.
lol, jeez
Post #80 in the thread on WTC 7 column buckling and free fall. Landru confirms he was in moderation at the time in post #81.
Mendel
Senior Member.
yes, it is
Tony was placed in moderation because he had numerous violations of the Posting Guidelines. Warnings were given by me, Mick and Dierdre (who was a moderator at that time). Moderation means that posts must be reviewed by a moderator prior to general release.
LilWabbit
Senior Member
I have no major issue with the rules. Have had my keister whooped a couple of times by the moderators, usually for a reason. Some of my ramblings have even been given extra latitude for which I'm grateful. My minor beef concerns only this:
First off, I've been unintentionally impolite many times (intentionally much less often), so no sainthood claimed. But in my experience politeness is sometimes very selectively moderated and superficially defined here.
Selectively moderated: The moderator is a human being identifying himself as 'one of the guys' (skeptics). Hence he is often less sensitive to the impoliteness of his 'tribesmen'. Conversely, he's more empathetic to peer group taking offense and reporting on non-tribesmen's posts. To pretend it never gets tribal here as with other groups in other platforms would be blindness to fact.
Superficially defined: Impoliteness has many insidious forms that go under the moderators' radar. Impoliteness is not just blatant personal attacks or explicit denigrations of person vs. substance. There's a lot of passive-aggression whereby another contributor is sneered at, laughed at in concert, crucified for superficial or irrelevant errors, and threads entirely derailed in consequence from the main substance. These are all conversation-killers.
A good constructive debate is one where the participants share a genuine interest in the topic and an openness to learn more; authentic receptivity to truths that may challenge one's cherished positions; patience and respectfulness to read a contribution carefully and attentively before rushing to counter it based on an unwitting or deliberate misreading (sometimes guilty as charged); discernment to capture the gist of a contribution however imperfectly formulated (sometimes guilty as charged); basic conversational decency to first recognize the merits of a contribution before offering critique (sometimes guilty as charged); commitment to offer relevant and well-reasoned critique that takes the conversation forward instead of derailing it; and maturity to keep at bay the impulse to prevail in an argument or to indulge on a mission to highlight the errors of other interlocutors.
Thanks.
From what I've seen, Tony is like the most professional, most good faith and most mild-mannered truther on the planet. My point was that if even he was running foul of the posting guidelines, that's an indication that the guidelines are unreasonable.
Mendel
Senior Member.
in a masterful stroke, @Henkka uses a thread about the standards applied to thread starter posts to re-litigate years-old moderation decisions
A-1 trolling, we can't even tell if you're doing it intentionally or not, but you're heading straight for the best irrelevant controversy you could find
Well, at least I didn't get blasted by a former mod saying I'm an overzealous tattletale that selectively reports posts lmao
As Mick has said, there are a variety of other platforms to express your views. If you don't like the rules here, or feel you cannot abide by them, please go there.
Z.W. Wolf
Senior Member.
When do you start thinking that you might be the problem?
Last edited:
Rory
Closed Account
Suggestion: when a new member joins they receive an automated message that succinctly but thoroughly explains how things work here - or maybe as they're attempting to post their first comment.
Probably wouldn't hurt to send it to current members too.
Maybe there is something like that on the signup page already, a box to tick to say we agree with the way things work?
Probably wouldn't hurt to send it to current members too.
Maybe there is something like that on the signup page already, a box to tick to say we agree with the way things work?
It is my understanding that new members already get that upon signing up. I do know that all warnings incluce a link to the Posting Guidelines in addition to the specific infraction committed.
deirdre
Senior Member.
They do:
Article: We reserve the rights to remove or modify any Content submitted for any reason without explanation. Requests for Content to be removed or modified will be undertaken only at our discretion. We reserve the right to take action against any account with the Service at any time.
deirdre
Senior Member.
it's not superficially defined
Article: So, please:
Do not insult people either directly or indirectly
Do not call them names, such as "stupid", "ignorant", "uneducated", or "liar"
Do not describe their theory as "stupid", "moronic", "idiotic", "delusional", etc
Do not suggest they get an education, or take some classes
Do not criticize their spelling or grammar
Do not respond to the tone of their post instead of the content
Do not mock people, or make jokes at their expense
Do not suggest they are mentally ill, or that they need help
Do not suggest anyone who believes in [any particular theory] is mentally ill.
The above applies regardless of if it is true or not. If someone perceives something as rude, then it is impolite.
Instead, please:
Show them where they are wrong
Try to help them understand their misconceptions. Politely.
Stick to the facts
Ignore any insults that they might use
Focus on individual key points, not the general tone
The above policy will be enforced. I will delete or edit posts that do not conform to it, and I will ban people who repeatedly violate it (initially for 24 hours, then for longer periods).
It will not be applied evenhandedly. Since censoring the bunk believers is often viewed as impolite and is hence counterproductive, then they will be given more leeway. Debunkers generally have far thicker skins. The bunk believers' insults do not help their case, and so it's not so important to remove them. I will still remove more extreme insults that would derail the conversation.
benthamitemetric
Senior Member
Tony had a long history of unhinged harassment and attempted doxxing of people with whom he disagreed, including me, by email and on several forums, including metabunk. When he got into one of his manic argument binges, he also repeatedly broke this forum's politeness policies and constantly failed to follow basic guidelines such as citing to his sources and providing full supporting quotations from linked items. And that's just what I saw as a poster who interfaced with him on occasion. I'm glad he seems to have stepped back from his unhealthy posting habits.
I think it would help greatly if the PM was more specific for newcomers; as in, to get this posted you will need to do x,y,z
While we're on the subject of suggestions, could we please have a sub-forum on 'post-modern' bunk which has shamefully proliferated in academia? Gender identity idealogues are making statements (and influencing policy) which fly in the face of biological facts for example.
Ann K
Senior Member.
How do you plan to separate "post-modern bunk" from "things we have learned a lot more about since Hector was a pup" and "things we are more sensitive about, to which we were shamefully callous in the past"? Opinions from people who are not the experts in the field are just quibbles.
deirdre
Senior Member.
This, like all political issues, is ironing itself out with time.
Facts don't care about feelings, and feelings don't care about facts.
I would ask you to ponder on what such a thread would accomplish, besides adding to divisiveness, before attempting a thread ...regardless of how many biology scientists you can quote.
Duke
Senior Member.
Not picking on this poster, but is this considered rude/impolite per forum rules?
Last edited:
I think it would help greatly if the PM was more specific for newcomers; as in, to get this posted you will need to do x,y,z
While we're on the subject of suggestions, could we please have a sub-forum on 'post-modern' bunk which has shamefully proliferated in academia? Gender identity idealogues are making statements (and influencing policy) which fly in the face of biological facts for example.
As to your second point, that is what other channels (Reddit, etc.) are for.
While we're on the subject of suggestions, could we please have a sub-forum on 'post-modern' bunk which has shamefully proliferated in academia? Gender identity idealogues are making statements (and influencing policy) which fly in the face of biological facts for example.
Specificity isnt the problem. The people who don't read the Posting Guidelines now are not going to start.
As to your second point, that is what other channels (Reddit, etc.) are for.
deirdre
Senior Member.
Left wing bunk is only for places like Reddit? There are specific claims of evidence (vs just claims like so many new threads here are lately) that could be posted around the gender policies issue. well, not could i guess..but should be allowed to be posted.
I think he means more like "you" taking time to say
Hi! welcome to MB, this isn't an actual warning strike as i gave you zero point strikes. It's just how we can link you to your text and give you an idea of the issue.
i cant approve your post because it doesn't meet Posting Guidelines as it. You need to tell us the timestamp of the claim and transcribe what the actual claim is from the video. If you need more help let me know.
(then because posts such as this OP really should have screengrabs, i used to after they did the above would write and say "hi again i added some screengrabs to your OP, let me know if they are not adequate for you"..because if i mentioned screen grabs originally i was afraid i'd blow there minds.)
I know most of that info is in the warning strike, but 1. newbies dont really deserve a warning strike for the first offense. and 2. it's just nicer if a human says it.
Similar threads
- Sticky
