About Moderation (old original thread)

[Yuv]

Fair, that seems possible. So I am a bit surprised this was the case brought here.

[Trolly]

@Yuv the provenance of the jpg and refusal to source was part of MakeHaste’s original concern:

@MakeHaste

Didn’t post this during the RFC, and I’m mostly what some call a leech in the community, but this personally struck me as problematic. A screenshot was posted (since deleted) and citation was requested but withheld.

Somehow you’ve completely forgotten about this, decided the screenshot was irrelevant to the matter of Church posting dubious unsourced screenshots:

who cares what the source of the jpeg was? the only thing that matters is the study.

I will take you at your word that this was a good-faith slip-up, but I will demand an apology.

[CaffeineNeeded]

@goofyballer

CN got mad at me the other day for saying his ban was fine

I mean… I thought it was obvious this was a joke? Sorry because apparently it wasnt

[Yuv]

I don’t understand what you are saying, I truly apologize.

MakeHaste has already agreed that if the preprint was provided there is absolutely no issue here. Are you claiming otherwise?

(if this back and forth is becoming annoying to read we can move to a PM cause I truly do not understand your point to a degree where either I’m crazy or you’re crazy so it’s better to solve the issue)

[CaffeineNeeded]

Nah I wasn’t mad at you, at all. I was just making fun of Victor for declaring that my team was complaining about my ban while you were saying it was fine

[anon10396289]

@LouisCyphre

Nothing changes because this one time a study he got from a tinfoil head moron was merely flawed not completely debunked. He knew this guy is usually full of shit and he posted it anyway. I leave it as an exercise to the reader why he has been doing this.

It was published in the most prestigious scientific journal in the world!!!

[Churchill]

Happy for you to post the proof I posted the study when requested. I think it was a mod deletion but honestly wouldn’t bet on it. I remember getting angst and thinking 'fuck ‘em’ a few times times and deleting some prior posts. Not sure if this was one of those occasions.

[anon84698652]

@amead

Also pretending like this one situation is the genesis of people’s opinion on that poster is insane. This was one of like, I dunno, a couple dozen times this type of thing happened?

A couple dozen times a benign unremarkable thing happened on an internet forum.

The horror.

Every time the terrible things that are alleged are analyzed and found to be not really that bad, it never changes the opinion of those holding the pitchforks, it’s the sentiment that matters more than any real facts of each event. That’s the whole fucking problem here.

[LouisCyphre]

So nothing changed from pre-print to publishing?

[Trolly]

PS, you’ve somehow glossed over Church telling baldfaced lies about what the forum was saying about vaccine waning:

About Moderation (old original thread)

Actually, here’s what people were saying about the vaccine waning. Incredible work by non-epidemiologist and poorly-credentialed Wookie anticipating that the preprint numbers would be revised upward!

I understand it’s easy to overlook these things.

[amead]

I assume you mean the light trolling was the benign thing on an internet forum and not the 12 hour timeouts?

[anon84698652]

They’re all benign and nothing to be creating so much repeated drama over.

[anon84698652]

@goofyballer

@anon84698652

The “bad faith” police want moderators to take action about improper citations of studies that were eventually published in the top scientific journal in US… Lol.

This is an internet discussion forum. Suzzer posts like a dozen tweets a day about Ukraine war from random unsubstantiated twitter feeds and the same folks are mashing the like button.

Seems like I’m the only consistent person on this forum, because I usually approve of bans of “my team” (and only complain if they are inconsistent with non-bans of the other team; CN got mad at me the other day for saying his ban was fine) and I have been calling out suzzer for posting links that look like obvious BS. Meanwhile all the churchill sympathizers are in here, like, actually arguing he’s not a troll (that’s a losing argument, just stick with “yes he’s a troll, so what?” it’s much better). Change my mind

Except the bolded is actually a lie.

It’s been freely and repeatedly admitted he sometimes ‘trolls’… In the same sense you and many others repeatedly do here. Some* even just call that posting on a forum.

Some = Adults

[anon10396289]

I don’t know, I’d have to compare. But it was three weeks from preprint publication to Science publication, so it must have been accepted with at most minor revisions.

[LouisCyphre]

Somebody correct if I am wrong but IIRC some astute posters here caught something in there that couldn’t be correct?!

[Churchill]

@LouisCyphre

So nothing changed from pre-print to publishing?

So far, we have this, I think …happy for others to amend

@Trolly

Interestingly, the 3% figure in the version that didn’t pass peer review is now 13% in the reviewed version.

[Yuv]

It is easy to overlook these things. It’s hard to take X years of conflict and understand it in a mere hour. But it’s harder when the goal posts shifts. There was a user here who decided to bring up a case, a specific one. I outlined all the facts I understand from that case. My conclusion so far is that the case not only doesn’t show Church has been very wrong (assuming he posted the preprint as he claims), but the response to him and apparently still your view of what important in this case is quite wrong in my opinion.

I never claimed i can fully quantify churchill as a user and I said repeatedly I believe there’s a plausible chance he isn’t a “quality” poster. Seems strange to blame me for not replying to everything especially when discussing something that requires so much research as everyone’s position on vaccine waning in real time.

[Yuv]

To paraphrase CN, why do you think that’s a dunk? That sounds like an excellent discussion. Church brought up a paper that seems to be quite right in its conclusion that vaccines are waning. It had some flaws detected by the people here and apparently by the reviewers at Science. They were fixed. Paper was published.

Where is the part where this discussion is bad? Why is this in AM months later?

[Trolly]

@Yuv

It is easy to overlook these things. It’s hard to take X years of conflict and understand it in a mere hour. But it’s harder when the goal posts shifts

The goalposts haven’t shifted. From the start MakeHaste was concerned about Church posting a screengrab and refusing to say where it came from. If your response is “who cares about the jpg?”, then there’s not much to discuss. He thinks it’s an important thing, you don’t.

[anon10396289]

So, a typo?