Originally posted by VelnsI don't think they need to be. Nobody in his right mind would post real science in the spirituality forum.
Do you think science related posts should be banned from the spirituality forum?
As distinct from what the creationist mob call "creation science" or "intelligent design" in order to make their loony ideas look less loony. That really belongs in the Idiots Forum, but we're a bit short of those.
Originally posted by VelnsSince I assume one of the implicit purposes of the
Do you think science related posts should be banned from the spirituality forum?
Spirituality forum is to debate the conflict between science and religion, no.
This contrasts with the Science forum that its purpose is, surely, explicitly and implicitly, NOT to debate the conflict between science and religion because it is a SCIENCE forum that is supposed to be for people with a GENUINE interest in science.
We have the Spirituality forum reserved for that science versus religion debate so why must these religious nuts use our science forum AS WELL AS the Spirituality forum for their religious propaganda? -they have NO excuse! -they are just TROLLING in the science forum!!!
They already got a whole forum (the Spirituality forum ) to do as much as the trolling with their religious rhetoric as they please, so WHY do they NEED the Science forum to do it their as well?
In addition, I haven't heard of anyone complaining about someone bringing a science debate into the Spirituality forum -have you?
You don't get anyone there posting real science claiming and pretending it is religion!
You generally don't get people in the Spirituality forum wanting demanding a ban on any science-related topics.
This contrasts with the Science forum where there has been CONSTANT complaints about bringing the religious debate into it!
You DO get people there posting religion and pretending it is about science! -in the form of creationism claiming and pretending to be a science!
You ALWAYS get people in the Science forum wanting demanding a ban on any religious-related topics -so why should we here not get our wish?
We, with a genuine interest in science, DON'T WANT RELIGIOUS NUTS in the science forum. If we continue to allow them in our Science forum, what forum do we have left where we can debate real science without the religious crap?
Perhaps it would help if the science forum was renamed "Science ONLY forum"?
23 Aug 13
2 edits
Originally posted by humyedit errors:
Since I assume one of the implicit purposes of the
Spirituality forum is to debate the conflict between science and religion, [b]no.
This contrasts with the Science forum that its purpose is, surely, explicitly and implicitly, NOT to debate the conflict between science and religion because it is a SCIENCE forum that is supposed to be for people with a us crap?
Perhaps it would help if the science forum was renamed "Science ONLY forum"?[/b]
"..wanting demanding..."
should be:
"..wanting and demanding..."
And
"...You DO get people there posting religion and pretending it is about science! ..."
should be:
"...You DO get people there posting religion in the science forum and pretending it is about science! ..."
23 Aug 13
1 edit
Ideas so far:
1. Persuade the RHP admins to find a way to prevent thread hijacking and force everyone who posts in the science forum to only make posts that are on topic. I think moderators can already do this.
(Well, they can't really make someone post "on topic", but once it's been posted and noticed, they can delete posts that they feel are not "on topic". They can also ban the offender.)
2. Create a new "Science Forum Only" club. The club administrator can then control the club forum and kick out any members who do not conform to the club forum rules. The club administrator would have to be a subscriber, but membership is open to everyone who is approved by the administrator.
3. Convince science forum posters to install firefox, greasemonkey and GBaway and use that method to screen out undesirable posters.
25 Aug 13
1 edit
Originally posted by KewpieActually, my scripts work fine on Chrome with the TamperMonkey extension. Chrome is far, far superior to IE.
We Firefox users are well protected with gbaway. Spare a thought for all those poor IE9 and Chrome people, who still have to suffer.
My scripts are available here:
http://bigdogghouse.com/RHP/
26 Aug 13
That "Science Forum Only" club idea suggests another one. Take all the administrative forums (Help, Announcements, Site Ideas) and the General Forum off into a Public Forums group, and make all the others Club-type public forums with appointed admin-leader-moderators just like the Club setup. Each forum to have a set of guidelines as a sticky thread, each leader to have post-killer, thread-closer and pest-kicker buttons. Not sure how it would work with Debates though, they're all so one-eyed in there.
26 Aug 13
Originally posted by mwmiller"1. Persuade the RHP admins to find a way to prevent thread hijacking and force everyone who posts in the science forum to only make posts that are on topic."
Ideas so far:
1. Persuade the RHP admins to find a way to prevent thread hijacking and force everyone who posts in the science forum to only make posts that are on topic. I think moderators can already do this.
(Well, they can't really make someone post "on topic", but once it's been posted and noticed, they can delete posts that they feel are not "on ...[text shortened]... firefox, greasemonkey and GBaway and use that method to screen out undesirable posters.
Ideas 2. and 3. should suffice to "to stop religious rhetoric hyjacking the science forum" With 1. where would stringent (Procrustean Bed) censorship of contrarian points of view and on topic minority opinion lines be drawn in a public forum?
26 Aug 13
Originally posted by KewpieI Support the idea.
That "Science Forum Only" club idea suggests another one. Take all the administrative forums (Help, Announcements, Site Ideas) and the General Forum off into a Public Forums group, and make all the others Club-type public forums with appointed admin-leader-moderators just like the Club setup. Each forum to have a set of guidelines as a sticky thread, each l ...[text shortened]... r buttons. Not sure how it would work with Debates though, they're all so one-eyed in there.
Debates I would let in the public... and warn People that only 3c infringements will be punished.
The titel could be: Enter at your own risk.
28 Aug 13
Originally posted by humyI don't know where your assumption that the Spirituality Forum is for the "conflict between science and religion" comes from, but it is not written anywhere in this website. Perhaps the Spirituality Forum should be called "Spirituality ONLY" to mirror your view or renaming the Science forum.
Since I assume one of the implicit purposes of the
Spirituality forum is to debate the conflict between science and religion, [b]no.
This contrasts with the Science forum that its purpose is, surely, explicitly and implicitly, NOT to debate the conflict between science and religion because it is a SCIENCE forum that is supposed to be for people with a ...[text shortened]... us crap?
Perhaps it would help if the science forum was renamed "Science ONLY forum"?[/b]
28 Aug 13
7 edits
Originally posted by VelnsThen which forum would be left for the religion versus science debate?
I don't know where your assumption that the Spirituality Forum is for the "conflict between science and religion" comes from, but it is not written anywhere in this website. Perhaps the Spirituality Forum should be called "Spirituality ONLY" to mirror your view or renaming the Science forum.
The overwhelming majority of us scientists are fed up with the religious nuts hijacking our science forum with their moronic religious rhetoric -we want to stop this!
But I don't hear anyone complaining about science being brought into the Spirituality forum! But if you INSIST that, by banning religious rhetoric in the Science forum, science being brought into the Spirituality forum is made an issue and should be also banned, OK then; have you got anything against this idea then:
1, rename the Spirituality forum "Spirituality ONLY forum" and ban any talk about science there.
2, rename the Science forum "Science ONLY forum" and ban any talk about religion there (That will INCLUDE the young-Earth crap and anti-evolution crap because it is all part of the same creationist crap which is RELIGION ).
3, create an additional new forum exclusively for the religion versus science debate called the "Science Versus Religion forum" .
Well? So what would your complaint be about now?
P.S. I doubt the vast majority of people would agree with the above scheme because, actually, most people here, including myself, have NO issue with science being brought into the Spirituality forum nor the Spirituality forum being used for the religion versus science debate. I only propose the above scheme here to expose the obvious flaw in your suggestion.
28 Aug 13
Originally posted by humy"Then which forum would be left for the religion versus science debate?"
Then which forum would be left for the religion versus science debate?
The overwhelming majority of us scientists are fed up with the religious nuts hijacking our science forum with their moronic religious rhetoric -we want to stop this!
But I don't hear anyone complaining about science being brought into the Spirituality forum! But if you INSIST that, b ...[text shortened]... bate. I only propose the above scheme here to expose the obvious flaw in your suggestion.
"Scientific discussion and debate." "Debate and general discussion of the supernatural, religion, and the life after."
Apparently both.
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyGood Job! You have zeroed in on the main problem with the moderator program that has existed since the day that moderators were first introduced to manage the RHP forums.
With 1. where would stringent (Procrustean Bed) censorship of contrarian points of view and on topic minority opinion lines be drawn in a public forum?
In my opinion, no matter how harsh or how permissive the moderators are in any of the forums, they will never make everyone happy with how they are doing their job.
So option 1 is already in place, which requires alerting of a post and convincing a moderator to take action.
Will admin make changes to improve how the public forums are managed? I suspect the public forum will remain as it is.
Those who are not happy with the current system will need to search for another solution, and options 2 and 3 could be possibilities.
Originally posted by humyI don't have a complaint and I politely suggest you calm down a little and discuss the issue more rationally.
Then which forum would be left for the religion versus science debate?
The overwhelming majority of us scientists are fed up with the religious nuts hijacking our science forum with their moronic religious rhetoric -we want to stop this!
But I don't hear anyone complaining about science being brought into the Spirituality forum! But if you INSIST that, by bate. I only propose the above scheme here to expose the obvious flaw in your suggestion.
You are complaining about religious people posting religious perspectives in the science forum whilst maintain that the Spirituality forum is there for the "religious vs science" debate, which in fact it isn't. If you look at this website's description of the Spirituality forum, you will not find written "for the debate of religion vs science". Your conception of what represents equity of posting rights seems a little distorted and perhaps you are not considering the wider perspective of personal values, beliefs and social orientation when constructing you argument.
29 Aug 13
3 edits
Originally posted by Velns
I don't have a complaint and I politely suggest you calm down a little and discuss the issue more rationally.
You are complaining about religious people posting religious perspectives in the science forum whilst maintain that the Spirituality forum is there for the "religious vs science" debate, which in fact it isn't. If you look at this website's descri ective of personal values, beliefs and social orientation when constructing you argument.
whilst maintain that the Spirituality forum is there for the "religious vs science" debate, which in fact it isn't.
So why should the Science forum be used just as much as the Spirituality be used for the "religious vs science" debate in particular? You haven't explained that at all while I have already explained the reasons for the contrary (see my other posts ). You have also given no reason why the Science forum SHOULD be used for the "religious vs science" debate in particular while I have (see my other posts ). So why the Science forum SHOULD be used for the "religious vs science" debate in particular?
IF you have an issue with the Spirituality forum issue for the "religious vs science" debate, OK then, would you object to there being a new separate "Religious vs Science" forum so that the "religious vs science" debate can go in there rather than either the Science forum or the Spirituality forum?
But, if you have NO issue with the Spirituality forum issue for the "religious vs science" debate, then, GIVEN that you would OK that so that anyone that wants to debate "religious vs science" has a forum ( the Spirituality forum ) to do it in, what would be your reason for objecting banning the "religious vs science" debate from the Science forum? -Not being able to put the "religious vs science" in the Science forum would not impede their freedom to debate it because they would, providing they are not wishing to just bully, harass and troll us scientists in the Science forum who, generally, just want to talk about SCIENCE and NOT religion there, happily use the Spirituality forum for this like they have often been doing.
29 Aug 13
Originally posted by mwmiller"So option 1 is already in place, which requires alerting of a post and convincing a moderator to take action."
Good Job! You have zeroed in on the main problem with the moderator program that has existed since the day that moderators were first introduced to manage the RHP forums.
In my opinion, no matter how harsh or how permissive the moderators are in any of the forums, they will never make everyone happy with how they are doing their job.
So option 1 is ...[text shortened]... ent system will need to search for another solution, and options 2 and 3 could be possibilities.
I'm glad we're zeroing in on a realistic assessment of the several issues. Pleasing everybody certainly is impossible. With reference the quoted portion of your reply, my impression for the past six years has been that all site forum moderators (as well as our admins) objectively reviewed alerts and then made fair, unbiased decisions on hiding posts, closing threads and disciplining members who may have violated Forum Posting Guidelines and/or RHP Terms of Service. It's news to me that those who alert posts may "convince a moderator" to execute these actions. Am I wrong in thinking the scenario described runs the risk of "Gang Alerting" driven by subjective dislike of some other RHP Member otherwise in good standing?