Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Who moderates the moderators?

  1. Apr 20, 2005 #1
    I have sent this complaint as a PM to Greg already a week ago, but since I did not receive any answer, I would like to post it here:

    It seems that moderators, mentors and science advisors can get away with anything that violates the forum guidelines, including suggesting to shoot people (https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=60644&page=2 ) , derogatary and insulting language (https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=70227 (post#9)), and to top it all, I receive the warnings for this with the reason that other people would not value my opinions.
    If you are serious about forum rules, forum officials should not be exempt from these, and I would therefore very much appreciate if you could see to this. I would also suggest that my warnings are taken off again because I can not be held responsible if other people violate the forum guidelines.

    Additional note:

    In the meanwhile my account (Thomas2) has actually been suspended without any notice or explanation and subsequently created accounts were deleted as well without any notice. I think these strongly undemocratic practices of moderators and mentors should stop.

    I know that the prime purpose of this forum is to help people with their physics and other science problems, which is fair enough, but I would question the role of Physicsforums as a direct extension of the official educational program. It makes no sense to me to confront students with the same representation of science that is causing them problems in the first place. People are not on this forum because they are lazy at school or university and want to make up for it on this board, but in many cases because there are indeed problems with certain representations of scientific issues. It makes therefore little sense to just strictly re-iterate the latter through some appointed 'experts', but what is needed are open scientific discussions with flexible point of views. This is what would help people to understand science better.

    In any case, the bullying and arbitrary actions by some Physicsforums officials are by no means acceptable and I suggest that something is being done about this (as it is exclusively them who introduce a bad tone into the discussions). I am not even only speaking for myself here as anything that seems to be unfamiliar to the thinking of the Physicsforums officials is being attacked in an unacceptable way (see for instance https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=71515&page=1 (posts #2 and #11))
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 20, 2005 #2

    Monique

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    The moderators are a team and decide together on issues. You can report individual posts after which they will be reviewed.
     
  4. Apr 20, 2005 #3

    SpaceTiger

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    If your ideas are being rejected by journals (your web site seems to indicate that they are), it is not appropriate for you to be attempting to hawk them on a forum on which many young and impressionable students are trying to learn physics. With all the respect I have for many of the people on this board, it's no substitute for a peer-reviewed journal. Until your ideas gain acceptance in respected circles, I think you should take them elsewhere.
     
  5. Apr 20, 2005 #4

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    And *I*, on the other hand, would seriously question your intention of continuing to invade PF. All I can see is your continuing effort to advertize your website, that is filled with errors and misleading information. You appear to think that superficial understanding of something is sufficient to be considered as mastering that subject matter.

    While it makes sense to you to have no qualms about claiming to know about something without fully understanding it? You repeatedly apply the wrong thing for the wrong situation. Example: applying the standard photoelectric effect (done on solids such as metals) to photoionization of GAS atoms! Just because the word "photo..." is in there, it doesn't mean the mechanism is identical!

    I've just describe only ONE of the errors you have made. This is the rule rather than the exception in ALL of your postings.

    PF is a private entity and can make up the rules any way they please. The fact that many people consider them as a valuable resource is a testatement to their ability to stick to VALID and LEGITIMATE physics. Since you simply cannot stay away from PF even after being booted off repeatedly means that you somehow NEED this place to be one of the few places that you can advertize your faulty ideas to people who actually know physics, especially when you cannot get into any peer-reviewed journals. This is sad.

    Zz.
     
  6. Apr 20, 2005 #5

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Thomas2 is a username created by a previously banned member (you). PF bans people, not usernames. If you have been permanently banned, and you sign up with a new username, you will be banned again.

    Object, is the same person as Thomas2 (and Thomas3 and Thomas5), and hence will be banned too. Sorry; you've had your chance and you blew it. The moderators here have given you more than enough leeway, but you continue to do harm.
     
  7. Apr 20, 2005 #6

    Tom Mattson

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I agree that everyone should be subject to the same rules. This really has been a topic of discussion in the Mentor's Private Forum, and we are sensitive to it. But we are also sensitive to the fact that stubborn, unrepentant crackpottery is frustrating to our more knowledgable members, particularly when they try to explain in detail why said crackpot is wrong.

    So while I agree that personal attacks are not acceptable, I would also have to acknowledge that you could have avoided them in the first place. If you don't want to get flamed, don't post flame bait.

    No, you did not recieve that warning for other people's behavior. The warning you are referring to is clearly labeled as a Crackpot Material warning. That's all you, buddy.

    OK, here is the explanation once and for all.

    You are a crackpot. I remember your first thread at PF from 2002: "Why Relativity is Wrong". We've been entertaining your persistent misconceptions and ill-founded attacks on modern science that defy both reason and evidence for a long time. We're finished now.

    You indicate on one of your user profiles that you are an unemployed physicist and astronomer. Doesn't that give you the slightest hint as to what is wrong here? Hasn't it occured to you that if you really are right about all of your so-called "Physics Facts" that some research group would find you incredibly useful? But that's not the case, is it? The fact of the matter is this:

    You don't work because your physics doesn't work.

    Can't agree with you there. Physics Forums is privately owned. It is not a democracy, and Greg makes no apology for that.
     
  8. Apr 20, 2005 #7

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Uh, no, someone else recommended shooting a known crackpot in that thread, and the mentor stated he could NOT comply. Whether or not the person recommending the shooting received a warning for it is not something the rest of us would be privy to.

    I see nothing derogatory or insulting there. I see two mentors attempting to explain a concept to someone and perhaps getting a bit frustrated that they don't know of any other way to explain it that will help that person understand.

    Ah, I think see the true reason behind the complaint here. If you acknowledged receiving warnings, then you DO know why your account was suspended.

    That would all depend on what you mean by "certain representations of scientific issues." If you mean helping explain the deeper complexity of something they've only been taught superficially for the sake of simplicity, then yes, it's sometimes helpful to teach students beyond what they learn in the classroom, as long as it's not going to further confuse them come test time. If you mean feed them crackpot theories because they are easier to understand than science that is supported by direct experimental evidence, then sorry, no go.
     
  9. Apr 20, 2005 #8

    cronxeh

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    only those who know the rules really well are allowed to "break" them - this only applies to science, and by 'break' it means suggesting something so extraordinary, that not only fits into the experimental evidence, but also opens a door to new possibilities. This is the string theory. This is the Godel's Universe. These ideas follow standard convention of scientific reasoning, and can be disproven (even if not at the time, but in principle there exists a way). Can your ideas be refuted? Have you tried it?
     
  10. Apr 20, 2005 #9
    Ive found this thread highly entertaining. :smile:
     
  11. Apr 20, 2005 #10

    Nereid

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Thank you for your post Thomas.

    Derogatory and insulting language is unwelcome here in PF, and we have a 'Report' button on every post, which any PF member can use to report such unwelcome behaviour. The moderators here at PF can all read these reports, and it is my impression that they are all taken seriously. The action a mentor or administrator takes varies; I'd say most times only the author of the reported post is aware of the action taken - that person will likely have received a warning, a PM, or both. Speaking for myself, I'd like to see more civility from the PF mentors, advisors etc - a higher standard for them perhaps than that applied to ordinary members.

    Regarding content: if you've read the lengthy (open) discussions we've had on topics such as what to do about PF's Theory Development board, you'll have learned how we got to be where we are today, in terms of how we treat 'non-mainstream views'.
     
  12. Apr 20, 2005 #11
    Thomas, you shouldn't have asked this question in the first place. "Who moderates the moderators?"...What do you care ??? It is none of your business but the fact that you are wondering really says enough.

    marlon
     
  13. Apr 20, 2005 #12
    Just a few corrections here (I promise they are the last ones unless my account Thomas2 is being reinstated)
    Then read the thread https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=60644&page=2 again: Integral said he is sorry he can not comply (obviously for technical reasons), i.e. that he would be happy if he could,( which he confirms then by saying that it would be doing the world a favour).
    I can't think of any other public medium apart from Physicsforums where an official 'employee' gets away with these kind of statements.

    I have heard the suggestion to try to get into peer-reviewed journals now at least a dozen times on this forum. Apart from the fact that some work has been published in peer-revied journals, the problem is that you and others on this forum apparently consider yourselves as peer-reviewers here, applying essentially the same criteria and hence making an open discussion next to impossible. Admittedly, I have been using this forum usually to test out some new developments of my work (if not with regard to journal publications, then for publication on my own website) but I think this is a legitimate use of any forum. It is the circumstance that this seems to be impossible here which is sad. But then again, maybe that I should take the fact that I am being bullied off this forum rather than being convinced in a scientific discussion as an indication that my views are indeed correct and valid.
     
  14. Apr 20, 2005 #13

    Tom Mattson

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    With regards to conduct: You are right, and Integral was wrong. I apologize on behalf of Physics Forums for that.

    This is just not true. There have been plenty of open discussions of your ideas over the years.

    That is not for you to decide. Greg--the owner of this site--has decided otherwise. Your persistence in using Physics Forums for theory development is patently out of line.

    Oh, get real!

    First, your ideas have been rebutted scientifically, the fact that you have not been personally convinced notwithstanding. Speaking for myself, I have seen where Mentors and members have explained to you in painstaking detail why your arguments against special relativity hold no water. I even participated in some of those early discussions. You simply do not understand the subject, and do not appear to want to. Reports from other Mentors and Advisors bear out the same conclusion with regards to aeordynamics and quantum theory.

    Second, surely you are aware of the logical fallacy of appealing to ignorance, ("X hasn't been disproved, therefore X is true"). That's what you are implying here, except for just one thing: All of your X's that I have paid attention to have been disproven. But if you want to regard them as true, go right ahead. You're only hurting yourself.
     
  15. Apr 20, 2005 #14

    chroot

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    This forum does not intend to support open (i.e. unmoderated) discussion. We are thus in a minority; most usenet newsgroups, web forums, blogs, and so on are virtually completely open. Why don't you just post at those other venues, which constitute the majority? Why do you continue to bother us, if you clearly know this site won't permit your behavior?
    Since when do you get to decide what's a legitimate use of our forum? You don't run this place. You don't pay for the server. You don't contribute any work. Far be it from you to make any such decisions.

    We have asked the membership time and time again to vote on the whole "crackpot" issue. In every instance, our membership has voted to maintain our current policies, including the prohibition of crackpot science. Our policies will not be changed.
    From my "12 Step to Becoming a Crackpot:"

    "11) Submit your paper to reputable scientific authorities, like PRL and Nature. When no one bothers to even respond with a rejection letter, come to one of two possible conclusions: either that modern science has no rebuttal to your theory, you have shattered their collective scientific ego with your brilliance, and they have chosen not to respond because they are too proud to admit defeat; or that the International Scientific Conspiracy has immediately destroyed your paper because you got too close to the Truth. Either way, your theory is actually strengthened by the silent dismissal, and that's all that really matters anyway. Now you can tell anyone who cares to listen that modern science cannot rebut your theory, so it must be right. You can go a step further, become proactive, and actually solicit rebuttals directly from the individuals in the reputable scientific community. When none of these scientists is willing to waste his time trying to teach you tenth-grade physics, you can proudly announce that science cannot disprove your theory."

    - Warren
     
  16. Apr 20, 2005 #15

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    "...I have been using this forum usually to test out some new developments of my work ... I think this is a legitimate use of any forum ... this seems to be impossible here which is sad."

    It's not your call what is "legitimate use" of a forum - which is why you keep getting booted off. The mandate of this forum is quite clear in that it does not support discussion of personal theories. There are plenty of sites that welcome personal theories, this just doesn't happen to be one. This is not a judgment, it is merely a stake in the ground. A forum must lay down boundaries or it will lose focus. (The forum also doesn't support cooking recipes or fly-fishing techniques.) It is not sad, it is a necessity.
     
  17. Apr 20, 2005 #16
    I'm surprised this thread wasn't deleted from the start. It seems clear that this individual is immune to logic, therefore responding to him in a logical fashion is a complete waste of time. He's not ever going to be convinced through rational arguments that (1) his theories are BS (2) the admins of the site have a right to do whatever the heck they want w/respect to anything site-related, especially filtering out said BS. I have a feeling he'll be back in one reincarnation or another.
     
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2005
  18. Apr 20, 2005 #17
    I agree somewhat. A while back I reported a post of a moderator, and I have not gotten any response, pm, or anything back. Maybe they did not take my report seriously, but I was at least expecting someone to contact me and discuss the report.
     
  19. Apr 20, 2005 #18

    loseyourname

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    To answer the original question, I'm pretty sure that, in order to avoid an infinite regress, the moderators moderate themselves. Given that there are about 47 of them, and I would imagine they don't always agree on everything, this should be sufficient. I moderate another forum I post at and that is the way we do it. If a moderator needs to be warned, then another moderator warns him. We've even banned a moderator before. I doubt it's ever come to that here, but if it has to, I'm sure it will.

    To insert my own opinion on how this particular matter should be handled, if this poster continues to open threads making the same claims that have already been debunked, just close it, immediately. If he continues afterward, warn him, then ban him. This already seems to have taken place with this poster and it should be the way these situations are handled for all posters. Leaving the threads open for even one response is nothing but an invitation to argument and eventual flaming. Better to not even give it a chance. Arildno and Integral would never have gotten frustrated and said something inappropriate (which we all do at times) if the threads had simply been closed from the beginning.
     
  20. Apr 20, 2005 #19

    Monique

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I looked but couldn't find your reported post among the ones of the last month, reported posts are dealt with internally so we don't always report back to members if there is no need. I can assure you that corrective actions are not restricted to members alone, so definately report posts that you feel are out of line.
     
  21. Apr 20, 2005 #20

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Just a comment concerning my own sarcasms (not only against Thomas2):

    Quite justifiedly, IMO, SEVERAL mentors have PM'ed on this issue and asked me to refrain from this in the future. I have resolved to follow this as best as I can; the fact, for example, that I get pissed off at fanciful theories of reality lacking in logical rigour or physical evidence (for example religion and pseudo-science), can be communicated in a more cultivated and less offensive manner, if at all.

    As for Thomas2:
    Clearly, you are convinced, among other things, that most physicists are idiots who use complicated maths when the math skills of 10-year olds are all that is required to do physics.
    Well, feel free to think this way, you can get a lot of new like-minded friends at a forum like sciforums.com
    I suggest you go there instead.
     
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2005
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Who moderates the moderators?
  1. List of moderators? (Replies: 10)

  2. Moderation complaints (Replies: 1)

  3. Moderation abuse (Replies: 16)

  4. VM moderation? (Replies: 1)

Loading...