Moderation: questions, discussion and completely pointless whinging

[idledim]

Seems to me it is covered by the following:

* The article is being quoted for the purposes of critical review of something else appearing on the board (for instance, to refute a claim another poster has made.)

(though perhaps we should change "refute" to "attempt to refute")

There is also "The mods may also take action against cut-and-pastes that are extremely long, [..]" but in this case I am not, at this stage, inclined to.

If you are thinking of changing your wording, the word you are probably looking for is rebut - from the French reboter (to thrust back, to butt).

As to the length of the post in question (#4904 in the climate change thread), it followed an accusation from Patrick Byrom (#4901) "that it's clearly pseudoscience."

My view was, and is, that the best way to rebut such an accusation is to let the accused speak! Whether or not the rebuttal achieved its aim is a matter for the adjudicators.

My initial post on this matter (#4882) was not long and simply pointed readers to the source material. It is my submission that #4904 should be seen in the context of the accusation that preceded it. It is also my view that the only way to properly rebut the arguments of Mototaka Nakamura is to respond to them directly.

[antichrist]

I will apologise for ER and myself for Shoutbox indiscretions.

KB:No crassness in the shoutbox please; I've flushed the last week or so of shouts.

AC: Well at least you tried - you may need to proceed with impeachment, the evidence is there and fresh.

[Kevin Bonham]

KB:No crassness in the shoutbox please; I've flushed the last week or so of shouts.

AC: Well at least you tried - you may need to proceed with impeachment, the evidence is there and fresh.

Seems OK at the moment to me. I don't have much faith in it remaining so.

[antichrist]

Dr Moderator, thanks so much for allowing a bit of T...p in shoutbox - this guy is going to bring down western civilisation so we just can't deny him headlines. He is more dangerous to USA than all commo threats combined. I hope his name allowed once in this pigeon box this time.

[Kevin Bonham]

Dr Moderator, thanks so much for allowing a bit of T...p in shoutbox - this guy is going to bring down western civilisation so we just can't deny him headlines. He is more dangerous to USA than all commo threats combined. I hope his name allowed once in this pigeon box this time.

That came with a tag "for now". If you gratuitously overuse it there you'll be banned from mentioning him there too.

[antichrist]

Dr Moderator, is the Coffee Lounge late opening today?

[Kevin Bonham]

Dr Moderator, is the Coffee Lounge late opening today?

Looks open as normal to me.

[Kevin Bonham]

By the way, another site I post on (pollbludger) has a rule that if you block another poster you're not allowed to gloat about it.

I'm not intending to implement such a rule here but I mention it for interest.

[Patrick Byrom]

By the way, another site I post on (pollbludger) has a rule that if you block another poster you're not allowed to gloat about it. I'm not intending to implement such a rule here but I mention it for interest.

I can see the point of blocking a poster who is specifically trolling you. But when a poster is simply taking part in a discussion, it seems pointless, because unless you block everyone else you're likely to see the offending posts anyway (a regular complaint on Pollbludger!)

[Desmond]

I can see the point of blocking a poster who is specifically trolling you. But when a poster is simply taking part in a discussion, it seems pointless, because unless you block everyone else you're likely to see the offending posts anyway (a regular complaint on Pollbludger!)

In Elliott's case, he seems not to be after a discussion where people reasonably present evidence contrary to his a priori position, but an echo chamber. A private message group with his nuthuggers might be a better fit.

[Patrick Byrom]

In Elliott's case, he seems not to be after a discussion where people reasonably present evidence contrary to his a priori position, but an echo chamber. A private message group with his nuthuggers might be a better fit.

I've never understood why people post in a public forum, and then get upset when other people disagree with them. As you say, a private group (on Facebook, perhaps) would suit ER much better.

[Desmond]

Is it possible to unsubscribe from a specific thread so that it doesn't appear in your New Posts page every time a post is made?

[antichrist]

Note on quoting for AC - if adding bold tags you need to make sure the bold tag is closed before the start of the closing quote tag.

[/B][/QUOTE] not [[/B]/QUOTE]

that was done on my phone with tech dificulties and was getting as upset as Fischer's book made me

[Ian Rout]

The way that some people carry on about American politics is a good illustration of the meaning of the American term "Get a life.".

Of course it's open to members either to not read the threads concerned or to hide posts from any especially egregious offender(s). However it seems that this ability is being circumvented by the Shoutbox being used as a supplementary debating forum, which has the problem of obscuring legitimate shouts. So I would like to propose that American politics be banned from the Shoutbox - or all non-domestic politics or all politics if that would be easier. I would further propose that it be enforced by zero tolerance, i.e. no second chances or appeals, just immediate suspension.

[Kevin Bonham]

Thanks Ian. I've taken some action under the existing guidelines, and should have done so earlier, though we will also consider whether stronger policies on this issue are needed.