You haven’t addressed a single moderation call in here.
1 Like
I did so yesterday with you. Both you and Trolly claimed that Church’s behavior in this case required moderation in the sense of temp bans and his posts were subject to moderation with deletion.
So your post here is dishonest at best. I thought we had an honest conversation, it’s a pitty.
1 Like
Who needs bans when you can just frustrate people into quitting.
Anyone here who has posted more than like 5 times ITT this week needs to find a better hobby.
All of you. No exceptions. Myself included.
4 Likes
If you guys want we can open this topic as well. The interesting phenomena of when people are “ran off” and “forced to quit” and when they are malcontents who left.
I got 36 more hours.
It was a joke. I’m in favor of not opening anymore topics. Not in favor of bans except in the most extreme circumstances, argued for church not being banned on multiple occasions and did not vote to ban Sabo for the record.
2 Likes
I don’t think he thinks he’s dishonest, and that’s what’s sad
Back when I had a different view of him, I trusted him saying Churchill was being dangerously misleading and going to get somebody hurt, so I banned Churchill when I had no time to wade through claims and sources and all that. I thought it was urgent and better to err on making sure people didn’t get hurt. My mistake. I shouldn’t have done that.
4 Likes
I know, i used it as a jumping board for a discussion about how self-banned people are referred to based on their team alliance. It’s an interesting subject.
This guy CN is in here saying a paper is “shitty” and “useless” when it was clearly publishable after major revisions. And some of you act like that’s no big deal!
Going to request again that people tone down the non-substantive personal attacks. You’re free to make strenuous arguments, but try to keep it substantive and not name calling.
He is saying it is shitty after revisions, which i’m not positive has happened to begin with.
@smrk4 how can i describe Trolly’s intellectual performance here without you flagging my post? I’m open to suggestions.
2 Likes
I just don’t understand the point of all this. I asked 36 hours ago how we go about fixing this and got radio silence. If you guys don’t want to fix it what’s the point?
Except it was published in Science three weeks later with no revisions as far as I can see. They added a very significant figure but every figure that was in the preprint was in the Science paper as is. What were these major revisions to the work in the preprint? And what was the flaw in the preprint that required the revisions?
You can’t point to any revisions. And you’re saying it was bad before revisions and good after revisions.
Weird!
Also you have no problems with all the preprints used by Not-Nurse in that thread.
Weird!
I had numerous posts about this subject. Specifically about the nature of what “misinformation” is, who decides it and how we can avoid using it as a tool to silence other opinions or create friction.
At times it feels like discussion isn’t actually wanted, simply compliance.
The revisions have already been posted ITT.
Can we argue about something else?
What is better?
- Cats
- Dogs
0 voters
What’s the point of your complaining here? Is that fixing anything? How about you just let people talk about what they feel like talking about?
1 Like
My personal take on all this stuff (not that you asked) is that people should let a lot of this stuff go. There are “very fine people on both sides” and this place was better before there were teams. But that requires a lot of people admitting fault and extending an olive branch and that clearly isn’t going to happen.
4 Likes