Clearance Items

  • Yes I do and for exactly the reason I said. Forum participants here are not public figures and therefore have the protection afforded by being members of the community. If you don't like what people have to say about Rossi, block them. Rossi's a big boy and he can take care of himself, if he isn't too busy measuring excess heat with a stethoscope.


    Good. I like that you have a clear opinion of things. You do not obfuscate like a bad politician and I like that you acknowledge that it is a double standard.


    (Eric should listen and stop dancing around the issue with endless excuses not to touch it )

  • Saying it's a double standard repeatedly does not make it one.


    I guess you are correct about that one ... But it is nevertheless as IO acknowledged above. Take my advise Eric and let go of this issue. It is double standard and you know it. Your obfuscating behaviour and lack of clear answers proves it.


    And the reason for your tap dancing is presumably that using double standards is not included in the official forum policy? Am I right?

  • 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.

  • 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.


    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 ...

  • "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.

  • 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.


    "Graduated standard"... Wow! That is a new way describing a double standard when you do not want to say the word "double" ... And if the evaluation of my contribution is a "democratic" process at the same time as you are enforcing the bias here. Well then I suppose your team of Rossi-haters will have it their way here... But I doubt this is the goal of the founders of the forum.

  • 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.

  • 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 a graduated standard, I have said on multiple occasions that we do not value all participants here equally, and that some have more leeway than others. I think this is the only sane approach on a forum on the internet with open membership.


    It is of course both.


    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.


    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.

  • 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.


    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.

  • 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.

  • If you wish to move out of the category of low-value contributor, the path is straightforward: stop attacking people and calmly address the details raised in discussions. If you produce a real argument, things change considerably.


    Of course I can understand this being ideal for you. Keep in line, don't argue with the "high-values" (since they are allowed to carry big guns - Dewey will like that analogy) and there will be no trouble with the authorities... ;)

  • 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.

  • 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 and ad homs is the opposite of a real argument.


    Well of course. That is the easy part. But what am I suppose to do when a "high-value" member is accusing Rossi of criminal activities or Dewey accusing the Swedes to be in on some kind of "gig"? Not saying it is efficient, but it would at least be reasonable that I was allowed to make up a random story and accuse them back, right?

  • 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.

  • 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.


    Clear enough ... The pecking order of your farm is settled. Different people - different rules... It certainly will please the Rossi-haters and I suppose that is part of the game we play, right?

  • Clear enough ... The pecking order of your farm is settled. Different people - different rules... It certainly will please the Rossi-haters and I suppose that is part of the game we play, right?


    It is clear, but not in the way you describe it. At the top of the pecking order are people who do actual experiments and people who make well-reasoned arguments and marshal a lot of facts, possibly drawing upon specialized knowledge. At the bottom of the pecking order are people who make only catcalls, who refuse to engage with the details of discussions, and who rely upon personal attacks of other forum members to change the focus of the thread. Mixed somewhere in the middle are people who have inside information to share and people who make interesting points but whose intemperance largely detracts from what they have to say. You may not agree that this is what the pecking order is, but it seems pretty clear to me that this is the case. This pecking order has nothing to do with Rossi and everything to do with the quality of people's contributions in terms of the perspective they bring, their willingness to engage details, their willingness to respond to moderator requests and their willingness to help keep this place a pleasant one. Obviously those who show through their actions that they will go out of their way to make things unpleasant for others will not gain much goodwill for their efforts.

  • That comment was not about this thread but rather about behavior in the forum at large. But this thread does not provide an occasion for being a jerk. Some people want a rowdy forum, where it is ok to intentionally disrupt discussions and be antisocial. We on the LENR Forum team do not want such a forum. We don't want a stuffy forum, but there's a big difference between a forum where people can get away with being antisocial and a forum that is not stuffy.

  • Your right. I believe we finally reached a conclusion ... (you did in the end answer my question)


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

    The mods have even explicitly upheld this as a standard. I see that it is being characterized as a "graduated standard" rather than a double standard. Oh well, whattya gonna do? Might as well go on over to "Cold Fusion" and start afresh, as encouraged by Eric.


    https://disqus.com/home/channel/coldfusion/

  • I'll reiterate that encouragement. Anyone dissatisfied with how this place is run should check out Kev's forum and see if it is better suited to their interests and goals.

    All we need now is that "in-between" forum that I posted to you about but you haven't responded. But the reality is there would be no interest, so I suppose that means the big W, 'whatever'....

  • I don't recall you posing that question to me, specifically. I probably missed that it was directed to me. But to address it: I don't really agree with the premise. I could be wrong, and at one point I think I agreed with the sentiment. But now my sense now is that "hyperskeptics" and "pseudoskeptics" are not dangerous and do not need to be kept out of forums. The truth is the truth; it can be obscured for a while, but eventually, hopefully, it will out, whatever it is. If such people succeed in obscuring it, perhaps unintentionally, or maybe intentionally, they can only do so much.


    But the real difficulty lies in where to draw the line between sincere and insincere skeptic. I think people are complex, and there probably isn't anyone who is all one or the other. The difference between the two is often one of varying degrees of laziness at different times of the year. Attempting to separate them out does not feel like an easy thing to do. Making an issue of it would just be a distraction. Let people put forward weak arguments if they like. The weakness will be clear to everyone.

  • Well Siffer.

    You get 100 points for stating the obvious. If you want the other 900 points to win your rubber ball maybe its a good idea to stop the discussion at this point since it won't get you nowhere...

    Ah well, nowhere except being banned again.


    This is unfortunately true but from time to time someone has to cut through the bullshit and remind everyone what's what, that there's conditioning going on etc

  • The gradual lost of coherence of this forum under Walker's moderation is apparent even from this very thread. Before year we got "Playground thread" - never before such a thing has been even needed, because the posters here were dedicated, with real interest about LENR and on-topic. Now we got a "Clearance thread", which supersedes it. Even from this evolution it's apparent, that the current establishment of moderators promotes clueless twaddling and frog&mice battles - but why? The moderation of wast amount of posts is counterproductive and time consuming - after all LENR patoskeptics threat their own business. Aren't they trying to sell the toys for amateur LENR researchers?


    This is proclamatively forum about LENR - so why to maintain threads for off-topic twaddlers or even LENR haters instead of banning them? If you have nothing to say about subject, why you should say it right here?


    Seneca: "He who is everywhere is nowhere."