Part of the problem is that you can delete votes on your posts.
Not anymore. :)
Linda
Part of the problem is that you can delete votes on your posts.
Excellent! :)Truth is, sometimes I don't even agree with myself.
Why is it considered civil to call some people stuck on stupid? What is the standard of civility we're using?
Why is it considered civil to call some people stuck on stupid? What is the standard of civility we're using?
Well, since this isn't a mod+ thread (yet), it behooves me to point out that you won't be tracking anything statistically except a selection bias.
... There's no clarity in pushing a button, especially if you think innuendo is in play (what if it's not?).
... How is a pile of button pushes without explanation an adult form of communication?
You'll find it later today or early tomorrow at the latest.
I disagreed with you about your Lancet thread. I posted there several times explaining why I think the conclusions of the Dr. Pim van Lommel, who authored the paper, trump your apologetics. Why do you feel like I need to do more? Why are you bringing this up in another thread?If you think I'm aggressive then I'm not sure what you mean by aggressive. Take a look at my lancet thread though, tell me what you think after reading it.
this is very thoughtful... with many good points. one tweak to what you're saying... it's not so much that I have a vision for this kind of community as I've evolved into it. for example, I don't know what drives some of the skeptical stuff you're talking about. I used to think that I did, but after really digging into the Skeptiko thing I realize that I don't. I do recognize a couple of things:Hi John: seeing as you've mentioned it here, and I mentioned it elsewhere (also without naming names), I think it's okay to say I'm the one you've been having conversations with in the background, and like Alex, I don't want to see people like you leave: you have a strong scientific background and are a definite asset to the forum.
The thing is this: Alex has his vision for the nature and purpose of this forum, and it includes space for sceptics. I support him in that vision, and have been vocal about that in the recent past. However, that's not to say that I would approach things the same way as he does were I in his place. There are certain people who have posted here (mostly, but not all, sceptics) whom I'd have banned outright and not have given relatively short sabbaticals.
But hey, Alex is in charge and so I have to find my own way of dealing with these people. He isn't likely to change his approach, and I don't feel inclined to argue with him about it. So I'm focussing on making this an environment conducive to what I want to get out of it. These certain people are ignoring the Mod+ distinction and that doesn't surprise me, because the aim isn't to engage in genuine dialogue, but to screw things up, basically because they like to behave like bastards and rejoice in doing so: few manners, little consideration or intention to learn. Now and then, admittedly, I have given them short shrift with a pointed piece of my mind.
Alex, I'm not really the type to be frequently complaining in the back channel: I'm not even using the dislike icon because I've made a resolution not to. I might just occasionally use the disagree icon in a neutral way, but no further than that. I find the ignore facility the very best option for me. The people who want to disrupt normal services then simply disappear: it's much better than in the old forum, because even quotes of their postings disappear, and there's hardly any temptation to weigh in, making things all the better for me. That's not to say I don't enjoy vigorous debate: I do, and we often get it because proponents are very far from a homogeneous bunch of sheep in an echo chamber. The new ignore feature is really working for me, and people only get on my ignore list when eventually they get sufficiently far up my nose that I realise that attempting constructive dialogue is completely pointless.
You have your vision, like I said, and I support you: it's because I do so that I don't argue the toss with you. The upshot is that I tailor the environment to suit me so that there's no cause or temptation to argue. You have things the way you want them, and all power to your elbow, but so do I, and in that way can square the circle. If things change and the disruptors are brought in check, then I may change my tactics, but for now this is where I stand.
I think report will work... just be thoughtful when using it.Perhaps I don't understand the "report" button, but it seems a blunt instrument for this. I assumed it was for flagging a strikingly egregious post rather than tracking a pattern of over-the-line but less than egregious stuff. It seems that a negative tally that grows steadily as the abuses continue is more to the point in the latter instance.
no you can't. Linda discovered this loophole :) but it's been closed. I like the ratings... they are a quick way of adding my voice to a conversation that I may not have time (or desire) to jump all the way into.Part of the problem is that you can delete votes on your posts. They are meaningless.
If you want clarity, then people have to post what they think, not just click buttons. Also, that tends to reduce the number of complaints because it takes more work, which is a good thing.
~~ Paul
this is very thoughtful... with many good points. one tweak to what you're saying... it's not so much that I have a vision for this kind of community as I've evolved into it. for example, I don't know what drives some of the skeptical stuff you're talking about. I used to think that I did, but after really digging into the Skeptiko thing I realize that I don't. I do recognize a couple of things:
1. we all can aggravate each other at times, so we have to tolerate some of this stuff just out of decency.
2. they are the majority... their position is the status quo. we need to listen or we'll convince ourselves the paradigm shift is eminent :)
3. you gotta be it to see it. I resist this idea, but always find it to be true :)
I disagreed with you about your Lancet thread. I posted there several times explaining why I think the conclusions of the Dr. Pim van Lommel, who authored the paper, trump your apologetics. Why do you feel like I need to do more? Why are you bringing this up in another thread?
I don't suppose I know why some of the sceptics do what they do. I mean, would I go to a sceptic forum and out-post everyone there (always assuming they'd let me)? It's a mystery, and the only way I could see myself doing it was if I took delight in trying to cause maximal mayhem. As it is, I don't bother going to sceptical forums at all: what a waste of time that would be.
I put up with some sceptics, and some needlessly argumentative proponents, but at a certain point, I put them on ignore: the point where they're saying nothing new or of interest and just employing big wooden spoons.
I wish I knew what "you gotta be it to see it" meant!
You jump up and down demanding attention like a kid, to the point where you invade other threads to insist people read what you've written elsewhere... and if we continue to ignore you, you have a tantrum...but if we respond, then you accuse us of being trolls????I am so sick of the people who troll me on this forum. I make my arguments in good faith. All I ask is respect in return! Is that so damn hard for you people????????
This isn't coming as a demand for attention out-of-the-blue.
It's not a mystery why I post so much. It interests me and its a distraction from the shit of my life.