science is a word I like. - Page 2

Long-Haired Narcissist · 07-12-2006, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pictish

The thing is though, if I'm arguing with someone, I can't just say 'nuh-uh!" I'd have to say why I find their argument to be flawed. From there, my argument (should) be an alternative that does not rely on the part of their argument I find flawed. If, therefore, we allow religious reasons to be brought forth "because X is a sin" and so on, then we run into a problem. I might then disagree, and have to explain I do not agree because this is a rule imposed through a religion which I find incorrect for X reason. Then they, if they wish to defend their point, have then to defend their religion, and oops.

Ok, since someone could say that X is against their religion, couldn't they just as easily give specific objection. To just say "The bible says that's wrong" instead of justifying a belief just promotes blindly following a book as opposed to using proven facts and theories in a debate.

The SSB Intern · 07-12-2006, 07:25 PM

Quote:

The Church of Atheism demands equality!

...Atheism has a church? Isn't that a oxymoron?

TheSpacePope · 07-12-2006, 07:33 PM

Quote:

more like the church of equality demands enforced agnosticism.

Sigged.

for sure.

I'd also sign this "petition"

Fifthfiend · 07-12-2006, 08:20 PM

DJ --

I'm not sure what you're arguing for here, because what you're arguing for is, well, exactly how it works.

Scientific discussion is totally, absolutely allowed. You are allowed to start all the threads you like about the Big Bang Theory and its merits relative to Infinite Regression Theory or whatever you like.

As long as those threads remain discussions on the merits of Big Bang Theory vis a vis Infinite Regression Theory, or whatever other sciency-liciousness you feel obliged to work into the conversation, then the thread will generally continue to be open.

Should religion become an issue, well, generally speaking, I should expect Management to warn people off of that direction. Should things devolve past that, the thread would be closed.

I mean I'm not trying to speak for what's official policy or not, but that's pretty much how they've handled this sort of thing, so I'm not sure what else it is you think ought to be done.

Krylo · 07-12-2006, 08:39 PM

Yah, Fifth kind of hit it on the nose.

Usually when a thread gets closed like that, it's because it's devolved into a back and forth about a religion.

You don't want religious blabbering to get threads closed? Ignore it.

However, once it comes down to "Well, we could warn or maybe ban about five or six people OR just close the thread," well, closing the thread is easier and a bit more humane.

Besides, the big bang thread was like, what, six or seven posts from post limit?

Fifthfiend · 07-12-2006, 08:46 PM

The other thing with religious discussion is once things start in that direction, it can take a lot to get things back on any kind of track, anyway.

I mean I don't know about you, but if I have X opinion about (a) belief, and you butt into a conversation about whatever being all "But but but opinion Y(a)! Opinion Y(a)!!" I'm probably gonna have to be like "Yeah well fuck you, cause opinion X(a), so there!"

I'm just saying, as a topic, it just kinda cuts too close to the bone, for a lot of people - and when I say a lot of people, I totally include myself among that lot of people - to step back and be mature and just let shit go the way they should.

Dj_StarChild · 07-12-2006, 09:26 PM

If people who might potentially post a religious argument in a scientific thread live in fear of doing so, then threads can not devolve as a result of derailment via religious arguments.

So I suppose the real issue is that the mods need to pipe up and say 'shut your damn mouth, before the devil jumps into it' as soon as an offending post is made, rather than showing up 3 pages in and going 'oh, wait, when did this happen? *close*'

Also, sure, warn and or ban 5 people. Why not? They're not following the rules. Are you just lazy? If so, may I suggest not being lazy, so that I don't have to post the paragraphs of verbal abuse that I'm restraining myself from typing, with the full knowledge that the typing thereof will get me warned and or banned because questioning authority will get me disappeared, like some thinly veiled metaphor for the american government disappearing important dissenters? *Cough*....I give up.

Sithdarth · 07-12-2006, 09:35 PM

The real problem here is that the forum grew and half our mod/admin staff went MIA. That and the discussion forum generally doesn't move all that much, till discussions heat up, and so its not watched as closely as it could be. I'd almost go so far as suggesting a designated mod that does nothing but watch the discussion forum almost 24/7 but that seems a little overkill.

Fifthfiend · 07-12-2006, 09:43 PM

You're so afraid of how any dissent from authority will get you 'disappeared' that you just called authoritity too lazy to do its job? Which is why the mods need to ban more people, because if they don't, then they're gonna start banning too many people?

I mean, what? Does this even make sense to you, like, as you're typing it?

Quote:

The real problem here is that the forum grew and half our mod/admin staff went MIA. That and the discussion forum generally doesn't move all that much, till discussions heat up, and so its not watched as closely as it could be. I'd almost go so far as suggesting a designated mod that does nothing but watch the discussion forum almost 24/7 but that seems a little overkill.

Your problem there is, nobody who would want that job, is going to be remotely qualified to do that job.

pictish · 07-12-2006, 09:49 PM

Quote:

So I suppose the real issue is that the mods need to pipe up and say 'shut your damn mouth, before the devil jumps into it' as soon as an offending post is made, rather than showing up 3 pages in and going 'oh, wait, when did this happen? *close*'

That's pretty inconsiderate towards the mods. They all have other commitments, and can't be expected to be policing, waiting for that post that finally gives them a chance to jump all over it when this forum is being posted on pretty much 24/7. Sure, you can argue the mod team should be big enough to always have one guy hanging around waiting for that dreaded rule breaking post... but considering the huge effort all that takes compared to Krylo showing in a few hours and just closing a thread. It's as much our responsibility to not let threads wind off topic than it is for mods to stop rule breaking. In other words, why should the mods feel presured to baby the forums 24/7? it just seems unnecessary for the pay off.

Quote:

Also, sure, warn and or ban 5 people. Why not? They're not following the rules. Are you just lazy? If so, may I suggest not being lazy, so that I don't have to post the paragraphs of verbal abuse that I'm restraining myself from typing, with the full knowledge that the typing thereof will get me warned and or banned because questioning authority will get me disappeared, like some thinly veiled metaphor for the american government disappearing important dissenters? *Cough*....I give up.

Ok, why not? Because you're banning five members of the community. If we banned and warned people with a trigger fuse, would so many people wanna join? I lurked for ages... started posting more due to the hugely positive and fun atmosphere. If everytime someone broke the rules they got told off, or I saw banned names all over the place - I doubt it'd be an encouraging place to spend so much time posting or lurking. If you hastily lifeban 5 people from the forums, who knows what we're missing out on?

Sure, in some cases it's obvious when someone is spamming or trolling. But in others, let's say someone brings in a religious slant on a post in the discussion forum... well who knows, maybe they'd actually be a really great person for the community overall and just need to learn not to post that. Perhaps seeing the mods enforce it because their post got a thread locked - or got their own thread locked, would be enough to stop them doing this. I just don't see the need to suppress the growth of the community so aggressively. Especially if you consider that the way things happen now.. well, the level of rule breaking is easily tolerable. I don't see a strong need to step things up, but if I'm wrong about that and I just keep missing hordes of rule breaking posts, do correct me.

(Thining about it infact, I see people like locke getting banned from time to time. Names of very regular posters who're valuable to the community. Yet despite rule violations these people come back - and I feel that losing the community is a very risky thing, when as is shown in this example, people who contribute a lot sometimes break the rules. Things work out pretty fine, anyway.)

As for the rest of it -
A) Needless insulting of the mods
B) If you can acknowledge you're pointlessly flaming them, why don't you take the advice specifically given on the discussion forum by mods. I think it's discussion at least. It's go sit down, have a cookie, wait five minutes and then post. If you post when you can't control yourself, you're hardly presenting a good case, nor doing yourself any favours, no?

Edit: Sith, Fifth, I hate both of you. You probably managed to condense my rambling crap into two short posts. ;_; <3

07-12-2006, 08:20 PM	#14
Fifthfiend for all seasons Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 19,409	DJ -- I'm not sure what you're arguing for here, because what you're arguing for is, well, exactly how it works. Scientific discussion is totally, absolutely allowed. You are allowed to start all the threads you like about the Big Bang Theory and its merits relative to Infinite Regression Theory or whatever you like. As long as those threads remain discussions on the merits of Big Bang Theory vis a vis Infinite Regression Theory, or whatever other sciency-liciousness you feel obliged to work into the conversation, then the thread will generally continue to be open. Should religion become an issue, well, generally speaking, I should expect Management to warn people off of that direction. Should things devolve past that, the thread would be closed. I mean I'm not trying to speak for what's official policy or not, but that's pretty much how they've handled this sort of thing, so I'm not sure what else it is you think ought to be done. __________________ check out my buttspresso Last edited by Fifthfiend; 07-12-2006 at 08:23 PM.

07-12-2006, 08:39 PM	#15
Krylo The Straightest Shota Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: It's a secret to everybody. Posts: 17,789	Yah, Fifth kind of hit it on the nose. Usually when a thread gets closed like that, it's because it's devolved into a back and forth about a religion. You don't want religious blabbering to get threads closed? Ignore it. However, once it comes down to "Well, we could warn or maybe ban about five or six people OR just close the thread," well, closing the thread is easier and a bit more humane. Besides, the big bang thread was like, what, six or seven posts from post limit? __________________ I am very tired.

07-12-2006, 08:46 PM	#16
Fifthfiend for all seasons Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 19,409	The other thing with religious discussion is once things start in that direction, it can take a lot to get things back on any kind of track, anyway. I mean I don't know about you, but if I have X opinion about (a) belief, and you butt into a conversation about whatever being all "But but but opinion Y(a)! Opinion Y(a)!!" I'm probably gonna have to be like "Yeah well fuck you, cause opinion X(a), so there!" I'm just saying, as a topic, it just kinda cuts too close to the bone, for a lot of people - and when I say a lot of people, I totally include myself among that lot of people - to step back and be mature and just let shit go the way they should. __________________ check out my buttspresso

07-12-2006, 09:26 PM	#17
Dj_StarChild Monty Mole Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada Posts: 791	If people who might potentially post a religious argument in a scientific thread live in fear of doing so, then threads can not devolve as a result of derailment via religious arguments. So I suppose the real issue is that the mods need to pipe up and say 'shut your damn mouth, before the devil jumps into it' as soon as an offending post is made, rather than showing up 3 pages in and going 'oh, wait, when did this happen? close' Also, sure, warn and or ban 5 people. Why not? They're not following the rules. Are you just lazy? If so, may I suggest not being lazy, so that I don't have to post the paragraphs of verbal abuse that I'm restraining myself from typing, with the full knowledge that the typing thereof will get me warned and or banned because questioning authority will get me disappeared, like some thinly veiled metaphor for the american government disappearing important dissenters? Cough....I give up. __________________ Eat poo, guys.

07-12-2006, 09:35 PM	#18
Sithdarth Friendly Neighborhood Quantum Hobo Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Outside the M-brane look'n in Posts: 5,403	The real problem here is that the forum grew and half our mod/admin staff went MIA. That and the discussion forum generally doesn't move all that much, till discussions heat up, and so its not watched as closely as it could be. I'd almost go so far as suggesting a designated mod that does nothing but watch the discussion forum almost 24/7 but that seems a little overkill.