Clearance Items

If you have something concrete to address of what I've said, Sifferkoll, please do. What you write above, about my "dancing around the issue," does not address any point I have made. It is for this reason vacuous.

Sifferkoll, please explain how I am "tap dancing". As I said, there is no double standard. That you cannot see how this could be the case does not make it otherwise. It is quite straightforward, as I have explained it several times. If you take issue with anything I have said, the burden on you is to address the specific point rather than fall back on vague generalities.

Forum policy is quite flexible. It is the result of consultations among the mods. There is little official policy as such at the moment. If we were a larger forum, with a larger team of mods, I assume policy would be more formalized.

Quote from sifferkoll

What? The issue is, as probably everyone else understands by now, your lack of clear answers on if you use double standards in moderation or not ...

Sifferkoll, I'm going to end this discussion with you if you refuse to address specific things I have said.

Quote from sifferkoll

"All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others" sums it up pretty well.

Very much so. High-value participants here are accorded far more lattitude than low-value participants such as yourself. We do not rigidly apply some platonic notion of fairness that does not take into account the context, mannerisms of the participant and the value they bring. Someone who regularly makes excellent and detailed points but sometimes slips into intemperate behavior is given far more leeway than someone who not only refuses to address specific details but appears bent on systematically derailing discussion. I think most people will agree that this is a practical and reasonable approach, even if a few take issue with it.

This is not the "double standard" you were alleging earlier, but it is a graduated standard. And it helps to elevate the level of discussion somewhat.

Quote from sifferkoll

That is a new way describing a double standard when you do not want to say the word "double"

My understanding of the double standard you were alleging earlier was that attacks on forum members are not allowed, but that not much is done to prevent attacks on public figures outside of the forum. Did I misunderstand what you intended earlier when you referred to a "double standard"? With regard to the graduated standard, I have said on multiple occasions that we do not value all participants here equally, and that some are given more leeway than others in light of their willingness to engage the details raised in discussions and present an argument, and that context is taken into account. Here I am just describing actual practice. I think this is the only sane approach for a forum on the internet with open membership.

Quote from sifferkoll

Yes it is certainly double standard to allow Dewey more rants than I'm allowed to rant back. You may have your reasons (agenda, order in the classroom, contribution grades etc), but it is a double standard.

You are talking about two "double standards" here. One is not a double standard. The other is very much a graduated standard. As I explained above, Dewey is in the category of principals, named in the lawsuit and close to Tom Darden. He has been accorded the same lattitude that Rossi would be given if he posted under his own name. And even then not all mods are willing to countenance his behavior. You may not like the explanation, which is fine.

Quote from sifferkoll

And yes it is a double standard allowing everyone to rant endless accusations towards Rossi, the swedes and italians, etc. But not allowing me to rant back at the accusers in a similar manner. I would say it is actually more honest to talk directly to someone than to discuss someone external since the opponent is able to respond. But I will settle for equal standards.

No, it is not a double standard, as I have explained. Derailing discussion by attacking forum members is different than attacking public figures on the internet. Both are signs of a lack of class, but one has a practical outcome which is to prevent discussion itself, and the effect of the other is more subtle and leaves a bad taste in one's mouth but does not prevent discussion altogether. And as I have explained above, there is a constructive way of dealing with this kind of attack on public figures which you have access to and which will not get you into difficulties. It is to engage the details of the discussion and calmly explain why the allegation is in your view false.

Quote from sifferkoll

No you are wrong. What you get by your complex and event based approach to moderation with bias and grading here and there is an Animal Farm.

Ok, this is your view about how the LENR Forum team should run the forum. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. We have our own view of how we wish to run this forum and will be happy to enforce the norms that we adopt.

If you wish to move out of the category of low-value contributor, the path is straightforward: stop attacking forum members and calmly address the substantive points raised in discussions. If you are able to consistently produce a real argument and avoid vitriol, things will change considerably.

To the contrary! I encourage you to reply to those who have earned a reputation for making a real argument. But you have to reply with a real argument as well. I would like you to do that, in fact. Replying with petty insults, ad homs and vague generalities is the opposite of making a real argument.

No, you don't return the behavior in kind. Your option in that case is to calmly call out the behavior as an ad hominem argument, if it is, and, hopefully, to go further and explain why allegations of criminal activities or being in on a gig are false or, quite often, unsubstantiated. You can do all of this without insulting anyone or raising the question of their motives and intent or injecting vitriol. The more specific the focus is on details the better.