Topic: Re: Moderation Tweaks - October 21, 2011

[Eternally Learning]

Maybe we should turn the question around for those who think it is not a big deal:

Just putting it out there since I assume I'm included in "those" despite comments intended not to place myself there; I do acknowledge that systematic offensive insulting is a problem that should be addressed.  My problem is with the examples, taken each on its own merit, are far more tame than other things I see thrown around.  As an overall trend, it absolutely deserves a warning.  Threatening 6 individual warnings for each infraction was uncalled for IMO.

[IrishJazz]

As to IrishJazz's arguments, I can kind of understand your fascination with Will as a challenge. But I don't think your main goal is to learn more about climate science, rather to understand, dissect, and refute Will's rhetorical tricks and types of arguments. On an abstract level this is an interesting exercise in debate dynamics, and maybe it is psychologically valuable, too. However, it does (almost) nothing to advance the public understanding of science in this field.

No... but it is largely settled science.  No offence, but I don't come the to Global Warming board to learn more about the climate, but I have learned a fair amount picking apart Will's arguments, and examining his sources.  There aren't really that many rhetorical tricks involved in "I know more than you/your sources are all shite."  Different people have different learning styles.  I am not bragging about or advocating mine, just recognizing it.

[Dionysus]

And why do most people on the forum not visit the subforum? Because of the bickering and the insane amount of posts, most of them bickering or snide remarks. See what happened when FX and Will shut up for a few days? No bickering and a very manageable amount of posts. I call that a considerable improvement.

And no disagreement. Lack of disagreement usually results in less bickering and less posts.

[Will Nitschke]

Possibly the main issue of interest in the global warming thread is the split in the sceptical community over this topic. This can range from the patronizing and arrogant tone of someone such as Irish, who dismisses arguments with hand waves (because although he cannot refute the argument he thinks he already knows the answer), to those who mock, insult, yell, or try to shut down debate by other means. And then there is the silent majority - most of us. Star examples in the community include Randy and Penn and Teller. And then there is the very vocal politically motivated minority, who try to shut down discussion on the issue, except for their peculiar perspective. Of course, there are actual "deniers" and crackpots out there, so the effort from this group is to always try to smear everyone with the same brush.

Unfortunately, if I crack a joke, i.e., that someone failed in their application to achieve a sociology degree, and that necessities a moderator warning that I have gravely insulted someone, well that is both rather pathetic and sad. Especially if it's in a forum that has had until now, virtually no moderation in it. For me personally, very strict moderation should always have been the norm here (although this would involve great deal more effort from moderators so I can appreciate why that might not be a first option). Because, I assure everyone, when a small group is name calling and yelling, and distorting facts with impunity, heavy moderation is preferable to no moderation. For me personally, I don't give a shit and will always stick to the evidence wherever it points, because I don't have much to loose in the community (unlike Randy or to a lesser degree P&T). I don't need to be politically correct, and I don't need to present a particular perspective consistent with a particular political outlook. Obviously though, if I am receiving moderator warnings for the most trivial turn of phrases, that is effectively a ban on my ability to communicate anything at all. Anyway, good luck all for those who now post in the echo chamber.

[seaotter]

lose

[IrishJazz]

This can range from the patronizing and arrogant tone of someone such as Irish, who dismisses arguments with hand waves (because although he cannot refute the argument he thinks he already knows the answer),

See?  Now where are you going to find someone else like this?  When the definition of hand waving includes finding factual errors, pointing out that the studies he cites prove exactly the opposite of what he is claiming, and nevertheless doesn't mind having him around?  Is it patronizing?  Well, it sure isn't calling anyone a self-congratulatory pseudo-intellectual pretentious true believer- which might be more fun but is certainly not fair.  Will comes by his minority opinions, if not his venom, honestly.

He is quite correct in pointing out that depriving him of the almost clever ad hominem attack is, essentially, to silence him.  Nevertheless, I think he is a valuable denizen of the AGW ghetto.  The relatively mild put downs are what a ghetto is for.  I admit that I find his arguments- when they are arguments- unconvincing and his actual position somewhat nebulous- but I have learned from them- or at least from what they have inspired me to check out on my own.

If you come here for love and affection, you will be sorely disappointed. If you come to have the satisfaction of seeing your arguments change minds, those joys are few and far between.  If you come to see self-comparisons to Penn and Teller, pull up a chair.  There is all of that and more.

[Beleth]

Okay then.