Fussy moderation in 'Sustainability & Environmental issues'

Needler

Not sure if this has been brought up before or if this is even the right place for it but it is a genuine problem. Also this is not a dispute between me and a moderator just a general observation of what's been going on in there.

The whole forum has become a very forboding place with the two mods there regularly using their mod powers to intimidate new users and steer the debate in their favour.

This thread would be a good example of it: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056334907 at this point it has been locked, unlocked and almost contains more bold text than normal for the two pages its been active

A user tried to bring up the problem in http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055771677 but was immediatly shot down and red carded for 'discussion of moderation'.

Nody

Eh? I've read through your "example" thread as I've never been in the forum before and I can't see anything wrong there. All I see are people trying to either go off topic or post a link to something someone else said as their argument instead of actually saying what mattered from it.

Beruthiel

Needler wrote: »

This thread would be a good example of it: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056334907 at this point it has been locked, unlocked and almost contains more bold text than normal for the two pages its been active

All I'm seeing in that thread is Mods trying to keep the thread on topic and asking for people to give their actual opinions instead of copying some article and pasting it.

Yitzhak Rabin

I'm not sure whether that particular thread is the best example, but I agree with the OP's point. The moderation in S&EI is ridiculously heavy-handed.

Take the second thread the OP gave. A user gave, what I would consider some pretty reasonable feedback:

Let's hope you are right, as we've all noticed the forum getting less and less active.

I've chatted to a few guys who have posted here, and there seems to be a view that sometimes the moderation is heavy handed, and treats intelligent and interesting people like naught children to be scolded at every opportunity. I myself am reluctant to post here very often for that very reason, and know others who feel the same.

I have two options here. To say nothing about the conversations I have had with users/former users of the sustainability forum, or to bring the point raised to your attention. I've decided on the latter course, seeing this opportunity has arisen, as to have said nothing and see those people continue to avoid the forum for the reason given, seems the better option. I hope you take the criticism in the constructive spirit in which it is intended.

and they get a red card? That is ludicrous. It shows a severe lack of maturity on behalf of the moderator that they cannot take even the politest criticism on board.

Its my opinion that the moderators of that forum use their position to steer the debate the way they want it to go. Take this thread for example:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056324244

In post number #8 djpbarry gives a mod instruction to someone he is trying to engage in debate with. Mods shouldn't be here to direct users debating style. Unless it breaks boards.ie guidelines, then the mod should just debate with the person, and if they think that their argument is weak, they should point that out like any other user, not straight away jump to bold boy text and treat the poster like a naughty child.

There have been a few DRP cases from the forum, and while, by the book, the mods made the right decision, I always thought that the attitude of the mod was very schoolteacherish, rather than a facilitator to discussion.

Insect Overlord

Just on this point:

yekahS wrote: »

Take the second thread the OP gave. A user gave, what I would consider some pretty reasonable feedback:

and they get a red card? That is ludicrous. It shows a severe lack of maturity on behalf of the moderator that they cannot take even the politest criticism on board.

It's pointless having a thread on the direction of a forum if its moderation can't be given fair criticism. If you want to have a feedback thread in-forum for your users, then make the most of that communication. If you don't want to hear that people aren't happy, then close the thread instead of keeping up the pretence.

fits

I think you'd want the patience of Job to moderate that forum to be quite honest.
I just cant be bothered reading threads in there with the amount of rubbish thats posted. Science education in this country is failing!

(I think the mods do a pretty good job btw)

My name is URL

fits wrote: »

I just cant be bothered reading threads in there with the amount of rubbish thats posted. Science education in this country is failing!

Well it's a forum for Environmental issues, not just Environmental scientists. The Dental Issues forum isn't just a place for Dental Surgeons to interact.. people ask questions, hold misguided but honest opinions or are sometimes just clueless about what they are discussing.

Is it not better to show somebody why they might be wrong than to just dismiss them completely for not being up to your standard of discussion?

fits

My name is URL wrote: »

Well it's a forum for Environmental issues, not just Environmental scientists.

I never said it wasnt. But believe me the whole 'AGW is just a ploy to increase taxes' argument is so so very old at this stage, and I personally just cant engage with it at all anymore. I think the patience of the mods is admirable.

Is it not better to show somebody why they might be wrong than to just dismiss them completely for not being up to your standard of discussion?

It has been done repeatedly in that forum, but at the end of the day, most people arent interested in engaging in discussion. They just want to reinforce their own personal beliefs.

Interesting article in the Times last week entitled 'beware of amateur scientists' about this very issue.

Sparks

My name is URL wrote: »

Is it not better to show somebody why they might be wrong than to just dismiss them completely for not being up to your standard of discussion?

It depends on how far from that standard they are, or else you just wind up being the subject of a (genuinely quite good) Dara O'Briain sketch:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMvMb90hem8

If someone won't even read the laymans guide to the evidence, then what kind of discussion can be had? It's like members of the Irish Council Against Blood Sports showing up in the Hunting forum and thinking that they should be allowed debate the ethics of hunting without knowing anything about the mechanics of hunting. It's only going to produce trainwrecks (and did for so many years we had to ban that topic in Hunting).

Cookie_Monster

the modding there is heavy handed for a reason. Go back about a year or so and you used to get huge amounts of waffle and crap posted by several posters, one of two in particular.
every post would be an essay of random semi factual blather that ruined every topic in the forum. Mods had to deal with it, feedback from users in the feedback thread asked them to, so they did.

Since then the forum is a lot tidier, more usable and certainly more readable for general or specific queries, that's something that's very easily lost again though it discussion is allowed revert back to what it was.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Overheal

Having parsed most of the threads on the first page I'd make the suggestion that more warnings/infractions should be given instead of what appears to be frequent on-thread warnings, which themselves can be Off Topic and are nearly an invitation in themselves to be argued with when done so often. I'm not saying don't warn people but there's no need for a booming warning after every instance. In other forums we regularly see one warning on-thread once in a while which makes note of multiple warnings/infractions/bans, as oppose to taking time out to deal with individual warnings and bans with their own posts.

edit:

Macha wrote: »

Please PM me if you have a problem with moderation - ironically, this is cluttering up the thread!

Kinda makes the point for me.

fits

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I didnt see the incident but I am absolutely sure it was the manner of his/her questioning that got them banned..

sendit

Needler wrote: »

Not sure if this has been brought up before or if this is even the right place for it but it is a genuine problem. Also this is not a dispute between me and a moderator just a general observation of what's been going on in there.

The whole forum has become a very forboding place with the two mods there regularly using their mod powers to intimidate new users and steer the debate in their favour.

This thread would be a good example of it: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056334907 at this point it has been locked, unlocked and almost contains more bold text than normal for the two pages its been active

A user tried to bring up the problem in http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055771677 but was immediatly shot down and red carded for 'discussion of moderation'.

Iv seen this happen in alot of forums mods trying to get the answer they want and if they dont get it they just lock the thread

K-9

fits wrote: »

I didnt see the incident but I am absolutely sure it was the manner of his/her questioning that got them banned..

That was my recollection, particularly in a Sustainability & Environmental Issues Board.

Needler

Nody wrote: »

Eh? I've read through your "example" thread as I've never been in the forum before and I can't see anything wrong there. All I see are people trying to either go off topic or post a link to something someone else said as their argument instead of actually saying what mattered from it.

Alright here's the most recent one

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056339991

RolandIRL

Needler wrote: »

Alright here's the most recent one

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056339991

he's commenting on moderation in his OP, immediately bringing the thread off-topic. he should have PM'd djpbarry regarding the previous thread closure, not bitch about it in a new thread.

frackingishell wrote: »

I did tack on to another thread about polystyrene in an attempt to stimulate discussion on the issue and i added a video that i made, but the thread was closed down by djpbarry the moderator as he felt i was pushing a personal compaign or something. I genuinely thought i should use old threads if theyre relevant, rather than starting a new one.

Needler

Roland Deschain wrote: »

he's commenting on moderation in his OP, immediately bringing the thread off-topic. he should have PM'd djpbarry regarding the previous thread closure, not bitch about it in a new thread.

First he got torn into for digging up an old thread, despite the fact that mods regularly throw other people's new thread at the end of old ones and gets accused of trying to push his campaign. He just posted a simple harmless video that he made and wanted to show, hardly a call for action. If there is a campaign, he hasnt even provided enough details for anyone to join

Here's another one getting torn into becuase the mods were looking for a [citation needed] and he didn't bring one.

also any response to a mods post seems to have an immediate red card for 'discussion of moderation'. a luxury which ordinary users don't have

Nody

Here's another one getting torn into becuase the mods were looking for a [citation needed] and he didn't bring one.

From the forum charter:

When offering an opinion, please state so; do not present an opinion as "fact". When offering fact, please offer relevant linkage, or at least source. If you do not do this upon posting, then please be willing to do so upon request.

also any response to a mods post seems to have an immediate red card for 'discussion of moderation'. a luxury which ordinary users don't have

That is consistent with pretty much any forum here though; don't challenge/discuss moderation discussion on the thread is a site wide rule with few exceptions and is consistently enforced with forum bans.

easychair

Having discussed the issue with other former posters in the Sustainability & Environmental forum, and with some more recent users, there is, without doubt, a consensus that the moderators, particularly djbarry, treats posters, as I have said before, like naughty children to be scolded at every opportunity.

When this was put politely in a thread which he started off asking for views on the state of the forum, is it instructive to note that he appears to have decided to completely ignore it, and berate the poster (me) who had the temerity of politely mentioning it. Ironically, it is his very style of answer here which is why so many say they do not contribute to the Sustainability & Environmental forum.

Most adults who I know say they don't like to be treated in such a fashion and so avoid the forum completely.

It's sad that the forum seems to not be able to welcome what is meant as constructive criticism, especially when the truth of that criticism is obvious to most others, and more especially that the forum itself is impoverished wile those who can resolve the problem continue to ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist.

Mahatma coat

The Problem is DjpBarry and his/her notion that the Forum is their own personal Feifdom

I have raised this issue with the Admins & Cmods previously however the Wagons were circled and I was Fobbed off with a 'We'll look into it/PFO'

there ie a CLEAR bias in the moderation, if you post something which can be construed no matter how weakly to be pro AGW then yer fine, however if you contradict the 'official' line as held by the moderators you can expect to be Harassed/Scolded/Infracted/Banned

it seems that the Moderators have a vested interest in the Science and as such cannot Moderate IMPARTIALLY



I'd like to see 2 new Moderators appointed, maybe that might stimulate proper debate, as it is all dissent is stifled

Overheal

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055771677

With apologies, but you can't have an honest feedback thread about a forum inside of the forum and restrict the discussion of moderation. Let alone lock it when people speak out with criticism. That discussion should have taken place here to begin with. That situation is exactly why Feedback is here in it's current form, forged over many years of flaming and lolcatting.

And Needler is probably correct, theres a Politics forum, a Renewable Energies forum, and Environmental Sciences forum... what exactly differenitates Sustainability & Environmental Issues fulfill?

"Advice" – general questions on anything from compost bins to renewable energy and everything in between

"News" - for discussion of a news story, such as an environmental disaster, for which use of one of the other prefixes is perhaps not suitable.

"Science" – when tech-speak is the order of the day, e.g. the science of climate change.

"Policy" – public policy, opinion and attitudes. The political implications of sustainability and environmental issues.

From top to bottom: Renewable Energies; Politics/AH (Worked well for Japan); Environmental Sciences; Politics

The forum's only claim to fame is that it's meant to be all under one roof but if the forum is having trouble being sustainable itself, whats the point of it?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

sendit

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Iv tryed to bring up the same sort of issue in other forams but have got no where. All thats happened is other mods sticking up for each other and having threads locked etc

Chloe Pink

I'm appalled by the moderation from djpbarry, in my opinion it is definitely bias, if you have a different opinion to him e.g. you don't love industrial wind turbines and you don't completely buy into the AGW theory, then you're in for a rough ride.

I find the moderation highly unpleasant and counter productive to healthy discussion.
It is tragic to see this going on within boards.ie which has an excellent reputation.

djpbarry seemed to go out of his way to stifle what I had to say from the moment I started to contribute to the S&EI forum and behaved totally unreasonably. I have seen him hound other posters e.g. easychair and ei.sdraob. I finally went to the dispute resolution forum; the results are interesting.
Here's a quote from the administrator involved:
"I don't agree in general with the practice that a moderator issue a warning (or ban) to someone when both parties are active participants in the discussion. It is something I would urge all moderators to be considerate of. Unless its something that really needs speedy action, its better all round to ask a fellow mod to look at it, to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest."
I think it's a shame that djpbarry doesn't appear to have taken this concept on board.

Here's the thread concerned:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056275972

And here's the resulting dispute resolution thread
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=72158939#post72158939

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Wibbs

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

From my perusal of the forum over time I'd certainly agree with you there. And bear in mind I'd be more on their "side" too. It's not the only forum like this, but it stands out IMHO. Every forum has some sort of a slant to some degree or other(like any community). A slant that the regulars and the majority build up and agree to and that's cool. You can't please everyone, nor should you attempt to IMHO. It's when it goes to extremes. If the forum was called 'Sustainability & Environmental issues from a green politics perspective only" then cool and the gang, but it's not. TBH the few forums like that(and thankfully it is only a few) I just avoid like the plague and leave the folks in them to their one sided "discussion".

I have no issue with moderators holding their own beliefs and views — I make no secret of my own — but when they use their authority to hound, deride, and ban dissenting posters so that they can maintain a forum as an echo-chamber for like-minded opinion, they are unconscionably abusing their authority.

Agreed. The bans handed out there can be well dubious at times IMHO. The feedback thread was an example. I mean if you're looking for feedback the moderation shouldn't be off the table. Not when the moderation is one of the primary issues it seems. Then throwing toys outa the pram and banning people for actual feedback? Daft. IMHO Unless it's an emergency situation or someone is being a clear asshat no mod should get all authoritarian in a thread they're deeply involved in. If you can't muster some semblance of objectivity then you shouldnt be doing it, or at least not on a thread where ones subjectivity runs high.

Like I said, when I get that vibe from a forum, even if it's just me being an ornery prick, I just figure leave em to it and go elsewhere. Or wait until the vibe of the forum changes which can happen, usually with new mods and/or interesting new posters being added.

nesf

There's a genuine problem on the forum with Global Warming denialists. This is why the forum is quite heavily moderated. That doesn't mean that the current moderation is correct, only that there is a need for strict moderation there.

We need more detail if we're going to look into this though. I really do not have the time to trawl through the entire forum.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

easychair

nesf wrote: »

There's a genuine problem on the forum with Global Warming denialists. This is why the forum is quite heavily moderated. That doesn't mean that the current moderation is correct, only that there is a need for strict moderation there.

We need more detail if we're going to look into this though. I really do not have the time to trawl through the entire forum.

I'm not sure why being a "denialist" should pose a problem, any more than being a "credulist" might be a problem. It's a perfectly respectable position to hold, and even if it might not coincide with my own views, I wonder what it the genuine problem denialists pose on the forum? Can you explain why they pose such a problem which no one else seems to be accused of posing?

I wonder how you know that there is a genuine problem with global warming denialists, if you also haven't time have read the forum?

Is it possible that the moderators have told you that, in their view, there is a "genuine problem with denialists"? If so, that goes some way to add credibility to those above who claim bias.

I can't be the only reader here who is horrified that you hint it's ok for someone charged with moderating a forum, to be biased against someone whose views oppose their own views.

Wibbs

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Basically this and I've no doubt a poster linking to that or other similar non tinfoil references would likely receive a warning or more, or one of the usual "lets round on a poster and smartarse/bully/keep screaming about links/nitpick same because we don't agree"(not just prevalent in that forum either). It's either a discussion on both sides or it's not. It appears to be not. It's either a discussion based around a starting premise all agree on like one of the spiritual forums or other specialty forums, or it's not. It appears to be the latter. If this is the case reflect that in the charter of the forum. IE this is about a pro global warning forum and no discussion of the anti side will be tolerated. Simples. That way passers by don't get red carded and banned.

RoundyMooney

nesf wrote: »

There's a genuine problem on the forum with Global Warming denialists. This is why the forum is quite heavily moderated. That doesn't mean that the current moderation is correct, only that there is a need for strict moderation there.

We need more detail if we're going to look into this though. I really do not have the time to trawl through the entire forum.

I don't see how you can make a concise statement that a problem exists in relation to so called "denialists" on the forum, and yet stand back and call for more info so that in the finest Sir Humphrey tradition, you (collectively) can "look into" it, because despite your seeming certainty about one issue, you need individual and multiple citations when another is brought to you.

I'm not digging at you nesf, but if you don't have time to drill down on an issue such as this, then you should ask someone else to deal with this matter. Am I right in thinking there are two Cmods to each category now?

Overheal

I don't see how you can ban the discussion of 'denialism'. It would be like banning a discussion between Evoluton and Creationism. Point being, that Global Warming has it's skeptics, and they should be permitted a platform to engage and enquire. I would think those who are read up on global warming would have no problem explaining it, or challenging denialism, on a regular basis. Just as I don't have a problem with political challenges, as I find they are 90% of the fun of partaking in the politics forums.

K-9

Overheal wrote: »

I don't see how you can ban the discussion of 'denialism'. It would be like banning a discussion between Evoluton and Creationism. Point being, that Global Warming has it's skeptics, and they should be permitted a platform to engage and enquire. I would think those who are read up on global warming would have no problem explaining it, or challenging denialism, on a regular basis. Just as I don't have a problem with political challenges, as I find they are 90% of the fun of partaking in the politics forums.

The problem seems to be there are a few boards aimed at sustainability & Environmental issues as another poster pointed out, but they are more aimed at the green side of things.

Climate change challengers aren't really going to be welcome there for long because after a while, like an Atheist in a Christianity forum or a libertarian in a socialist ideology thread everybody gets bored of the endless argument, except the zealot trying to right all that is wrong in the world.

We've a Conspiracy theory forum but that doesn't fit. A pointless discussion board?

A board for posters who earnestly believe what they post to have round and round debates on that go on forever, the rest of us can regain the will to live?

Yitzhak Rabin

In case its not clear, I'd like to add that this is not a Global warming believer vs denialist argument. I am as close as is possible to being fully sure GW is real and is caused by humans. However I also think that the moderation in S& EI is heavy handed, patronising and counterproductive to debate.

K-9

yekahS wrote: »

In case its not clear, I'd like to add that this is not a Global warming believer vs denialist argument. I am as close as is possible to being fully sure GW is real and is caused by humans. However I also think that the moderation in S& EI is heavy handed, patronising and counterproductive to debate.

+1

The problem is the endless argument thread. Users of the "Sustainability & Environmental issues" board have seen it all before, it's a pointless debate.

It's like Soccer, somebody coming on there and saying the GAA is better isn't going to last long, and vice versa.

Some opinions just aren't welcome. A Religion debate in politics will be moved to Christianity, Islam or whatever.

Doesn't mean anybody is wrong or oppressed!

"A deniers of the mainstream truth" forum though that would end up in arguments!

Yitzhak Rabin

K-9 wrote: »

+1

The problem is the endless argument thread. Users of the "Sustainability & Environmental issues" board have seen it all before, it's a pointless debate.

It's like Soccer, somebody coming on there and saying the GAA is better isn't going to last long, and vice versa.

Some opinions just aren't welcome. A Religion debate in politics will be moved to Christianity, Islam or whatever.

Doesn't mean anybody is wrong or oppressed!

"A deniers of the mainstream truth" forum though that would end up in arguments!

I disagree.

It shouldn't be like following a religion or soccer club. Surely belief in a scientific phenomenon should be based on evidence, and not a die-hard, stick-to-my-guns til the bitter end faith?

K-9

yekahS wrote: »

I disagree.

It shouldn't be like following a religion or soccer club. Surely belief in a scientific phenomenon should be based on evidence, and not a die-hard, stick-to-my-guns til the bitter end faith?

Never said otherwise.

The problem is when a die hard, stick to my guns until the bitter end faith meet! It's not going to end with them holding hands. It just goes over and and over and good posters leave the "Sustainability & Environmental" board.

Personally I'd just consign all those debates to a sticky thread and let them at it! That doesn't work, the zealots have to spread their opinion far and wide.

A "truth denier" forum? We've plenty of boards for green issues etc. I can see a huge demand for it. Though maybe all the truth deniers will get bored on a single board with nothing to deny?

Yitzhak Rabin

K-9 wrote: »

Never said otherwise.

The problem is when a die hard, stick to my guns until the bitter end faith meet! It's not going to end with them holding hands. It just goes over and and over and good posters leave the "Sustainability & Environmental" board.

Personally I'd just consign all those debates to a sticky thread and let them at it! That doesn't work, the zealots have to spread their opinion far and wide.

A "truth denier" forum? We've plenty of boards for green issues etc. I can see a huge demand for it. Though maybe all the truth deniers will get bored on a single board with nothing to deny?

The problem is not just with GW deniers.

You get people who come along and say something along the lines:

New User " Theres a new windfarm being set up down the road from me. I'm worried that there's going to be loud noise, and my property value will erode????"

Mod: Provide studies which show property prices are adversely affected by windfarms!

New User: "Well its just what I've heard from a friend of mine who used to live in Belgium.

Mod: OP has 1 day to provide evidence after which thread will be locked

Mod:Thread locked

Obviously, this is an exaggeration of what happens, but I'm sure plenty of people recognize the pattern.

K-9

yekahS wrote: »

The problem is not just with GW deniers.

You get people who come along and say something along the lines:

New User " Theres a new windfarm being set up down the road from me. I'm worried that there's going to be loud noise, and my property value will erode????"

Mod: Provide studies which show property prices are adversely affected by windfarms!

New User: "Well its just what I've heard from a friend of mine who used to live in Belgium.

Mod: OP has 1 day to provide evidence after which thread will be locked

Mod:Thread locked

Obviously, this is an exaggeration of what happens, but I'm sure plenty of people recognize the pattern.

You are going to get pro Sustainability & Environmental answers in that particular board.

Personally I'd think a few seasoned users should provide evidence first as it's a specialist board. Let them read it and come back with questions.

It's easy blaming the mods though.

If Permabear set up a Libertarian forum I'd expect Socialists continually arguing negatively given short shrift. It isn't the argument that is wrong, it's the same poster soap boxing and arguing the same point over and over that gets tiresome.

K-9

ei.esdraob will back Permabear and vice versa. They are libertarians and usually back each other, couple of others likewise.

Socialists tend to back each other, Republicans etc.

I really don't know how you get around this.

Personally I'd say a right wing forum and let them split and define themselves and what they are for.

They easily know what they are against.

Let them decide what they are for.

Overheal

yekahS wrote: »

The problem is not just with GW deniers.

You get people who come along and say something along the lines:

New User " Theres a new windfarm being set up down the road from me. I'm worried that there's going to be loud noise, and my property value will erode????"

Mod: Provide studies which show property prices are adversely affected by windfarms!

New User: "Well its just what I've heard from a friend of mine who used to live in Belgium.

Mod: OP has 1 day to provide evidence after which thread will be locked

Mod:Thread locked

Obviously, this is an exaggeration of what happens, but I'm sure plenty of people recognize the pattern.

Well, on the issue of noise, theres a lot to talk about there. Not just from the noise you can hear, but the noise you cant:

http://www.capenews.net/communities/region/news/454

http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewiStockNews/articleid/3806588

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1452529/Wind-farms-make-people-sick-who-live-up-to-a-mile-away.html

http://gizmodo.com/5824630/australian-farmers-claim-new-wind-farms-are-making-them-sick

Electrical engineer Graeme Hood from the University of Ballarat was called in to investigate and, found that the turbines actually produced sound at a frequency too low for humans to hear. "The brain thinks it's quiet, but the ears may be telling you something else or the body may be telling you something else, it's much louder," he said. However, this finding has done little more than further stoke the already contentious fight between wind farm supporters and detractors . The government is has ordered further scientific testing as to the safety of wind farms.

Claims both recent, and seasoned.

Overheal

ei.esdraob will back Permabear and vice versa. They are libertarians and usually back each other, couple of others likewise.

You get similar behavior in most forums, it doesn't mean they should be ostracized for it.

Yitzhak Rabin

Are the mods of SE&I aware of this thread? It may be disingenuous to continue this discussion without them.

nesf

RoundyMooney wrote: »

I don't see how you can make a concise statement that a problem exists in relation to so called "denialists" on the forum, and yet stand back and call for more info so that in the finest Sir Humphrey tradition, you (collectively) can "look into" it, because despite your seeming certainty about one issue, you need individual and multiple citations when another is brought to you.

I'm not digging at you nesf, but if you don't have time to drill down on an issue such as this, then you should ask someone else to deal with this matter. Am I right in thinking there are two Cmods to each category now?

Simple. As a CMod I've had to deal with cases where denialists were genuinely a problem on that forum (and other forums) and as such know first hand why heavier moderation is needed because some posters were not there to debate or deal with facts but preach whatever nonsense they got into their heads and ignore any evidence put forward to counter it. Such posters are a problem on any serious forum.

Not all Climate Change denialists are like this or behave like this but if someone is serially ignoring the evidence then there's an issue where a person can be banned on good grounds.

There's 3 CMods in Soc because it's so busy, the norm is 2. Dades is the third. If people don't like what I think on this, don't want to bring in Scofflaw because he's openly a Green, they can ask Dades to take a look too before asking for the Admins to look at it, if they want.

I'm asking for more evidence because I recognise that there could be stuff going on that I'm not aware of, because I only tend to see what's brought to the DRP forum or to my attention by PM.

Overheal

yekahS wrote: »

Are the mods of SE&I aware of this thread? It may be disingenuous to continue this discussion without them.

Link to thread sent via PM.

I presumed they already know though, if the Cat Mod does. Doesn't hurt to be thorough I guess.

nesf

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

This is not a newspaper, we do not operate on the grounds that arguments from authority are valid. He would be expected to provide some evidence to back up that the matter is "grossly exaggerated" or else he could be sanctioned. This is no different to Politics where if you make factual claims you are expected to be able to back them up or your claims will be removed and if you continue doing it your access to the forum will be limited.

The New York Times, due to its readership might be interested in providing "balance" in coverage and op/eds on the topic, forums on this site are under no such compulsion.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

1) My job isn't to micromanage forums, that's the mods job and it's up to the users of the forum to keep them honest through threads like these.

2) I'm responsible for 81 forums and counting, there is no way I can have the time to keep up to date with what's going on in all of them.

3) It's perfectly reasonable for me to ask people who profess to have a problem to provide examples of what's they're complaining about.

nesf

easychair wrote: »

I'm not sure why being a "denialist" should pose a problem, any more than being a "credulist" might be a problem. It's a perfectly respectable position to hold, and even if it might not coincide with my own views, I wonder what it the genuine problem denialists pose on the forum? Can you explain why they pose such a problem which no one else seems to be accused of posing?

I wonder how you know that there is a genuine problem with global warming denialists, if you also haven't time have read the forum?

Is it possible that the moderators have told you that, in their view, there is a "genuine problem with denialists"? If so, that goes some way to add credibility to those above who claim bias.

I can't be the only reader here who is horrified that you hint it's ok for someone charged with moderating a forum, to be biased against someone whose views oppose their own views.

I've reviewed cases of problem denailists first hand in both that forum and other forums. Thus I'm speaking from experience. Some denialists are a problem because they willfully ignore science and fact. Those kinds of posters are not welcome in any serious forum, regardless of their viewpoint.

Overheal

nesf wrote: »

I've reviewed cases of problem denailists first hand in both that forum and other forums. Thus I'm speaking from experience. Some denialists are a problem because they willfully ignore science and fact. Those kinds of posters are not welcome in any serious forum, regardless of their viewpoint.

Isn't some of the science we're talking about here evn being challenged in the scientific community? The topic at hand isn't exactly as settled as Gravity or Metabolism.

Don't get me wrong I agree we're affecting our climate but people have the right to challenge the science (provided it's done in the same matter as any other soc forum)

nesf

Wibbs wrote: »

Basically this and I've no doubt a poster linking to that or other similar non tinfoil references would likely receive a warning or more, or one of the usual "lets round on a poster and smartarse/bully/keep screaming about links/nitpick same because we don't agree"(not just prevalent in that forum either). It's either a discussion on both sides or it's not. It appears to be not. It's either a discussion based around a starting premise all agree on like one of the spiritual forums or other specialty forums, or it's not. It appears to be the latter. If this is the case reflect that in the charter of the forum. IE this is about a pro global warning forum and no discussion of the anti side will be tolerated. Simples. That way passers by don't get red carded and banned.

Depends on context. That article is an profile of one of the few genuine scientists questioning the global warming consensus. If presented as that, and presented as a genuine questioning on scientific grounds of the consensus the poster shouldn't be sanctioned. If the poster misrepresents it as evidence that there's a problem with the consensus and that the consensus should be abandoned or that it is useless then there is a problem. The main one being that the poster doesn't get how science works and doesn't get the relevance of someone like Dyson here.

Dyson isn't a climate change denialist, what he says does not support said denialists, what he's doing is effectively peer-reviewing quite harshly the theory but he knows he can be wrong and he's open to being swayed by evidence. That last part is what separates someone who has a place on that forum from someone who doesn't. If someone comes in, having already made their mind up that climate change is wrong, and is not open to being swayed by evidence and not open to thinking they could be wrong then they're just a soapboxer and the mods are correct in getting rid of them. They are no Dyson Freedman, they are just as bad as a Creationist on an Evolution forum.


This is complicated precisely because there's space for intelligent dissent against the Climate Change Consensus but that does not mean that any denialist of Climate Change should be welcome into the forum with whatever mishandled grasp of science they can manage to cobble together.

Yitzhak Rabin

Overheal wrote: »

Isn't some of the science we're talking about here evn being challenged in the scientific community? The topic at hand isn't exactly as settled as Gravity or Metabolism.

Don't get me wrong I agree we're affecting our climate but people have the right to challenge the science (provided it's done in the same matter as any other soc forum)

Thats the problem OH, to offer the status quo is fine, to offer something contrary to that requires strong evidence, without which you face infractions and bans. (Being pro AGW I have yet to receive this treatment.)