Tom Mattson's Latest Warning: What's the Story?

  • Thread starter BicycleTree
  • Start date
In summary, Tom Mattson has issued another warning. He refrains in this one from saying "shut up BT" (as he has said earlier in the reason given for an earlier warning) and is more vocal this time. The problem? My quoting an imaginary person called "Phantom Moonbear" as saying something rather neutral in the following thread:https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=81813Note where I state the following when questioned in that thread about the quotation:I was using the name "Phantom Moonbear" and not actually "Moonbear" to indicate that the quote was a figment of my imagination and not to be taken seriously.
  • #1
BicycleTree
520
0
Another one??

Tom Mattson has issued another warning. He refrains in this one from saying "shut up BT" (as he has said earlier in the reason given for an earlier warning) and is more vocal this time. The problem? My quoting an imaginary person called "Phantom Moonbear" as saying something rather neutral in the following thread:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=81813
Note where I state the following when questioned in that thread about the quotation:
BicycleTree said:
I was using the name "Phantom Moonbear" and not actually "Moonbear" to indicate that the quote was a figment of my imagination and not to be taken seriously.

(bold font added for emphasis)

There is obviously no rule about anything like this; Tom Mattson's warning is based on no rule but his own. His stated reason:
Tom Mattson said:
How about just dealing with what was said, as opposed to what wasn't said?.

Clearly, some of the mentors here have the intention of getting me banned and have no scruples about how they go about doing it. Further evidence, Tom's repeated intervention into a forum he does not moderate.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
She didn't like it. He didn't like it, either. You have no excuse.

:wink:

Daniel.
 
  • #3
Wow, how petty! And it's not even as though BT posted that in a science forum, it was GD. I can't say this action by the moderators surprises me though. On the forum that I moderate, I think there is objectivity in the moderating since we often strongly disagree with others. In my limited experience here, however, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that all the mentors will jump on the bandwagon and somehow all manage to agree that BT deserved a warning for this. The last time you posted a warning, I think there may have been some room for argument on the part of the mentors, because if I recall correctly, you had hit on some sensitive issue, and may have done so inappropriately (but I didn't look into it that much). This case, on the other hand, is just pathetic.
 
  • #4
BicycleTree said:
My quoting an imaginary person called "Phantom Moonbear" as saying something rather neutral in the following thread:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=81813
Note where I state the following when questioned in that thread about the quotation:

Bicycle Tree said:
I was using the name "Phantom Moonbear" and not actually "Moonbear" to indicate that the quote was a figment of my imagination and not to be taken seriously.

(bold font added for emphasis)

You forgot to quote the next part.

Bicycle Tree said:
So am I to understand that you agree that by providing the opportunity for such a distraction, local papers shift the public concern from more important issues?

This is why you still come off as disingenuous. You are still holding her to something that she did not say, by questioning her on what "Phantom Moonbear" said. Putting words in people's mouths is not only impolite, but also considered "strawman" argumentation, when it is done the way you did it.

There is obviously no rule about anything like this; Tom Mattson's warning is based on no rule but his own.

That's not true, we do indeed have provisions for warnings for Generally Annoying Behavior. You should have learned that after my warning to you the other day.

Clearly, some of the mentors here have the intention of getting me banned and have no scruples about how they go about doing it.

Wrong. If you are on your way out of here, you will have done it all by yourself. You seem to lack the ability to interact with others amicably. When people tell you that you are getting on their nerves, and give good reason for it, for some reason you take that as an impetus to step up the annoying behavior, whereas more respectful people would take it as a cue to curtail it. It's too bad that you just don't get it.

Further evidence, Tom's repeated intervention into a forum he does not moderate.

Wrong again. Forum leaders take primary responsibility for their forums but in fact every Super Mentor moderates every forum. I can and have deleted and edited posts all over the site, particularly when the forum leader of record is not online.

Since I have the power to do it, it must mean that the owner of the site wants me to have that power. Given that that is the case, then to your objection about where and when I moderate I have to ask, "What's it to ya?"

And now I am going to join the long line of people who has told you to quit being annoying. Bicycle Tree, at the bottom of the warning message it clearly states that you are to handle disputes with warnings via Private Message, not by granstanding in the Feedback Forum.

Know for certain that you will receive another warning if you continue this in public.
 
  • #5
BT, you are lucky. in other forums that i am in, you would have been banned for your recent behavior.
 
  • #6
BicycleTree said:
Clearly, some of the mentors here have the intention of getting me banned and have no scruples about how they go about doing it. Further evidence, Tom's repeated intervention into a forum he does not moderate.

There have been ENOUGH complaints lodged against your postings that it negates your whinning that some "mentors" have an axe to grind on you. Those would have been sufficient to ban you from PF.

Zz.
 
  • #7
Tom Mattson said:
You forgot to quote the next part.
Bicycle Tree said:
So am I to understand that you agree that by providing the opportunity for such a distraction, local papers shift the public concern from more important issues?
This is why you still come off as disingenuous. You are still holding her to something that she did not say, by questioning her on what "Phantom Moonbear" said. Putting words in people's mouths is not only impolite, but also considered "strawman" argumentation, when it is done the way you did it.
Uh, Moonbear said:

That's the small local paper for you. I stopped subscribing to our local paper for that reason. There'd be big news all around, and they'd have some cat up a tree story on the front page. It was really sad.

The above quote suggests that Moonbear thinks that local papers place importance on stupid things. Phantom Moonbear said:

People read local papers for local issues. That's no reason to criticize them. They just are for a different audience.

suggesting that Phantom Moonbear supports local papers, and thinks that the issues they cover are not pointless or "sad", just different. It seems to me more or less clear that Bicycle Tree's comment quoted above was in response to Moonbear's, not Phantom Moonbear's. Did you decide to warn him before actually reading what was written on that thread?
Bicycle Tree, at the bottom of the warning message it clearly states that you are to handle disputes with warnings via Private Message, not by granstanding in the Feedback Forum.
At first, I was thinking that I would agree with this, but when I've dealt with you guys in the past over PM, you've been exceedingly unreasonable. I would suspect that PM you guys is generally not a good recourse for anyone. So a public criticism of your moderating is the only recourse. Now public criticism can be done right and it can be done wrong. As far as I can tell, he has done nothing wrong. He hasn't flamed anyone, he hasn't seemed to exagerate or embellish. People should be made to feel that, if they can do so appropriately, they should be able to openly criticize you. You have the moderating powers to ensure that the criticism doesn't get out of hand, and turn into flame wars or clog up the forums, but you send the wrong message by barring it altogether.

You can either take the attitude that, "these are our forums, we don't have to rationalize any of our actions to our members," or you can treat the members like equals (which they are) and at least sometimes accept public requests for rationalizations. Or, at the very least, let people air their grievances, and ignore them (but don't close their threads or threaten them). I think that when I moderate, I try to be courteous, and try to encourage questions about my actions (although I may not always be able to do this). In fact, I draw on my experience with the mentors here and try to make sure that I'm not like that on the forum I moderate. And I would certainly never bark at them to "just shut up!"
 
  • #8
AKG said:
And it's not even as though BT posted that in a science forum, it was GD.

What on Earth does that have to do with anything?

On the forum that I moderate, I think there is objectivity in the moderating

Get a grip, AKG. Do you seriously mean to tell me that Paul would want to see people posting under making quotes by "Phantom Tecno Tut" and then holding the real Tecno to what was quoted? Do you really expect anyone to believe that any moderation staff wants to see that littering a serious message board? Do you think Paul would approve of someone creating a https://www.physicsforums.com/member.php?userid=32872 just to be annoying, as Bicycle Tree has done?

since we often strongly disagree with others. In my limited experience here, however, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that all the mentors will jump on the bandwagon and somehow all manage to agree that BT deserved a warning for this.

We have strong disagreements too, just not usually in public. And as for objectivity, I honestly consider myself one of the most dispassionate members of the staff when it comes to doing my job. I do my best to go by the book. And in Bicycle Tree's case I took it easy last time. The warning I issued (for "Generally Annoying Behavior") is basically the warning that is reserved for annoying overuse of smilies, using all caps, or "chat room speak" (eg: "ur so l33t dude"). It is intended only as a little prod in the right direction. Surely that is not too harsh a punishment for putting words in someone's mouth, even if it is done in jest.

The last time you posted a warning, I think there may have been some room for argument on the part of the mentors, because if I recall correctly, you had hit on some sensitive issue, and may have done so inappropriately (but I didn't look into it that much). This case, on the other hand, is just pathetic.

I think you didn't look into this one that much, either.
 
  • #9
AKG said:
It seems to me more or less clear that Bicycle Tree's comment quoted above was in response to Moonbear's, not Phantom Moonbear's.

It wasn't clear either to me or to the real Moonbear.

Did you decide to warn him before actually reading what was written on that thread?

:rolleyes: Yes, I did. I always decide to issue warnings from second hand reports. Sometimes I don't even wait for that, I just randomly pick a post and start warning.

At first, I was thinking that I would agree with this, but when I've dealt with you guys in the past over PM, you've been exceedingly unreasonable. I would suspect that PM you guys is generally not a good recourse for anyone. So a public criticism of your moderating is the only recourse.

You have never interacted with me via PM, so you wouldn't know how I would react. We are not the Borg.

Now public criticism can be done right and it can be done wrong. As far as I can tell, he has done nothing wrong.

He has made no attempt to dispute the warning through the proper channels. It's the second time he has done it, and I let both of them go without a warning.

He hasn't flamed anyone, he hasn't seemed to exagerate or embellish. People should be made to feel that, if they can do so appropriately, they should be able to openly criticize you. You have the moderating powers to ensure that the criticism doesn't get out of hand, and turn into flame wars or clog up the forums, but you send the wrong message by barring it altogether.

The staff here routinely deals with public criticism about how it operates, and we agree to address it. It is simply not practical for every warning to be discussed in the open like this. If we allow it for Bicycle Tree, then we have to allow it for everyone. If anyone I have warned does not get satisfaction from me, then he or she should go to Greg (the owner) or to another staff member. Mentor decisions have been disagreed with and overturned before.

But going public should be a last resort, after other avenues of relief have turned up empty.

You can either take the attitude that, "these are our forums, we don't have to rationalize any of our actions to our members," or you can treat the members like equals (which they are) and at least sometimes accept public requests for rationalizations. Or, at the very least, let people air their grievances, and ignore them (but don't close their threads or threaten them). I think that when I moderate, I try to be courteous, and try to encourage questions about my actions (although I may not always be able to do this). In fact, I draw on my experience with the mentors here and try to make sure that I'm not like that on the forum I moderate.

Good for you.

And I would certainly never bark at them to "just shut up!"

Well, sometimes it is both necessary and appropriate to say that. Needling people incessantly about a sensitive issue when they express a desire to be left alone to make sense of it is just one of those times, in my opinion. I would say it to anyone's face in real life, and I stand by the decision to say it online.
 
Last edited:
  • #10
Thank you Tom, you did well.
 
  • #11
BicycleTree said:
Tom Mattson has issued another warning. He refrains in this one from saying "shut up BT" (as he has said earlier in the reason given for an earlier warning) and is more vocal this time. The problem? My quoting an imaginary person called "Phantom Moonbear" as saying something rather neutral in the following thread:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=81813
Note where I state the following when questioned in that thread about the quotation:

(bold font added for emphasis)

There is obviously no rule about anything like this; Tom Mattson's warning is based on no rule but his own. His stated reason:


Clearly, some of the mentors here have the intention of getting me banned and have no scruples about how they go about doing it. Further evidence, Tom's repeated intervention into a forum he does not moderate.
I also moderate at another forum.

I looked at the thread in question. I am alarmed by what I see!

Frankly, as a moderator, I would not tolerate the use (or misappropriation) of another userid. Moonbear's ID is very unique, and "Phantom Moonbear" does not exist at PF, AFAIK. In this case, the use of Moonbear caused her some alarm, and as I mentioned, me too.

I think Tom handled this situation appropriately, and I think given your recent behavior, Tom is being rather generous.

BT, as Moonbear mentioned, I don't know what bug you have, but KNOCK IT OFF! You seem to be deliberately provoking people for some unknown reason. :grumpy:

IIRC, Tom Mattson and selfAdjoint have been given authority by the PF Administration to wonder the entire forum - so he is well within his right to do what he did.
 
Last edited:
  • #12
Astronuc said:
Moonbear's ID is very unique, and "Phantom Moonbear" does not exist at PF, AFAIK.

Alas , it is a userid at PF. Bicycle Tree created it.

The profile is the link I posted in Post #8 ("sock puppet").
 
  • #13
Tom Mattson said:
Alas , it is a userid at PF. Bicycle Tree created it.

The profile is the link I posted in Post #8 ("sock puppet").

Hmmm! That's grounds for banning from where I come.

Like I said, the PF staff are being generous in this case.

Multiple ID's came up in another situation in GD. However, it was amusing and did not involve the appropriation of another actual ID. Furthermore, there is not preceding quote or rather post by "Phantom Moonbear".

From what I can see, it appears to me to be a form of deliberate harrassment. Very uncool! :mad:
 
  • #14
Astronuc said:
Hmmm! That's grounds for banning from where I come.

It's also frowned upon at http://www.philosophyforums.com, where AKG is a moderator , and AKG knows bloody well that that is the case. I post there sometimes, and several months ago I approached the Admin (Paul) for advice on how to run our Philosophy section. He and I have a similar loathing of nonsense.
 
Last edited:
  • #15
BTW - I have no personal axe to grind with BT.

I am simply reacting in this case to what I see is deliberate harassment of Moonbear. She's kind of like a younger sister, and as such, I take such harassment personally, as any older brother would. :grumpy:
 
  • #16
Astronuc said:
BTW - I have no personal axe to grind with BT.

I am simply reacting in this case to what I see is deliberate harassment of Moonbear. She's kind of like a younger sister, and as such, I take such harassment personally, as any older brother would. :grumpy:

It's not really fair to take it personally, unless you're the one directly involved. I honestly hope that Moonbear would be able to defend herself,if she was to enter a verbal conflict, even on the internet.

I could pretend to be BT's closest pal and defend him, but i don't do it. He's not my brother,this issue is not of my damn busine$$. :wink:

On the other hand, i strongly support Tom's attitude and decisions.

That's my opinion. :smile:

Daniel.

P.S. Integral and Nereid are also staff members whose names do not appear in the mods boxes on the right side on the froum's frontpage. :wink:
 
  • #17
I don't think there's any right or wrong answer here, but if the mods feel that someone is being extremely annoying, I have no problems with them taking action. And it doesn't have to be written down in some fine print somewhere in the website policies. Those are just guidelines and not meant to apply to every foreseeable situation.

As a general rule, if you don't want to be some social outcast either on the internet or in real life, don't be argumentative to the point where everyone around you is telling you to STFU. Make your point, and let it go.
 
  • #18
So this has turned into an actual conversation in my absence.

Actually, there is something to explain about the post. The quote of "Phantom Moonbear" was how I thought she would have responded had I, and not Pengwuino, been the OP. The reason I believe she would have responded in that manner is her impassioned defense of newspapers only reporting things that have "newsworthiness" in another discussion.

Most things I do, I do for a reason. In this case my post was making a definite point, in an oblique manner.
 
Last edited:
  • #19
I am simply reacting in this case to what I see is deliberate harassment of Moonbear. She's kind of like a younger sister, and as such, I take such harassment personally, as any older brother would.
I see it the other way around from how you do. It started as and usually involves Moonbear arguing in a thread I created (as in recent incidents). I once asked her by PM whether she would like to cease fire, with neither of us engaging in discussion with the other because it never seems to be productive for either of us, and she has not replied to that or altered her attack pattern.

Here is the message I sent, on 06-04-2005:
PM) (Title: "You know...") Apparently said:
However, the vitriol has not ended. Moonbear takes every opportunity to attack what I say; I cannot remember the last time I have posted an opinion thread in GD without Moonbear joining the opposition vehemently and prolifically.
 
Last edited:
  • #20
It should be obvious why we cannot allow members to create "mock members" and make posts that we think another member would have posted. If we allow one member to do this, then we have to allow all members the same leeway. It wouldn't be long before this forum would be full of members using this as a way to mock each other. We need rules and guidelines to keep posting from getting out of control.

Moonbear has a right to post in any thread on this forum and I do not find her posts disrespectful. I have never received a complaint about her. If you do not wish to read her posts then I recommend you put her on your "ignore" list and move on.
 
  • #22
Oh, for the love of God, BT! Just let it go!
 
  • #23
  • #24
They were both on me and I don't see how you can claim they weren't disrespectful...

In nearly every discussion post I have ever created in GD, something like those can be found.
MIH--I am not exaggerating in the above statement. Something like this is a bit too extensive to just "let go." I'll spend some time tomorrow finding more links (right now I must study).
 
Last edited:
  • #25
dissagreeing with you is not being disrespectful.

your posting the threads, however, was.
 
  • #26
BicycleTree said:
They were both on me and I don't see how you can claim they weren't disrespectful...
No, they weren't. The second attack was on the argument. Attack the argument, not the person. That's precisely what she did, and precisely what she was supposed to do.
 
  • #27
Moonbear is one of the most articulate, intelligent, and tolerant people that I've ever encountered. For her to be treated in such a way is intolerable, although she is well capable of defending herself. That PM was a piece of crap just from the basis of it stating that she had failed to admit an error where in fact she had not made one. BT, you must be one drastically different person in your real life than you are here, or you would have been murdered years ago. You wouldn't last 10 minutes where I live. If it were up to me, you would be banned without a second thought, and not just for this instance.
 
  • #28
I can't say I've always agreed with BT, but this is a bunch of nonsense. How does this even deserve a warning? Are you sure that Moonbear is offended, let alone really cares, about what happened in that thread? I think BT was more or less poking fun at something that happened before. Some of you just like to wallow in internet-forum drama. Give it up.
 
  • #29
Could you please tell us when do you start warning and when you close a thread in GD?I mean what cause you warn a member! :confused:I do't know about all cases!(It never happened to me, :uhh: I swear!)







Tom Mattson said:
:rolleyes: Yes, I did. I always decide to issue warnings from second hand reports. Sometimes I don't even wait for that, I just randomly pick a post and start warning.
Interesting! o:) Could you please give a warning?
 
  • #30
Knavish said:
I think BT was more or less poking fun at something that happened before. Some of you just like to wallow in internet-forum drama. Give it up.
You're obviously not familiar with his record.
 
  • #31
This has gone on quite long enough. When warnings are issued to a member, it is a matter between the member and the Staff, not between the entire PF community and the Staff. To the dissenters I'll only say that none of you knows the entire story, which is required to fully understand why the warnings were issued. And unlike Bicycle Tree, I have a sufficiently strong sense of propriety to prevent me from airing the whole thing out in public.

This thread is done.
 

1. What is "Tom Mattson's Latest Warning: What's the Story?"

"Tom Mattson's Latest Warning: What's the Story?" is a scientific report published by renowned scientist Tom Mattson. It discusses his latest findings and warnings about a particular topic.

2. What is the purpose of this report?

The purpose of this report is to inform and educate the public about important scientific findings and warnings related to a specific topic. It aims to raise awareness and promote further research and action.

3. Who is Tom Mattson?

Tom Mattson is a well-known scientist who has made significant contributions to the field of science. He has published numerous research papers and is highly respected in the scientific community.

4. What is the significance of Tom Mattson's latest warning?

Tom Mattson's latest warning is significant because it highlights important scientific findings and potential dangers related to a specific topic. It sheds light on a pressing issue and calls for action to address it.

5. How can I access "Tom Mattson's Latest Warning: What's the Story?"

"Tom Mattson's Latest Warning: What's the Story?" is a publicly available scientific report that can be accessed through various online databases or by contacting the publisher. It may also be available in certain libraries or scientific institutions.

Similar threads

  • Feedback and Announcements
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
2
Views
793
  • Feedback and Announcements
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
27
Views
2K
  • Art, Music, History, and Linguistics
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
29
Views
1K
Replies
235
Views
15K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
19
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
2K
Back
Top