Quote from "Clarke"So while I don't post under a high security pseudonym I'd prefer Sifferkoll's irrelevant and personal references above to be deleted. If not I'll stay away for a few weeks at least.
Since you seem to produce a bulk of your significant amount of postings from the Imperial Collage network, I assume this obsession of yours is part of you job description, or?
(I would not call your page very personal, more like a CV)
Bye everyone.
Thomas
Another change of position on your part, I wonder why?
This is what you said in support of the reinstatement of Mary Yugo:
I ignore trolls too. But I have a high tolerance for abrasive comments which nevertheless have substance. Content trumps style. Respectful is good, but is often interpreted in a subjective fashion. Having a low threshold for ignoring people means you may ignore quite a lot of important information and argument.
So, is your threshold lower now? Could it be that Sifferkoll, like MY is quite direct and perhaps upsetting but for you is on the opposite side of Rossi/LENR debate, and therefore needs to be 'shut down?
I do hope not, show us the old Thomas, you know the Thomas who would say 'sticks and stone' etc. and subject every argument to Bayesian reasoning. Now its just subjective and repetitious stuff.
Keep your chin up my friend, stick by your old principles.
Best regards
Frank
Thomas
If this is it, genuinely sad to see you go.
Best regards
Frank
My opinion of the moderation of this forum has just plummeted. As, indeed, has my opinion of Sifferkoll, whose treatment of Thomas Clarke verged on the vindictive.
Nigel
I agree that this is quite serious and it looks like we have lost an important contributor. However, this is the 'Playground' set up for 'Trolls' and contributors who are less than 'respectful'. Perhaps a mistake as some are taking advantage and the 'moderators' having said 'there are no rules' have their hands tied.
It is mildly ironical though that Tom supported Mary Yugo whose approach towered above that of Sifferkoll in personal insults. I have never been a proponent of anything but respect and honest contributing. On the whole, whilst i did not agree with Thomas on many occasions, I think he very seldom descended to the very damaging Ad hominem responses seen so often recently with other contributors.
He will be a loss to this Forum.
Moderators:
My suggestion is the 'Playground' be removed and the content deleted, thereafter proper and reasonable moderation applied to all posts.
Best regards
Frank
I hope the mods delete Siffer's post, and Tom stays. No call for that. Why do some take this stuff so personal as to threaten another's employ, simply because they have a different opinion? Makes no sense to me.
Alan, I see you are online, can you do something?
Alan
I say delete and remove the playground, speak with the other moderators but quickly if you can because it looks like Thomas's employ may be compromised.
In any event look at Thomas's request above and delete what he considers Sifferkolls reference to Thomas's personal details.
@moderators:
Whilst of course Sifferkoll can post what he likes I prefer to keep links to claimed personal e-mail addresses etc out of this discussion. I make no claims as to professional qualifications other than what is apparent in my posts here and do not want to mix up work with what for me is a hobby.
So while I don't post under a high security pseudonym I'd prefer Sifferkoll's irrelevant and personal references above to be deleted. If not I'll stay away for a few weeks at least.
Best regards
Frank
To my mind, the great "sin" is to allow reference to a poster's "real life" employment details, especially when they are irrelevant to whatever discussion is in progress.
Had Thomas been in the employ of Leonardo, IH, or any other outfit with a commercial interest in LENR, that might have been different; indeed one would hope it would have been declared
I do not always agree with Thomas, or his tone and approach - but he did nothing to warrant such treatment.
If anyone posts private information about another member, then this is certainly unacceptable.
The person who had posted the information should be admonished for publishing private information of another member.
In this case the moderators should just as an exception delete the comment with the personal information.
I see no reason to delete an entire thread.
Alan
Thanks for being so swift with this.
See my post 'Should the Playground be deleted and removed@
If you decide not to remove the 'Playground' can you speak with the other moderators administrators and bring the 'Playground' back under the moderation umbrella.
Thanks
Best regards
Frank
So there is one more post from Sifferkoll that breaks normal courtesies here:
The Playground
plus a recent repeat of original from rends here
The Playground
I've got no problem with insults, etc, but mixing up personal identity and the discussion here is not called for and never normally done. Personally, I would not post if that happened simply because I'm not comfortable with it.
No need to remove anything else.
Thanks for the courtesy, Tom
I don't feel I should take a unilateral decision to dump this thread, doing that is above my pay-grade right now. But I will act more boldly to sanction offending posters, playgtound thread or not.
If forum members feel that stricter moderation is required, then those who support such action please post here - but I will try not to be partisan if I take action - both pro and anti Rossi posters are likely to be censured in equal measure.
I think you've been correct in holding back. Only posts that really step across a very obvious line should be deleted. Strong moderation is not needed, in this thread or any other. But I'm glad you've removed the offending post in this particular case.
Personal information bringing undue attention to someone's real-life details: delete.
Comments that border on content-less or useless conversation or very light trolling: definitely do not delete.
If anyone posts private information about another member, then this is certainly unacceptable.
I've been guilty of posting personal information myself, in the case of the real identity behind the avatar that randombit0 was previously using. I felt confident that it was not actually randombit0, but nonetheless I have second thoughts about having posted that information, for it drew undue attention to randombit0's actual identity, and she clearly wished to remain anonymous. (I am very glad that it eventually led to randombit0 switching to a stock photo, replacing the photo of a private individual who surely didn't know that it had been appropriated in this manner.)
I will certainly delete any more posts by Sifferkol that step across the line. And maybe those of a few others too. They know who they are.
Please do not delete posts that do not step across a very obvious line. From personal experience with barty, it is very disconcerting to have a post that a lot of time and thought has been put into deleted for having been off-topic (which it was in my case) or disrespectful (which it wasn't in the slightest).
Quote@Thomas you are here as PROFESSIONAL and you are here @The Playground, if you have problems with you professional, public website, then you can choose to post anonymous here.
No, I'm not. I've never made any link between my job or qualifications and my posts, except for long term ago education and life experience not related to my current work. In fact I've never disclosed my qualifications, such as they are. If it is required that my personal details be plastered all over this site for me to post then so be it, but I will not in those circumstances post here. My choice. As for posting anonymously I can't see there is any real difference, I'm not willing to use multiple identities on the web (which I think would not work anyway).
Many people here post as professionals, without making a big deal of their history, and without expecting personal info to be published.
(PS the "professional" comment on the avatar is site policy that reflects only number of posts)
