Thread: A scientific discussion, before a post is closed or moved.

I have had 2 of my threads (abruptly) closed in this forum, without a proper scientific discussion explaining why. And these threads were also closed without a reason, so I was never allowed to learn, what I did wrong to cause these threads to be closed.

The above actions are not (true or sound) scientific behavior, and they are also rude.


Science is the whole truth, that is found by the discussion of a entire scientific community. But this scientific path of finding the truth, is not always allowed to play out in this forum.


I was not allowed to defend or explain my scientific position, within this scientific community.

And I also was not allowed, to learn from other forum members, what was wrong with my threads, so that I could improve my posting style in this forum, and also learn the scientific truth for myself.



Before moderators close a thread, they should allow a scientific discussion to take place, so that the whole truth can be found.

They should also allow a scientific discussion, to take place before closing a post, so forum members can learn what they did wrong, from this entire scientific community, so they can better themselves, and also better understand this scientific community.


Closing threads like this stops the whole truth from being found in a (true) scientific manner, and it also stops the education and development of new forum members .

Chad.

Chad, I don't know which threads you are referring to, but I don't recall you ever starting or participating in a scientific discussion.

Are you referring to the thread about Republicans, or the other thread about Republicans, or is it the other one?

I am referring to the following 2 threads,


The (leadership's) dreams and desires (transfer) , to (lower ranking) members , within a cult/propaganda group, (within the cult/ propaganda group the American republican party)
Started by chad‎, March 4th, 2012 08:52 PM



Human thought processes, that were created inside of corporate think tanks.
Started by chad‎, May 23rd, 2012 02:38 AM





Both of the above threads were abruptly closed, without (any) real scientific discussion taking place. And also, there was no reason given to why these threads were closed.


As I am trying to explain,

When threads are abruptly closed like that, it stops the path of science to find the truth, and it also stops the education of new forum members, because they never learn the reasons why the threads were closed.



Also there seems to be conversation taking place in this forum, that talks about ways to increase the amount of new and (active) members in this forum.

Let me tell you this, as a new forum member, it is very upsetting when your thread is abruptly closed, and no reason listed.



If moderators would allow a discussion to take place before closing posts, it would allow those forum members to learn what they did wrong. And it would also allow them to state their views, instead of just being instantly silenced.


Thank you,
Chad.

Chad, could you explain what you think the word "scientific" means.

And, perhaps, why you think multiple similar, rambling threads about your views of a political party (which is in a foreign country for many of us) belongs on a science forum.

Would you have more luck at www.rambling-political-opinions-forum.com

Chad, the threads that were closed had the following characteristics:

• They were overtly political
• They contained some blatantly false information
• They had all the appearance of being the expression of a personal agenda
• They contained no scientific content whatsoever#
• They were badly written
• They seemed to contain information copied from other sources which were not acknowledged. (This is plagiarism, it is against forum rules and is much more impolite than shutting down a thread without warning.)

I agree with you that it would be better to provide an explanation. I am doing so now. The combination of features above rendered the two threads of little value. You conceded that in one og the threads you had pasted material without actually reading it properly. Do you really think that is polite? Do you think members should waste their time on reading material that the poster can't be bothered to study?

I hope you will remain as an active member. By I also hope that activity is more relevant, scientific and structured than these two threads.

Originally Posted by Strange

Chad, could you explain what you think the word "scientific" means.

And, perhaps, why you think multiple similar, rambling threads about your views of a political party (which is in a foreign country for many of us) belongs on a science forum.

Would you have more luck at www.rambling-political-opinions-forum.com

(THIS) CONVERSATION SHOULD HAVE TAKEN PLACE IN MY CLOSED THREADS, NOT HERE !!

How do you expect forum members to learn things like you said above, if you close their posts abruptly without explaining these things?



But as I stated, some moderators here just abruptly close posts, and give no reason why.



I would bet that this behavior of closing posts, without listing the reasons (why it was closed), causes some new forum members to get angry, and lash out to other forum members.

Also by closing posts (before a new forum member), has the chance to learn from other forum members, (what they did wrong). I would bet this creates new forum members that do not understand this forum.


And I would bet that when threads are closed, without giving that forum member, a chance to say what they want to say, I would bet this creates some forum members who are angry, because they are not allowed to speak their mind.



Question,

How do forum members learn what they did wrong in certain threads, if these threads are closed, before it can be explained to them?



Chad.

Those sure were were a lot of "scientific"s. Chad, I am not sure what about those threads were scientific? They are essentially all the same, i.e. a whole bunch of reasons that Republicans are bad and Democrats are not. You started two threads about the lies each party told. The Republican thread had more than a hundred lies, with hundreds more supposedly on tap. The Democrat thread, hilariously, had ONE lie! That is the reason they are closed Chad, because the sum of your participation here is basically why you hate the Republicans so much. Making multiple threads about the same thing is not encouraged and I thought that was made pretty clear in most of those threads by a number of people.

Oh, you meant the ones about Republicans. I had forgotten about those ones.

I don't recall closing either of those threads, though I might have done so by accident which sometimes happens. But if somebody wanted to comment on those topics they could still comment on one of your other threads about Republicans.

And now my response to all of your statements about my closed threads,

None of you are (fully) correct about the things you said about my threads.
And all of you stand up, as if I am fully wrong, and you are all 100% correct.

But I have been denied the chance, to debate and explain these things, in the proper place (my closed threads)


I would have ripped all of you in that following debate. And all of you would have been knocked off your "Im 100% correct pedistals."

All of you fully won the debate about my threads, but you all did this by silencing me, and closing my threads. You all stopped the conversation that should have taken place in those threads. All of you would have been ripped.

Also your styles are more like the (dirty tricks) of politics, rather than the full and honest communication of good science.

respectfully,
Chad.

And about my remarks, concerning the moderators of this forum.

My comments were not directed at a certain moderator, I blame all the moderators 100% the same, for not explaining things to new forum members ex. ex. ex. ex. ex.


But I actually like, and approve of 100% of the moderators in this forum, you all are a varied group, and I think you all work well together.


I am sorry if I was disrespectful to the moderator (leadership) of this forum, but you moderators do a very good job of being equals with all forum members.

Thank you for allowing me to be a member of this forum,
Chad.

Originally Posted by chad

None of you are (fully) correct about the things you said about my threads.
.

Fair enough. Here are my comments and related questions.

• They were overtly political Do you deny that these posts were overtly political?
• They contained some blatantly false information You have already conceded that some of the information was false and you apologised for posting it.
• They had all the appearance of being the expression of a personal agenda Do you deny that you feel it is important to express your view that Republicans are 'bad news'?
• They contained no scientific content whatsoever If you think there is something scientific in your posts please identify an example or two.
• They were badly written I hope this is not going to be disputed. Your posts are rambling and unstructured. Do you deny this?
• They seemed to contain information copied from other sources which were not acknowledged. (This is plagiarism, it is against forum rules and is much more impolite than shutting down a thread without warning.) Are you denying your earlier statement that you had copied and pasted much of the material?

As far as I can see, subject to your replies, all the things I said were correct. I am giving you the opportunity to disprove that assertion.

Originally Posted by chad

And all of you stand up, as if I am fully wrong, and you are all 100% correct.

On the points I have made I believe I am 100% correct. I hope you see that this does make you 100% wrong. I did not comment on what you had done right, since you did not ask that. You asked what you had done wrong to lead to the threads being closed. I told you what I thought was wrong. I responded to your request for an explanation and now you are complaining about my reply!

Originally Posted by chad

But I have been denied the chance, to debate and explain these things, in the proper place (my closed threads)

You are being given the opportunity to do so here. You think this is the wrong place. I don't. Your threads were for discussing the topics of those threads, not administrative matters. But really, here or there is unimportant compared with the fact that you have the freedom to discuss the issue.

Originally Posted by chad

I would have ripped all of you in that following debate. And all of you would have been knocked off your "Im 100% correct pedistals."

You are free to attempt to do so here. Based upon what I've seen so far I don't rate your chances. But why do want to do so? Your posts were weak for the reasons I point out above. Would it not be more productive to work on improving your post quality rather than a macho attempt to out debate someone.

Originally Posted by chad

All of you fully won the debate about my threads, but you all did this by silencing me, and closing my threads..

Please stop being ridiculous. You have hardly been silenced and I have encouraged you to address the points I have made about your threads.

Originally Posted by chad

Also your styles are more like the (dirty tricks) of politics, rather than the full and honest communication of good science.

Please explain to me what is dirty about me responding to your request for an explanation for thread closure in a direct, honest, open fashion. Did you want me to pretend your posts were interesting, well constructed, scientific examples of excellence? If so, you were always out of luck.

I looked at this one....
Human thought processes, that were created inside of corporate think tanks.

(You have been better to link to them.)

As an opening post in one of the hard-science forum, it was poor. No links to studies related to psychology...at all. No psychological language either. It is an overtly political and squarely in the wrong forum.

I do agree there should have been an explanation--though in this case it's so far out of tolerance for a science discussion--the reason for its closing would easily be understood by most observers.

To everyone,

All of this conversation should have taken place in my closed threads (not here.)


The first time you all (quickly) closed one of my threads, and stopped me from being able to defend my point, I was upset.
But since this is the second time you all have silenced me, I am used to it.


respectfully,
Chad.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

I looked at this one....
Human thought processes, that were created inside of corporate think tanks.

(You have been better to link to them.)

As an opening post in one of the hard-science forum, it was poor. No links to studies related to psychology...at all. No psychological language either. It is an overtly political and squarely in the wrong forum.

I do agree there should have been an explanation--though in this case it's so far out of tolerance for a science discussion--the reason for its closing would easily be understood by most observers.

Hmm. I notice Adelady was the last to post on that thread. I wonder if she made the rookie moderator mistake of accidentally closing a thread. It's easy to do because there is a check box that says "close this thread" but you don't have to click inside the check box, just somewhere alongside of it.

Chad, no, the converstation would have been off topic in the threads themselves. You are being given the opportunity here. Please address the comments of John Galt, which were a succint summary of why the threads were closed, instead of continuing to whine.

As you know, I did close one thread in error since I thought it was a duplicate. Much as I would like to repeat what you said to me I can not since they were in a PM.

Originally Posted by chad

respectfully,
Chad.

If you are serious about being respectful please respond to my questions in post 11. I have taken considerable time to address your concerns, even though I beleive them to be misplaced. I would now appreciate you addressing them.

'Tweren't moi!

Seriously chad. You need to look at your original postings in those threads. You clearly had lots of points to make. There is no law stating that you must make every relevant point you ever thought of in one single post. There are some points of grammar, exposition and conversation that make all-in-one postings undesirable, or even unacceptable.

If you want to start a discussion, start the discussion. Don't try to start and end it in one killer post. If you've got lots of references and information to back up what you want to say, keep your powder dry. If you make the initial post clear and interesting, others will join in. When counter-examples or opposing views show up, you've got more material to supply to expand or explain what you want to get across.

And remember, this is a science forum. If you want to make a point about Republicans or Tories or the Screaming Lord Sutch Party, you might do better advancing a discussion of Chris Mooney's work on 'The Republican Brain' or 'The Authoritarians' by Robert Altemeyer and similar psychological/sociological/scientific material.

I might add most of us find such references and analytical discussions much, much more interesting than tedious recitations of the evils of any particular political party - which are usually matched by tedious recitations of the perceived evils of other political parties - to the yawning uninterest of everyone.

• They were overtly political Do you deny that these posts were overtly political?
  
  
  
  
  
  
  ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=
  Maybe, but each thread had a theory to prove. But I do notice myself that I use the same examples over and over. But my threads were about propaganda group and cult behavior. These are the examples that I have. But I have learned from you, that perhaps I should make my threads shorter.
  
  But I now believe if forum members are unable to understand my threads, they should just leave the thread alone. If you are tired of hearing things about "tax cuts" go read a thread that you actually like reading.
  
  Each of those threads was about a separate human behavior, I just used the same examples to prove them.
  
  +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++==
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
• They contained some blatantly false information You have already conceded that some of the information was false and you apologised for posting it.
  
  
  
  
  ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
  
  LIST THE FALSE INFORMATION !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  
  
  +++++++++++++++++++=
  
  I do not remember saying my information was (false.)
  
  +++++++++++++++++++++=
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
• They had all the appearance of being the expression of a personal agenda Do you deny that you feel it is important to express your view that Republicans are 'bad news'?
  
  
  
  
  
  
  +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
  We all have personal agendas.
  
  
  Republicans are bad news, do you feel its important to stop the truth from being said?
  (you dont have to answer this question.)
  
  +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
• They contained no scientific content whatsoever If you think there is something scientific in your posts please identify an example or two.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++==
  
  I believe chances are my threads have more (original) scientific theorys, than all of your posts/threads combined.
  
  +++++++++++++++++++++++++
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
• They were badly written I hope this is not going to be disputed. Your posts are rambling and unstructured. Do you deny this?
  
  
  
  
  
  
  +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=
  Some were very poorly planned and,
  
  Look how long my post are, did you ever post a thread as long as mine with original theorys?
  
  I have a job and responsibilities, I did the best I could, But I plan to do better.
  ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
  
  
  
  
  
  
• They seemed to contain information copied from other sources which were not acknowledged. (This is plagiarism, it is against forum rules and is much more impolite than shutting down a thread without warning.) Are you denying your earlier statement that you had copied and pasted much of the material?
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  ++++++++++++++++++++++++=
  If I broke the law you should have told me.
  
  And if I, would not have started this thread, you would (not) have even told me. You are more at fault than me, because I did not even realize this.
  
  When people break the law, you should talk about it, and not hide it like a criminal. I am surprized you keep these things secret.
  
  
  For how long were you going to hide my (unknown) illegal behavior?
  
  +++++++++++++++++++++++++++=
  
  
  
  
  

As far as I can see, subject to your replies, all the things I said were correct. I am giving you the opportunity to disprove that assertion.




+++++++++++++++++++++++==
Your advice is good, but your attitude of everything you said is correct, is dangerous.

You give good advice, BUT NO EVERYTHING YOU SAID IS NOT CORRECT.

Why dont you ask a person with a college degree in propaganda and cults if my post should have been closed?





If you cant stand the heat get out of the kitchen, (but dont close the kitchen down.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


I was sopposed to be at work 5 minutes ago,

take care,
Chad.

+++++++++++++++++++++++

Originally Posted by chad

And all of you stand up, as if I am fully wrong, and you are all 100% correct.

On the points I have made I believe I am 100% correct. I hope you see that this does make you 100% wrong. I did not comment on what you had done right, since you did not ask that. You asked what you had done wrong to lead to the threads being closed. I told you what I thought was wrong. I responded to your request for an explanation and now you are complaining about my reply!

Originally Posted by chad

But I have been denied the chance, to debate and explain these things, in the proper place (my closed threads)

You are being given the opportunity to do so here. You think this is the wrong place. I don't. Your threads were for discussing the topics of those threads, not administrative matters. But really, here or there is unimportant compared with the fact that you have the freedom to discuss the issue.

Originally Posted by chad

I would have ripped all of you in that following debate. And all of you would have been knocked off your "Im 100% correct pedistals."

You are free to attempt to do so here. Based upon what I've seen so far I don't rate your chances. But why do want to do so? Your posts were weak for the reasons I point out above. Would it not be more productive to work on improving your post quality rather than a macho attempt to out debate someone.

Originally Posted by chad

All of you fully won the debate about my threads, but you all did this by silencing me, and closing my threads..

Please stop being ridiculous. You have hardly been silenced and I have encouraged you to address the points I have made about your threads.

Originally Posted by chad

Also your styles are more like the (dirty tricks) of politics, rather than the full and honest communication of good science.

Please explain to me what is dirty about me responding to your request for an explanation for thread closure in a direct, honest, open fashion. Did you want me to pretend your posts were interesting, well constructed, scientific examples of excellence? If so, you were always out of luck.
[/QUOTE]

But my threads were about propaganda group and cult behavior. These are the examples that I have. But I have learned from you, that perhaps I should make my threads shorter.

Shorter and support them. For example show a quote or saying, source an early use of the term by a prominent group and than show how it spread and was picked up later by others....that kind of thing. That would have fun and suitable for the political forum. As it was, it was in the wrong forum and completely unsupported.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Hmm. I notice Adelady was the last to post on that thread. I wonder if she made the rookie moderator mistake of accidentally closing a thread. It's easy to do because there is a check box that says "close this thread" but you don't have to click inside the check box, just somewhere alongside of it.

Thanks for reminding. I have fixed it now.

Hey Chad, I agree with you that it would be helpful to be given a reason when threads are trashed, I think though some of the mods are still learning too, some mods give a reason. I like what you said about still learning and developing your posting, everyone's still learning on that one even the best of em.

Whilst I agree with some of the comments and some of your veiws I also want to show you some support, I hate it when it looks like everyone is ganging up on someone and I'm sure that was not mean't by anyone.

So I'm giving you some positive feedback, which I am perfectly entitled to do as it's my opinion and the right thing to do.

I too think that - except for more serious breaches of etiquette - moderators should give clear warning within the thread of possible move or closure, with their reasons. The more serious breaches, that probably rate a ban don't deserve prior warning but the other participants ought to be informed of what happened.

I usually try and do that. An exception is a 7 year old necro thread that has a stupid post that revives it. They get moved fast. I always leave behing a note for a bit of tme that it has been moved.

MW

Originally Posted by Ken Fabos

I too think that - except for more serious breaches of etiquette - moderators should give clear warning within the thread of possible move or closure, with their reasons. The more serious breaches, that probably rate a ban don't deserve prior warning but the other participants ought to be informed of what happened.

I hold very firmly to the view that any moderator action (excluding the deletion of spam) should be accompanied by an explanation, certainly to the directly affected member and often to the forum at large. I would appreciate being reminded of this commitment if at any time I appear to have ignored it.