Topic: Re: Moderation Tweaks - October 21, 2011

[Will Nitschke]

I received this warning:

You have received a warning for insulting other users and/or staff members in regards to the message:

For writing this post:

I'm not dismissive of anyone unless they attack me first and make it personal. And even then I am generally gracious, however I am only human. I can't be bothered to read every post of that type put here and elsewhere. I think it's difficult for a sceptic to be tolerant of those who try to misrepresent science. I tend to be more tolerant of those who identify as Creationists, or whatever, then those who pretend to be sceptical. People should be free to post whatever views they want but also back up their position with citations, especially if it's an outlier view, and qualify arguments where necessary.

FOOTNOTE: It's also worse to make claim A and then back it up with citation B which is actually in support of claim C. That sort of thing is just rhetorical play.

Any moderator here care to explain why?

If the moderator group has decided to ban me then just ban me. There is no need to play games here. At least Lukas is honest enough to point out that he wants me banned because I express views that he disagrees with.

[Beleth]

(I split this message from the tweak announcement because it's an entirely different topic.)

[amysrevenge]

pretend to be sceptical.

Just guessing, but it might be this part.

[Lukas]

At least Lukas is honest enough to point out that he wants me banned because I express views that he disagrees with.

I have neither said that, nor meant it. All my complaints were about the insults and intellectual dishonesty, not about your views. There are lots of people around here whose views are way more silly than yours, who just happen to keep the discussion civilized, and I have no problem with that.

[Will Nitschke]

Lukas,

I seldom insult other posters and only when repeatedly provoked, and even then rarely. To accuse someone of intellectual dishonesty without justifying the complaint amounts to no more than an insult. This has everything to do with my views, and nothing much else.

Moderators,

I still want the moderators to explain how my post insulted other posters or the moderators themselves. To make a vague reference to people being "pretend sceptics" is obviously innocuous particularly if it's not directed at anyone in particular. Lukas just committed a far worse "crime" by describing me as dishonest but apparently this is viewed as harmless? Posters such as J_J contribute nothing to the AGW forum, and most of his posts consist of calling me a liar. I haven't counted the exact number of times, but surely he must have done it close to a dozen times by now. Presumably he doesn't get warnings or censoring for doing that because he's been carrying on that way for months. Very disappointing and disgraceful behaviour by all concerned.

[Lukas]

I seldom insult other posters and only when repeatedly provoked, and even then rarely.

OK, let's just collect one sample insult for every person you have insulted, or at least a few of them:

Climate scientist Michael Mann (not a forum member, though):

Mann is a shitty scientist

Climate scientist cshorey:

If he was this climate scientist why does he come across as mad frothing at the mouth nutter?

Climate scientist Stefan Rahmstorf (not a forum member):

I've expressed an opinion, that Rahmstorf is a joke, based on the papers I've seen him publish.

Me:

I would love for Lukas to stop posting his usual ad hominem and strawmen and engage in a scientific discussion. Every time one of those is started and he can no longer support his position, he runs off with his tail between his legs. But then comes back like a zombie, a week or a month later, to repeat the strawmen, etc.

j_j:

So now I'm to be criticized for being flippant towards a troll? You do hold me to a very high standard indeed.

IrishJazz:

Sadly, if you'd addressed the factual points I'd made rather than pretend I hadn't made them, and just carried on with your ad hominem nonsense and psycho babble, you would have had some credibility in my eyes.

Bored Wombat:

You don't even "get" the joke I made. Now you're lost going off on some strange tangent. Again, nobody is reading your silliness except me, and I'll be stopping shortly, so who exactly is your audience?

Phil Plait (not on this forum, I think):

Unfortunately, Phil Plait doesn't have a clue.

If I had more time, I'd dig out insults of Nacreous, werecow, craig, bcbwilla, Hanes, quirk3k, and many others who once roamed the Global Warming subforum. Unfortunately, most of them have left it, and I suspect many of them did so because of you and FX.

To accuse someone of intellectual dishonesty without justifying the complaint amounts to no more than an insult. This has everything to do with my views, and nothing much else.

I have pointed it out on several occasions, as have many others. Just one example (there are lots more):

There are elements of truth in all this. The Climategaters did falsify their data. That's pretty much been agreed upon by the scientific community (except for the Climategater's themselves, and their apologists, of course).

Note that all official inquiries into Climategate by the scientific community found no scientific misconduct, and no falsification of data. And this is neither a matter of opinion, nor can Will claim ignorance, he knows all of this, as he has demonstrated in many postings.

[Will Nitschke]

Lukas,

So I've got 6000+ posts on this forum, and half the quotes you could find were not even members of this forum, moderators, etc. It's perfectly acceptable for me to be critical of scientists or anyone in fact, that I think is engaging in rhetoric, ideology, religion, or whatever, but pretending otherwise. Some of your quotes are even about me mildly commenting on others acting like trolls, and you have to include that as well because your list is so small. Maybe we should go through all the posts where you've insulted people or called me a liar, i.e., such as the post you made prior to your last one.

With regard to your last quote, I cited a video from Professor Richard A. Muller of Berkeley University, that does NOT agree with your opinion about falsifying data. In fact even the reports you claim which "exonerate" these reseachers, in fact did not exonerate them in the way you're suggesting. Again, more strange distortion of facts. For example:

Climategate 'hide the decline' explained by Berkeley professor Richard A. Muller

So we are left on a sceptical forum, overrun with Alarmists, with no voice or criticism allowed from more moderate Warmists or Luke Warmists such as myself. Again, your selection of posts shows a stunning ability to attempt to shut down divergent opinion so that only one point of view may be expressed. (Even if those opinions are backed up with citations from NASA, NOAA, other academics, are direct quotes from such sources, etc., doesn't matter.)

The hypocrisy on display is breathtaking. So I ask, are you going to be sent an email warning for calling me a liar? I seriously doubt it.

[Beleth]

Moderators,

I still want the moderators to explain how my post insulted other posters or the moderators themselves. To make a vague reference to people being "pretend sceptics" is obviously innocuous particularly if it's not directed at anyone in particular. Lukas just committed a far worse "crime" by describing me as dishonest but apparently this is viewed as harmless? Posters such as J_J contribute nothing to the AGW forum, and most of his posts consist of calling me a liar. I haven't counted the exact number of times, but surely he must have done it close to a dozen times by now. Presumably he doesn't get warnings or censoring for doing that because he's been carrying on that way for months. Very disappointing and disgraceful behaviour by all concerned.

I am researching your request with all due priority.  (Which does not mean "I'm ignoring it" because I'm not.)

I don't discuss warnings given to other members.  I'll remind you, though, that  GW is currently a lightly moderated forum, and if J_J's posts weren't reported, there's a really good chance that we never saw them.

[Beleth]

Locking thread until the question has been answered.

[Beleth]

Will -

My research has indicated that the warning was justified but the post referenced was incorrect.  Instead of referring to:

I'm not dismissive of anyone unless they attack me first and make it personal. And even then I am generally gracious, however I am only human. I can't be bothered to read every post of that type put here and elsewhere. I think it's difficult for a sceptic to be tolerant of those who try to misrepresent science. I tend to be more tolerant of those who identify as Creationists, or whatever, then those who pretend to be sceptical. People should be free to post whatever views they want but also back up their position with citations, especially if it's an outlier view, and qualify arguments where necessary.

FOOTNOTE: It's also worse to make claim A and then back it up with citation B which is actually in support of claim C. That sort of thing is just rhetorical play.

it should have referred to one of these:

Craig's postings consist of insults so they serve as their own self paraody.

Sadly you have little understanding of this topic, which makes you uninteresting to debate. Again, to use the Creationist example, these people are a little nutty and not very familiar with the technical subjects they want to espouse upon.

If you knew what you were talking about there would be no need to try to score misleading points by engaging in rhetoric, would there be?

If you knew what you were talking about you'd cite the relevant research as I have done, not post silly insults which is your usual tactic.

If he was this climate scientist why does he come across as mad frothing at the mouth nutter?

That's because you didn't have the grades to make a sociology degree? 

If you'd like, I'll further act on your request by purging your record of the warning you received and replacing it with warnings for these six rules violations.  If you'd rather me not do that, I consider this matter closed.

Unlocking so that Will can post his reply.

[seaotter]

Will, why did you make this a public thread? It had a much better shot at being an amicable outcome if you had sent a pm to the mods.

[JurijD]

since this is a public thread I'd just like to say that in my opinion the examples Beleth gave are so mild and so innocent that they hardly warrant and kind of reprimand.

The only really "insulting" (but funny) comment was directed at a scientist not a member of the forum. Much MUCH worse things than this have been said on the forums about people skeptics don't like (take your pick).

And the rogues also frequently use much harsher language on the podcast. I seem to remember their intellectual opposition being called "bad scientists", "insane", "kooky", "trolls", "batshitcrazy", "a harlot", just to name a FEW, on the podcast by various member of the cast (including Steve).

The last insult was directed at Sylwia Browne. And while that coment, made by Perry, was quickly followed by "Hey, you can't call her that", Steve nevertheless didn't edit it out. Which says something about where they are willing to draw the line. Let's not try to be holier than the pope on the forums.

If someone can't take the "insults" given above as examples, they should grow a skin. This is not kindergarten. If you want flowers and candy sprinkled on every sentence you read you really should not debate people. If you can't take mild insults directed at you for your interpretation of the facts as you see them, you should not debate people. If you are simply ticked by how someone talks to you, you should put that person on ignore OR simple not engage with him/her. If you're going to stifle emotional debate (even if it's colorful and "adult") you're going to stifle debate period. The forums will devolve into an echo chamber of people agreeing with each other.

Or, to quote Steve on a similar matter "Oh, cry me a river".

[♫♪ FX ♪♫]

word

[Eternally Learning]

There should be rules of conduct that limit insults and such, but I'm with JurijD in that the example provided seem pretty tame over all.  I will say though that when debating with Will, context of such comments really makes a difference as the series of back-and-forth can reveal certain patterns that set people off while any individual post seems relatively harmless.

[JurijD]

There should be rules of conduct that limit insults and such, but I'm with JurijD in that the example provided seem pretty tame over all.  I will say though that when debating with Will, context of such comments really makes a difference as the series of back-and-forth can reveal certain patterns that set people off while any individual post seems relatively harmless.

I can certainly understand there needing to be general rules limiting insults and badmouthing people in a gratuitous and excessive way. But this example does not, in my opinion, even come close to fitting that description.

If people engage in lively emotional and hard-nosed debates, there will be insults thrown about. There is no need to limit that, unless it rises to such an extreme that the insulting overpowers the debate and the debate devolves into just name calling.

There is no sight on that happening anywhere on the forums as far as I can see.

I have to say that observing how these forums have evolved, I can note a stark drop in lively debate in the past 2 years (I've been away for about the last year) compared to how the forums were say 3-4 years ago. There SEEM to be less active members and less heated debate.

Now while this obviously has many possible reasons I can't help but note that many of the more "lively" and colorful members have left over issues such as these - stifling debate over claims of abuse and insulting (which in my opinion have very rarely been justified except when dealing with trolls with <50 posts). The over-sesitivity to adult language has, in my opinion, contributed to the lack of interesting debate on the forums.

I suppose some might disagree as this is quite subjective but those are my 2 cents.