Food for thought - modest suggestion / General Chatting / Forums

Forums

4hv.org :: Forums :: General Chatting

« Previous topic | Next topic »

Food for thought - modest suggestion

Move Thread

LAN_403

Mon Apr 02 2007, 12:03PM

Banned on April 7, 2007
Registered Member #277 Joined: Fri Mar 03 2006, 10:15AM
Location: Florida
Posts: 157

Guys, with all due respect, I must say I and at least a few other members are growing more uncomfortable with the increase in monitors modifying member's posts, or deleting posts, or outright telling people they can't post unless they've previously conducted double-blind experiements on a topic. Example, WaveRider disagreed with me about about a statement I made, and a large portion of his post was later deleted! Unless he deleted it himself, I don't feel that is right, eventho Wave didn't agree with what I said, his post should have the same right to exist as mine and everyone elses. The reason given for deleting/modifying most of his post as 'being off topic' really doesn't hold water in that case, he wasn't talking about the lockness monster or big foot. Poor PartsScavenger is apparently scared-to-death he could be kicked off the site for bringing up the innocent question of dowsing. I posted a several page 100% scientific thesis explaning to PartsScavenger how dowsing, if it exists, can be explaned by basic rules of static induced charge; the entire post was deleted, something to do with, it had not previously been double-blind tested. Is this a new site rule or was this a one-time prohibition designed to squelch or censor discussion on this particular topic of dowsing? Is it true that we can now only discuss topics that we've previously double-blind tested? Confusing as H*ll to some members. I'm not the first to hear the rumor that 4hv is starting to appear more like a religious order, complete with a creed, and panel of deacons who decides what topics are acceptable and what topics constitute scientific blasphemy. Don't get me wrong, nut cases should be policed, I'm not pretending it's easy for you monitors, but a fair balance should be maintained, if this is truly a site for open scientific expression, posts shouldn't be modifed, deleted, or censored unless they are truly racially or politically offensive, abusive, or completely and utterly out-of-the-ball park off topic. Please consider this as constructive feedback representative of at least several members bringing this to your attention in hopes modifying, censoring, deleting or creating new temporary rules to squlech selected topics will become a technique rarely, if ever, used. No, I'm not trying to get myself kicked off this site, but I believe that each of us should be free to express our concerns from time to time to management so long as we do it with respect, as I have done. I remember that each of us, including me, are guests here, and the only way the owner and moderators will know how to improve the site is by hearing occassional respectful feedback from members.

ragnar

Mon Apr 02 2007, 12:49PM

Registered Member #63 Joined: Thu Feb 09 2006, 06:18AM
Location:
Posts: 1425

To burst your bubble, I'll start by mentioning that this should have been posted in the "suggestions" forum. =P

I do not think the moderators are being unfair or uptight, but rather that a lot of their recent actions are provoked. Provocative behaviour, smartarses, or social engineers trying to turn the members against the forum owners will (surprise surprise) cause the moderators to be especially vigilant with the party concerned.

"If this is truly a site..." -- rather than undermining what the site stands for / claims to stand for, it should be quite easy to realise that we have what you might consider a tight-knit community here. I was able to assimilate very readily, and if you have difficulty, perhaps you would consider taking your ideas elsewhere. This thread would much more appropriately be expressed in a private email to Chris or Steve, or posted on the moderators' or suggestions board, but instead you choose to shitstir in an attempt to get the community 'on-side' 'against' the 'religious order'

The owners and operators of the 4HV owe you nothing. We are priveleged to be here, and the mods give up a significant amount of time in an attempt to maximise the signal:noise ratio. Then they end up having to give up even more time to justify why they're trying to maximise this ratio? I've never had a problem here.

I think, if some mutual respect is involved, neither will you. 4HV is what you make it.

Bjørn

Mon Apr 02 2007, 02:10PM

Registered Member #27 Joined: Fri Feb 03 2006, 02:20AM
Location: Hyperborea
Posts: 2058

Respectful feedback is very valuable. Complaining about getting your posts modified or deleted after breaking the rules and generally refusing to listen to moderators does not help much. Your only course of action regarding that is to request a rule change. To have any hope of that you need to have valid reason and present a well formed argument that will convince those that have the power to make the changes. If anyone has any complaints of any kind we will always consider them carefully when we receive them.

Your post was deleted because a very strong warning against posting speculations was issued well before your post. The exact wording was: "Any further posts to this thread that contains opinions or speculation will fall directly under pseudoscience and it may be the last post by that member on this forum."

The warning was not aimed at Part Scavenger, he had the right intent. He made some observations that he could not explain and wanted help to explain them. Unfortunately his post opened the door wide open for all sorts of counterproductive fantasies. Wise from previous disasters in that area I shut that door firmly so there would be some hope for him to get a correct explanation.

All topics that can be subjected to the scientific method are welcome as long as no extraordinary claims are made without extraordinary evidence.

Claims of the type "My wifeâ€™s elbows tingle when the TV is on" will require a supervised double-blind test. Anything less will be taken as an insult. Acceptable supervision could be performed by groups like http://www.tampabayskeptics.org

ShawnLG

Mon Apr 02 2007, 02:29PM

Registered Member #286 Joined: Mon Mar 06 2006, 04:52AM
Location:
Posts: 399

I don't know what you are trying to stir up CM. I support the moderator's effort on maintaining the basic principls of 4hv.

"I posted a several page 100% scientific thesis explaning to PartsScavenger how dowsing, if it exists, can be explaned by basic rules of static induced charge"

Your thesis is just another claim. You need facts to support it or don't bother posting it at all. Some of us do not have the time to read this jibberjabber.

"Don't get me wrong, nut cases should be policed"

It's what the mods are trying to do.

Mon Apr 02 2007, 06:20PM

Banned on April 7, 2007
Registered Member #277 Joined: Fri Mar 03 2006, 10:15AM
Location: Florida
Posts: 157

Honestly fellows, not trying to stir up sh*t, just pointing out what is becoming obvious to other members as well as myself. Outside observation can be enlightening if listened to by the open minded, or can be dismissed as somebody trying to stir up sh*t. It takes less energy to dismiss constructive criticism than to think that maybe steps could be taken to improve. I think the real heart of the problem is "THE RULES". I'm not talking about the official posted RULES, everyone is pretty much aware of the official Rules. I'm referring to the extra rules, the spur of the moment rules, the mixed signal rules, that some of the moderators make up from time to time that are NOT part of the official rules. These instant new rules can create confusion, cause people to feel the moderator(s) are trying to influence the outcome of particular threads, etc. Gives some members the impression that many threads are not truly 'open forums for intellectual discussion' but rather threads that will remain alive so long as the discussion and conclusions move in the direction that the moderator(s) want them to. Check out the history, archives, one recent example, the Tesla Electric Fence thread was still very active and interesting posts being made when a moderator self-decided to lock it down! No rules had been broken, nobody had said anything politically incorrect, a moderator simply 'felt' like closing an active, interesting thread down. PartsScavenger's innocent question about dowsing... having a bit of experience with static induced charging, I wrote a several page explanation how dowsing might possibly work at times of peak sky voltage and low humidity, following accepted laws of science and electrostatics, complete with outside references and calculations. I posted it, it was deleted. Why? Because another convenient 'instant' new rule had just been added baring posts (in that thread alone) that haven't been subject to double-blind tests! A very transparent way of the moderator saying "I don't like the way this thread is headed, so I'm closing down open exchange of thought by making it next to impossible for further posts to be made". If this new instant double-blind study rule is viable for one thread, shouldn't it be applied to all threads? I can guarantee it won't be applied to all threads, but only to threads that moderator(s) want killed. If a new rule has truly been created that only posts that are supported by double blind tests can be posted, then by god, apply it site-wide, not just to one solitary thread. Need I show more of the many examples? Okay one more, ...we the judges of 4hv insist that manmade power 'labor' be considered a viable means of alternative energy... another 'instant' rule created by moderators which nobody, and I mean nobody, with any knowledge of alternative energy could take seriously. Bottom line, if we stick to THE OFFICAL 4HV RULES, everyone is fine, including me. However, if the membership is subject to frequently changing, morphing, or instantly created rules that apply to one thread, but don't apply to other threads, then it's just a formula for confusion and growing lack of confidence. I'm far from the only one that feels this way, but some are concerned they will get kicked off the site if they speak their minds and/or they don't want to become targets. The word for today, my fellow members, is CONSISTENCY. Apply the rules evenly to all, or to none. Creating new and different rules that apply only to various threads, but not others, isn't instilling some of the membership with confidence that this is truely a place where they can safely speak their minds and opinions. Now then, some of you can fire back and say that I am a bad man for saying that 4hv.org can improve, or that maybe I'd be happier at another site, etc, but truely open minded people reading this post will consider that maybe there is a kernal of truth and wisdom in keeping the rules consistent for all. CM

Alex

Mon Apr 02 2007, 07:29PM

Geometrically Frustrated
Registered Member #6 Joined: Thu Feb 02 2006, 04:18AM
Location: Bowdoin, Maine
Posts: 373

CM wrote ...
Now then, some of you can fire back and say that I am a bad man for saying that 4hv.org can improve, or that maybe I'd be happier at another site, etc, but truely open minded people reading this post will consider that maybe there is a kernal of truth and wisdom in keeping the rules consistent for all. CM

Let me make it clear that the folks here don't think you're a 'bad man' for 'trying to improve' 4hv. As far as I can tell, you are the only one who thinks what you're doing is a step towards improvement.

Your repeated references to 'double blind tests' and 'instantly created rules' stems from a general ignorance of the rules. We have a rule: no pseudoscience. However, we will make an 'exception,' the exception being that if you can prove it's not pseudoscience, it's okay. To quote: "Discussion of such topics will only be allowed if someone has undeniable, 100% solid proof that this isn't pseudoscience" (4hv Rules, Part II.I.). After Bjoern had specifically warned that wild speculations would not fly, you posted your several pages of rambling speculation. Bjoern's warning was not a rule created on the spot, it's right there: "100% solid proof." You got off with a warning. We're pretty damn lenient, if you ask me.

So, how do we get 100% solid proof? We don't throw around random theories, that's for sure. We do double blind tests. Only then will the topic be accepted as science.

Do you have any more dots that you'd like connected?

Chris Russell

Mon Apr 02 2007, 11:41PM

... not Russel!
Registered Member #1 Joined: Thu Jan 26 2006, 12:18AM
Location: Tempe, Arizona
Posts: 1052

I can't believe I'm having to explain this to you for the fourth time. Please read what I'm posting, or I'm going to have to assume you're being willfully ignorant.

Posting a theory about something that may or may not exist is not science. It isn't. Not even close. I don't care how well-reasoned your theory is, how many scientific facts you include, I don't care if it was written by Sir Isaac Newton himself, it is not science. It is speculation. As Bjoern and myself have tried to point out time and time again, step one is to observe the phenomenon and gather facts about it. Then and only then can you start working towards a theory that can be called "scientific." It's no different from ball lightning. Trying to "reproduce" it at home is all fine and good, but since virtually nothing is known about ball lightning, it's not science.

As stated above, we have absolutely zero tolerance for pseudoscience. Maybe this appears as several new rules to you, I don't know, but I assure you that myself and other moderators will continue to aggressively seek out and remove pseudoscience from this forum. If that means closing a thread or modifying posts, so be it. I will not tolerate the degradation of science on this forum, period.

As for your other suggestions, I will take them seriously when they are posted in the correct board and backed up by someone who is not you. Otherwise I have to assume that you're just rabble-rousing and being a pain in the ass. Please do not use the chatting board as your own personal soapbox.

Tue Apr 03 2007, 12:53AM

Banned on April 7, 2007
Registered Member #277 Joined: Fri Mar 03 2006, 10:15AM
Location: Florida
Posts: 157

Sorry, I obviously did a VERY poor job getting my point across because the focus repeatedly gets pulled back to pseudo-science, instead of the topics I address in my post. Message received, no matter what future ideas for improvement I might have, I'll shut up and crawl back in my corner along with some others that have been conditioned into being too scared to speak their mind. I was warned not to try, I suppose in this situation I would have been wise to have heeded the immortal words of Homer Simpson, "Never try, trying is the first step towards failing". No more will be heard from me about improving this site.

Chris Russell

Tue Apr 03 2007, 01:22AM

... not Russel!
Registered Member #1 Joined: Thu Jan 26 2006, 12:18AM
Location: Tempe, Arizona
Posts: 1052

Sorry, I obviously did a VERY poor job getting my point across because the focus repeatedly gets pulled back to pseudo-science, instead of the topics I address in my post.

That's because your only supporting point is invalid.

Please direct any further "modest suggestions" to the proper channel -- the suggestion box. Grandstanding won't accomplish anything.

Moderator(s): Chris Russell, Noelle, Alex, Tesladownunder, Dave Marshall, Dave Billington, Bjørn, Steve Conner, Wolfram, Kizmo, Mads Barnkob