Terminating membership at BAUT/CQ

[Not Myself]

It's the sort of thread flouncy ATM posters make when they see they can't push their non-science.

This is one of the things that bothers me most about BAUT/CQ - any complaint at all, and you're in the same category as people who are building perpetual motion machines in their basements.

[gillianren]

That's okay.  Here, you don't even have to complain to get labeled a closet HB and probably a sock puppet.  Heck, I was once called a closet HB and probably a sock puppet!

[pzkpfw]

It's the sort of thread flouncy ATM posters make when they see they can't push their non-science.

This is one of the things that bothers me most about BAUT/CQ - any complaint at all, and you're in the same category as people who are building perpetual motion machines in their basements.

Meh. My observation stands, I think. Whether you like the comparison or not - in this case - it was a flounce by his own admission.

[LunarOrbit]

Yes, Dwight himself called it a flounce, but in I see a huge difference in leaving because you've embarrassed yourself in a debate and leaving because you're frustrated by the nature of the forum. As the moderator of a forum I would be concerned about the latter. If respected members of the forum criticized how I ran things I wouldn't just brush aside their concerns. I might not agree with them, and I might continue to do things the way I think is best, but I wouldn't just say "okay, bye then!"

Allowing Dwight to respond to the person who made the false claims against him in the same thread where those claims were made would have been a simple solution that I'm sure would have satisfied Dwight's concerns. I really don't understand the decision not to allow that. It's not a matter of wanting to sneak in the last word, it's the opportunity to defend his name. Instead those false claims are still visible and could show up in Google searches for Dwight's name, but there is no correction associated with it.

[pzkpfw]

Yes, Dwight himself called it a flounce, but in I see a huge difference in leaving because you've embarrassed yourself in a debate and leaving because you're frustrated by the nature of the forum. As the moderator of a forum I would be concerned about the latter. If respected members of the forum criticized how I ran things I wouldn't just brush aside their concerns. I might not agree with them, and I might continue to do things the way I think is best, but I wouldn't just say "okay, bye then!"

Allowing Dwight to respond to the person who made the false claims against him in the same thread where those claims were made would have been a simple solution that I'm sure would have satisfied Dwight's concerns. I really don't understand the decision not to allow that. It's not a matter of wanting to sneak in the last word, it's the opportunity to defend his name. Instead those false claims are still visible and could show up in Google searches for Dwight's name, but there is no correction associated with it.

I read the thread this morning, and I don't see the issue. The poster who made the claims is clearly an angry HB - who is now clearly marked as "banned", so his writings wouldn't be taken too seriously.

Conversely, Dwights' posts are clear, sane, and full of data. Anyone reading the thread would know which way the facts lie.

Allowing a "last word", for whatever reason, simply opens up the moderators of that forum to fielding many further such requests, and the hassle of having to justify decisions that don't go the way of the requester. I'm not at all surprised the decision in this case was "no". Besides, it was suggested to Dwight he could start a new thread to point out what he felt needed to be pointed out. He didn't take that chance.

It was quite some time ago. Time enough to get over it.

[dwight]

That incident for me was the beginning of the end, but not the motivating factor for my recent decision. I also must say on record that pkzpfw was completely polite and professional in dealing with my concerns. I certainly have no beef with him. What caused me to leave was what I see as the way overzealous moderating to the point where I was shouting out loud reading what was going on _recently_.

I understand there are requirements for moderation, but everytime I step outside my door I see gold plaques on the pavement reminding me of how much I despise what too much policing can bring- perhaps an over-reaction and perhaps I take such things too personally, but I am true to myself and not the Cosmoquest board.

[Captain Swoop]

Sad as it is that Dwight has decided not to post on CQ anymore I think the issue of the way the board is moderated compared to Apollohoax is a different subject.

Apollohoax is a specialist one issue board with a tiny ammount of traffic posted by a small number of regular participating members.

LunarOrbit runs the board and Moderates the board very well but if CQ was moderated in the same way it would be chaos..

On here we have a small number of regulars who know each other very well and the occasional Hoax Believer coming in every few weeks as a lone dissenting voice.

On CQ we have ongoing long term feuds, long term Trolls joining under new Sock accounts several times a week, masses of Spammers, ongoing feuds between members, old and new posters pushing their private ATM and at given time multiple reported posts, PMs and coplaints in the queue to be delth with.

CQ Rules aren't that arduous and Mod decisions can be appealed to the Admins or Board Owners.

[ChrLz]

I read the thread this morning, and I don't see the issue.

Well, I do.  The thread was summarily closed for no apparent reason - the 'troublemaker' had been banned, and yet for some inexplicable reason all he had said was important enough to be allowed and thus committed to history..  But right then it had to suddenly be closed to anyone else, because....  Well, we don't know.  There's no reason given on thread, not even a message saying that moderators had closed it because of discussions held in the back room.. It just suddenly got locked up.

The poster who made the claims is clearly an angry HB - who is now clearly marked as "banned", so his writings wouldn't be taken too seriously.

Well, nobody takes anything seriously on the Internet, nobody ever uses old 'data' to back their new claims, and no new HB would ever quote an old angry HB..  Sheesh - if this is meant to be justification for the thread closure, it could surely be used to suggest that the entire thread be wiped...

Conversely, Dwights' posts are clear, sane, and full of data.

Which makes the refusal to reopen it even more puzzling / daft.  As for the silly suggestion that he should instead start a new thread to refer back to that one..  Yeah, that's how to run a forum and keep things easy to find and on-topic and coherent! 

Anyone reading the thread would know which way the facts lie.

Yeah, anyone who wasn't an HB.  And such a person would never misquote Moonfunk's final words like:

Dw... you are mistaken... Dw... and I have come to an agreement... Links to a website our esteemed member Dw... helped create have been posted and explained.

No, no-one could possibly mis/quote/read that stuff as if Dwight was supporting Moonfunk.  Everyone on the Internet plays fair and reasonable at all times....

And there are several other references that Moonfunk made on that thread that were not able to be challenged because of the unexplained closure.  And I'm struggling to see any 'unkind' comments from all the other respondents, so the closure remains a mystery to me.  Indeed, it is clear that closure happened within hours of the banning - so anyone like me on the far side of the planet wouldn't have had any possible way to respond to anything...

Allowing a "last word", for whatever reason, simply opens up the moderators of that forum to fielding many further such requests, and the hassle of having to justify decisions that don't go the way of the requester.

Rubbish - the mod's can completely ignore future requests if they wish, or gee whiz, maybe they could just look at each case on its merits...  Many, many threads are left open for additions and corrections after the thread originator has been banned, and imnsho, that sort of thread should only really be closed if:
- the topic and all related issues/claims are comprehensively dealt with
- it degenerates into silly jokes or bashing of the now banned person.

AFAICS, and correct me if I'm wrong, Moonfunk was the only problem poster on that entire thread.  Sorta ironic that the person he impugned was the one prevented from responding, on the supposed basis that lots of other requests for re-opening had been made and the imaginary floodgates mustn't be opened.

I'm not at all surprised the decision in this case was "no".

Neither am I - that's just one small aspect of why the-forum-formerly-known-as-BAUT-and-now-horribly-named-Cosmoquest has lost its way.

It was quite some time ago. Time enough to get over it.

On the Internet, everything old is new again..

Mega's quote was on the money:

This is one of the things that bothers me most about BAUT/CQ - any complaint at all, and you're in the same category as people who are building perpetual motion machines in their basements.

Pzkpfw, you..

It's the sort of thread flouncy ATM posters make when they see they can't push their non-science.

and Swift..

You will be lost among the 160,000+ members

and Henrik..

a very large proportion of the goodbye posts is a cry for a chorus of posts telling the poster to stay

and Jim..

there have been Members in the past who made the "..I'm leaving.." post and started posting again shortly after.

and Moose..

don't rub our noses in 'your' ego(s) and expect kind words

..are all doing precisely that - demeaning posters as flouncing egotistical tinfoilhatters.  And there are current and former moderators in that list..   It's not a good look.  BTW, if you would like to see how it *should* have been handled, then I think Strange's post was the sort of BE NICE post that you guys keep saying is the only basic rule that needs to be remembered...

I'm very disappointed with the way this was handled.  And still waiting for Moose to explain what was egotistical in my post.. Indeed, Pzkpfw, would you like to point at where I or Dwight have pushed non-science?  Do you believe we will flounce back?

Or was that .. just possibly .. an unwarranted generalisation?  Or just a little harmless tease, like all those other examples?

[Captain Swoop]

If the OP of a thread in Conspiracy or ATM is banned for whatever reason it is usual to close the thread as he is no longer there to defend the OP.

Dwight was given the option of and could have started his own thread to defend his position. He diedn't for 2 years.

[Captain Swoop]

Which makes the refusal to reopen it even more puzzling / daft.  As for the silly suggestion that he should instead start a new thread to refer back to that one..  Yeah, that's how to run a forum and keep things easy to find and on-topic and coherent!

For good reasons not to keep a thread open after the OP has left look at some of the threads oin the Hoax Forum on this site. There are two long thread where the last 8 or 9 pages have turned into general HB discussions rather than being on topic. With no reply or input from the OP threads always wander and go off topic.

[cjameshuff]

For good reasons not to keep a thread open after the OP has left look at some of the threads oin the Hoax Forum on this site. There are two long thread where the last 8 or 9 pages have turned into general HB discussions rather than being on topic. With no reply or input from the OP threads always wander and go off topic.

Yes, how terrible. People are actively discussing matters as they come up.

Such threads serve as fertile ground for discussions of new topics, often ones that are highly informative about subjects related to the thread. If a sidetrack becomes excessive, it can be split off to another thread, and if it doesn't, it didn't deserve a thread of its own. On CosmoQuest, a systematic attempt is instead made to salt this fertile ground.

[ChrLz]

Which makes the refusal to reopen it even more puzzling / daft.  As for the silly suggestion that he should instead start a new thread to refer back to that one..  Yeah, that's how to run a forum and keep things easy to find and on-topic and coherent!

For good reasons not to keep a thread open after the OP has left look at some of the threads oin the Hoax Forum on this site. There are two long thread where the last 8 or 9 pages have turned into general HB discussions rather than being on topic. With no reply or input from the OP threads always wander and go off topic.

Hang on... You're now criticising this forum's practices???  Do you see anyone else here doing that - quite the contrary I think..
Or are you referring to BAUT, where indeed there are threads that don't seem to suffer this ban+immediate closure thing?  And if so, how come those threads at BAUT didn't suffer the 'automatic' fate?  It almost appears there are grave inconsistencies, and this practice is decided upon a whim.

Well, may I suggest that the 'whim' approach (at BAUT) be changed as follows:
- give it at least a couple of days after banning if only to allow timezone fairness
- make any closure dependent on the content of the thread - in most of these surely some moderator has already been posting and has at least a vague grasp of what has transpired, and in particular if there have been claims made that need refutation
- wait until people misbehave

I mean, isn't some of that what happened in the examples you just gave?  Is that really more onerous than immediate closure and angry potential respondents?

I can recall several BAUT examples where I've been bloody annoyed at threads being closed instantly thus preventing my presumably unimportant antipodean reply.. imo, you are unfairly treating those on the other side of the planet.


But wait, I can see there could be a problem.. what with the HUGE posting load that is the BAUT/CQ Conspiracy Theories forum - what's the average currently - one or two posts per day?

[Captain Swoop]

If people want changes on Cosmoquest then there is a feedback section to discuss such things.



What is wrong with me bringing up this 'forums practices' on this Forum?
I wasn't criticising the practice, If there wasn't any 'meandering' of the discussion there would be days and days with no activity on the thread.

[ChrLz]

If people want changes on Cosmoquest then there is a feedback section to discuss such things.

You mean like this?

Gee, perhaps I should try that...oh wait, that was ME.  Funnily enough, many people* agreed with me but it was argued against, because, as Jim stated:

It would be great if we could leave a thread open for reasoned, meaningful discussions. But, as evidenced by the recent flurry of threads by one Member in CT

ONE member.  Just ONE, one who could have been suspended/banned..  So, because of that one member back then, and on a forum that is close to dead anyway, and completely ignoring the complaints about unfairness to those in different time zones..  you wonder why there is a bit of flak in the air?

What is wrong with me bringing up this 'forums practices' on this Forum?

Nothing much, except that:
- you said "I think the issue of the way the board is moderated compared to Apollohoax is a different subject."
- you might find yourself in a very tiny minority - I think LO's efforts at this site are exemplary and I don't think I'm alone..  {where's my $5, LO}

I wasn't criticising the practice, If there wasn't any 'meandering' of the discussion there would be days and days with no activity on the thread.

? I'm sorry but I don't get your point.. You seem to have changed sides..

* Added PS.. not that I want to name drop {cough-Jay-cough} but look above and below my linked post for others who seemed to agree, at least back then..

[BazBear]

That's okay.  Here, you don't even have to complain to get labeled a closet HB and probably a sock puppet.  Heck, I was once called a closet HB and probably a sock puppet!

Someone accused you Gillianren? Wow. I can understand why people get suspicious, but the hair trigger some have is a bit ridiculous. After all, not every new poster is a Tekeli etc. sock.