Author Topic: Banned members  (Read 47701 times)

Offline Echnaton

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1490
Re: Banned members
« Reply #45 on: January 06, 2013, 09:11:42 AM »
Heiwa has had ample opportunity to be heard on his own terms and has chosen to put a substantial amount of this opportunity to prove a moon hoax into trying to control the conversation, repeat his unsupported claims and deflect challenges by shifting the burden of proof.  His hoax claims are as well documented as they will ever be by letting him go on un-moderated.  It is time that we impose a requirement to answer a list of direct questions if we are to ever get any more out of him.
The sun shone, having no alternative, on the nothing new. —Samuel Beckett

Offline Glom

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1036
Re: Re: Banned members
« Reply #46 on: January 06, 2013, 09:35:04 AM »
As I said in my last post, his intransigence is actually good in that it brings out the best here. Although he should not be insulting, I'd recommend that all possible effort be made to keep him around (within reason, of course).
I agree with this. Even if he truly is just a troll, watching his piss poor physics get demolished and then corrected is very educational. Thanks again to all of you who share your knowledge with us.

Honestly, I disagree.  I'm one of the only people around here who wholeheartedly endorses BAUT's direct-questions rule.  While I'm learning, I'd rather it be from a real conversation.

The trouble with BAUT's way of doing things, and why I don't go there anymore, is that it cuts off the real fun of having knowledgeable people explain things.  The real conversation here isn't with Heiwa, but with the people who know what they are talking about. 

My suggestion is that Heiwa be allowed only to post only answers to direct questions; once answered, he can put up other posts.

I'm with you. BAUT's strict moderation strangled threads at birth. Here, we allow threads to grow. It's now after we've seen Heiwa's evasion, that tighter controls can be imposed. But that's after the thread has developed in this way.

Give the thread a chance before sitting on its face. That's what the mods at BAUT refuse to countenance and that's what has killed its once great conspiracy forum stone dead.

Offline peter eldergill

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 34
Re: Banned members
« Reply #47 on: January 06, 2013, 10:18:38 AM »
Not that I want to make this off topic, but I don't even read baut anymore, especially since it merged again. I just don't enjoy it there anymore.

Pete

Offline Donnie B.

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 143
Re: Banned members
« Reply #48 on: January 06, 2013, 11:08:06 AM »
In Heiwa's case I don't think it would work to require direct answers to specific questions.  It's a foregone conclusion that he will either ignore or evade such a requirement.  It's easy enough to do; he can just give a non-responsive or non-sequitur reply and claim to have met the requirement -- or just ignore it altogether.  LO would have to ban him even though his behavior was not all that objectionable.

For me, the real issue is to prevent the repeated insults, jibes, and moderation attempts that raise the frustration level and threaten to produce angry responses.  LO has been doing pretty well there, but it's a big burden on him.

How about this: set a fixed limit on the number of posts that will be suppressed due to those specific issues, say 5 or 10 from now on.  Once he hits the limit, banhammer.  As long as he can keep posting without violating those limits, we keep the chew toy around for general edification.  But if he keeps up the snide stuff there's an end point for LO.

Offline AtomicDog

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 358
Re: Banned members
« Reply #49 on: January 06, 2013, 11:25:34 AM »
Which includes any of those cutesy insult plays on the word "astronaut."
"There is no belief, however foolish, that will not gather its faithful adherents who will defend it to the death." - Isaac Asimov

Offline LunarOrbit

  • Administrator
  • Jupiter
  • *****
  • Posts: 840
    • ApolloHoax.net
Re: Banned members
« Reply #50 on: January 06, 2013, 11:40:32 AM »
I'm going to add all of variations of astronaut (asstronot, astronaut, astronaut, etc.) to the forums censor. I did it on the Proboards forum but haven't bothered here until now.
It suddenly struck me that that tiny pea, pretty and blue, was the Earth.
I put up my thumb and shut one eye, and my thumb blotted out the planet Earth.
I didn't feel like a giant. I felt very, very small.
- Neil Armstrong (1930-2012)

Offline Bob B.

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 819
  • Bob the Excel Guruâ„¢
    • Rocket & Space Technology
Re: Banned members
« Reply #51 on: January 06, 2013, 11:45:22 AM »
For me, the real issue is to prevent the repeated insults, jibes, and moderation attempts that raise the frustration level and threaten to produce angry responses.

I think it's more than that.  When a guy goes on for 50+ pages repeating the same flawed argument over and over while ignoring all the replies that debunk it, something needs to change.  I'd rather put up with insults and childish behavior than deal with someone who ignores his opponents and refuses to admit errors.  I just try to not let the juvenile behavior of a buffoon get to me because it's not worth the aggravation.  But this is a forum, which by definition is a place where ideas are to be exchanged and discussed.  Heiwa isn't doing that.  In fact, he's doing everything he can not to engage in any real meaningful discussion.  That is the behavior that I believe is irritating most people, and it is the behavior that I believe must change as a condition of his return.

In Heiwa's case I don't think it would work to require direct answers to specific questions.  It's a foregone conclusion that he will either ignore or evade such a requirement.  It's easy enough to do; he can just give a non-responsive or non-sequitur reply and claim to have met the requirement -- or just ignore it altogether.  LO would have to ban him even though his behavior was not all that objectionable.

I agree with you on this part because that is exactly what I suspect will happen.  And what will happen as a result?  People are going to get frustrated and mad.  And why is that?  Because Heiwa's evasion is the real problem, not his childish insults and attempts at moderation.  If he doesn't change the behavior that is the root of the real problem, then he should be banned.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2013, 11:56:30 AM by Bob B. »

Offline Donnie B.

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 143
Re: Banned members
« Reply #52 on: January 06, 2013, 12:12:53 PM »
If he doesn't change the behavior that is the root of the real problem, then he should be banned.

Whatever criterion is used for the banning decision, I think it's gonna happen pretty definitely.

Offline gillianren

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1840
    • My Letterboxd journal
Re: Banned members
« Reply #53 on: January 06, 2013, 12:15:24 PM »
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the reason for the "truth about Apollo" section is to have this kind of conversation without requiring some stubborn and ignorant person to dump all over everyone throughout it.  Couldn't the discussion be had there and allow the hoax section to have some structure?
"This sounds like a job for Bipolar Bear . . . but I just can't seem to get out of bed!"

"Conspiracy theories are an irresistible labour-saving device in the face of complexity."  --Henry Louis Gates

Offline Glom

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1036
Re: Re: Banned members
« Reply #54 on: January 06, 2013, 02:22:43 PM »
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the reason for the "truth about Apollo" section is to have this kind of conversation without requiring some stubborn and ignorant person to dump all over everyone throughout it.  Couldn't the discussion be had there and allow the hoax section to have some structure?

But that has been proven to not work. That's what they did at BAUT and now there is neither conspiracy shenanigans nor general discussion about Apollo. BAUT killed itself with its addiction to stifling rules.

Offline gillianren

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1840
    • My Letterboxd journal
Re: Banned members
« Reply #55 on: January 06, 2013, 03:05:47 PM »
I think it's still going strong.  The conspiracy section isn't, Gods know, but I don't think that's the rules.  I think it's that the new home of conspiracism is YouTube, where you can't argue effectively and therefore they don't have to listen to any voices but their own.
"This sounds like a job for Bipolar Bear . . . but I just can't seem to get out of bed!"

"Conspiracy theories are an irresistible labour-saving device in the face of complexity."  --Henry Louis Gates

Offline LunarOrbit

  • Administrator
  • Jupiter
  • *****
  • Posts: 840
    • ApolloHoax.net
Re: Banned members
« Reply #56 on: January 06, 2013, 05:31:45 PM »
I think what I'll do is tell him that until he answers all of the outstanding questions he will remain on moderation and none of his posts that don't answers questions will be approved. And if he answers the questions to our satisfaction I will take him off moderation. Maybe a carrot will work better than a stick.

I've received some questions from Bob B. which I will be posting for Heiwa to answer. I'd like to get all of the questions compiled before Heiwa's ban expires on January 12. So if anyone else has questions that they would like him to answer please submit them to me via a private message.
It suddenly struck me that that tiny pea, pretty and blue, was the Earth.
I put up my thumb and shut one eye, and my thumb blotted out the planet Earth.
I didn't feel like a giant. I felt very, very small.
- Neil Armstrong (1930-2012)

Offline sts60

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 398
Re: Banned members
« Reply #57 on: January 06, 2013, 06:05:06 PM »
I'll work on a list of items, but I would recommend being careful on the "to our satisfaction" clause.  Posts should not be disapproved simply because he doesn't understand something.  However, I have no problem with requiring him to explain, for example, why he keeps calling the SPS engine "PK-22S" or whatever when it is unquestionably not - a very simple matter of fact, which cannot be written off as an error of understanding (like his inability to grasp how an energy balance equation works).

Offline LunarOrbit

  • Administrator
  • Jupiter
  • *****
  • Posts: 840
    • ApolloHoax.net
Re: Banned members
« Reply #58 on: January 06, 2013, 06:09:06 PM »
I'll work on a list of items, but I would recommend being careful on the "to our satisfaction" clause.

What I mean is that he will at least have to provide an answer to each of the questions, even if the answers are wrong. He can't just ignore the questions or dismiss them as stupid or "off topic".
It suddenly struck me that that tiny pea, pretty and blue, was the Earth.
I put up my thumb and shut one eye, and my thumb blotted out the planet Earth.
I didn't feel like a giant. I felt very, very small.
- Neil Armstrong (1930-2012)

Offline grmcdorman

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 99
Re: Banned members
« Reply #59 on: January 06, 2013, 06:10:30 PM »
Indeed. I was tempted to ask my posts about the KE equation he's using to be included, but I felt that errors of fact such as the above should be address first - especially since we should keep the list down in size.