Infractions infractions !

Nano-Passion

Seriously though, I got another warning or infraction for something that I did not know was "dubious."

.. I am quite annoyed, there was mathematical proof into the mathematical theory that I posted...

Why is it my fault that I was not aware? It looked like a very legitimate source (I would post it here if I'm allowed).

The biggest peeve is every time I try to contact a moderator, I get no reply. It feels like the moderators don't care about you. They will give you a warning, but when you reply back with a question or concern it will be completely ignored. This has happened multiple times.

/end rant

I hope this topic doesn't get closed too and I get another warning... To my knowledge, this is feedback.

I love this forum, especially because I have a deep love for physics. But I feel that the moderators are too harsh on things that I am not aware of. I am not a veteran of this forum. Infractions shouldn't be given out for incidental and innocent postings of "dubious" sources.

Char. Limit

How odd. The last time I got an infraction, I queried the moderator about it and got an immediate response. Have you given enough time? One also wonders just how you "contacted" them... if you were polite and stuff, I don't see why they would not respond.

jtbell

Have you clicked the "Rules" link at the top of any page here? From your posts, it appears that you're running into trouble specifically with the section on Overly Speculative Posts, and the list of permanently closed topics.

JaredJames

Personally, I'm a strong supporter of ignorance not being a valid defence.

When you choose to post something, you accept responsibility for it. You are the one responsible under the site rules.

╔(σ_σ)╝

I also found that after given infractions some mods do not respond to queries about it. It was the case with my last infraction. Apparently, I was "insulting" another member when I said that I have meet a few fools from a certain university. Not only was this not directed to any member, it was also such a general comment that no one should even take offense to it.

If I had said " there are stupid people in this world" I doubt that would have given me an infraction, however, my comment was analogous.

D H

Behind the scenes, we mentors do discuss some of the PM responses to infractions. Sometimes this does result in the infraction being lifted. Sometimes it results in further actions. Do be careful how you respond to a warning or infraction. Should that PM response contain foul or disparaging language or carry a threat (real or implied), that PM itself becomes actionable.

Oftentimes the best reply by mentors to those PM responses is no reply at all. The first PM might be just a harmless vent. Replying to those initial vents has on multiple occasions led to an escalating series of emotional responses, with a much less than desirable end result.

Raphie

Its a guessing game, Nano-Passion. One might think, for instance, that if it would be considered reasonable to cite a paper such as the following:

Temporal Interactions between Cortical Rhythms
Frontiers in Neuroscience
Roopun et al. 2008
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2622758/

... it would also be deemed acceptable to cite a paper that paper cites:

The golden mean as clock cycle of cortical rhythms
The human brain works on the edge of chaos
Harald Weiss, Volkmar Weiss

But you'd almost certainly be wrong and might well receive an infraction for posting that, not because you posted dubious material, but because at that moment in time you were dealing with a highly intelligent, extremely well-educated, and eminently well-meaning moderator, but one whose understanding of that which constitutes "good science" is somewhat limited and out of step with the times.

My guess is that A. Garrett Lisi, sometimes poster to this forum, quite well understood this and at least in part for this reason did not cite the work of ARXIV blacklisted scientist Frank Tony Smith in his seminal paper "An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything." Rather, Lisi simply thanked Smith publicly in the acknowledgements, knowing full well that to cite him might lead to his paper being red-flagged as "crank science." (As Jacques Distler and Lubos Motl were branding Lisi's work at the time...)

Enforcement of the rules is left largely to moderator discretion and contextual interpretation. What moderator in his or her right mind, for instance, would issue an infraction for posting a link to the recent, as yet unpublished, work of Ono et. al. in relation to partition numbers? And yet, technically speaking, as I understand it, this would constitute a violation of Forum rules!

At least a few (certainly not all), moderators upon this forum, IMHO, would do well to read "The Anti-Crackpot Index" by Phillip Gibbs, and engage in a bit of self-scoring...
http://blog.vixra.org/2010/09/13/the...rackpot-index/

JaredJames

The rules are very clear and you agree to them on sign up. No guessing games.

If you don't like them, one of the glories of the internet is that you are free to go elsewhere.

Raphie

You know, when I attended Vassar College, comments such as yours ("if you don't like it here, go some place else") by Daniel Patrick Moynihan, sparked a takeover of the Main Building by students that made National News.

Vassar Students End Sit-In; Moynihan Defends Lecture
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/02/16/ny...s-lecture.html

You also might want to read a bit of Max Weber in relation to forms of "legitimate domination."

Funny quote about Newton, by the way.

JaredJames

Well it is a privately run site, and that's what matters.
I know, I still chuckle at it myself. Thank archosaur for that one!

Evo

I checked your infraction history, since I am not familiar with you, and you weren't given infractions for the above, are you just making things up?

No, we pretty much go by the guidelines, there can always be gray areas, but these are usually discussed among the mentors.

Another imaginary scenario. It may or may not be allowed depending on how it is being discussed.

Redbelly98

That's entirely different. On the internet, you can go elsewhere with little effort . No worries like transferring credits, going through the college application/acceptance process all over again, or physically moving yourself to a new location.

Raphie

First of all, Hello Evo. Nice to meet you.

Secondly, "Making things up" would seem to carry a negative connotation. I was giving a hypothetical. The paper I cited at the time I received the (only) infraction I received was by Arkady L. Kholodenko, a Clemson University Professor, whose work in regards to the specific paper, I was told, has no place in science. I will politely disagree with that contention, and will suggest that when one cites a working scientist who attended one of the best schools in the country in his field and is a Professor at a well-respected Academic Institution, generally speaking, the average Joe is not really going to be thinking he or she is violating any guidelines.

In the post mentioned, I also referenced the strong anthropic principle, which might well be controversial, but if you read "The Grand Design" by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow (2010), you will see that a very reasonable case can be made for it that need not invoke mysticism.

Best,
Raphie

Greg Bernhardt

Raphie please PM the mentor who warned you for an explanation. Nano, I apologize that you didn't get a reply quick enough. We all have full time jobs and regular lives. Please shoot another PM. This thread will be closed per our guideline of not discussing infractions publicly.