Postings by moderators
harry
>>Do I understand correctly that the moderators post without moderation?
>>Then
>>I hereby propose to change that rule!
>>And because of lack of moderation, here a "moderating" comment:
>>
>>Gentlemen, please stop your tit-tat arguing!
>>
> You are right. I have raised this problem with the other moderators and
> if it does not stop the only resolution will be the removal of a
> moderator.
I insist, in my opinion the only *correct* resolution is the imposition that
every posting passes through a moderator - even posts by moderators. That
takes care of the above problem and eliminates any unfairness in
discussions.
Regards,
Harald
Oh No
as has been the case, a moderator decides to deliberately break the
rules, for whatever reason, and if there is any indication that this
will continue, the only resolution is that he should cease to moderate.
Regards
--
Charles Francis
moderator sci.physics.foundations.
charles (dot) e (dot) h (dot) francis (at) googlemail.com (remove spaces and
braces)
Bob_for_short
How true! I vote for it!
Bob.
harry
"Oh No" <No...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:BD7oivBv6$AKF...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk...
> Thus spake harry <harald.NOTT...@epfl.ch>
>>Form another thread:
>>
>>>>Do I understand correctly that the moderators post without moderation?
>>>>Then
>>>>I hereby propose to change that rule!
>>>>And because of lack of moderation, here a "moderating" comment:
>>>>
>>>>Gentlemen, please stop your tit-tat arguing!
>>>>
>>> You are right. I have raised this problem with the other moderators and
>>> if it does not stop the only resolution will be the removal of a
>>> moderator.
>>
>>I insist, in my opinion the only *correct* resolution is the imposition
>>that
>>every posting passes through a moderator - even posts by moderators. That
>>takes care of the above problem and eliminates any unfairness in
>>discussions.
>>
> The technology does not allow a way of preventing self moderation. If,
> as has been the case, a moderator decides to deliberately break the
> rules, for whatever reason, and if there is any indication that this
> will continue, the only resolution is that he should cease to moderate.
The tit-for-tat gave the impression that *two* moderators went astray.
Anyway, no special technology is required to impose a rule; moreover, I
guess that simply requesting the moderators to be "moderator" with another
email address than the one under which they participate in discussions (as
"non-moderator") would already make it automatic.
Regards,
Harald
Juan R.
In my opinion, the major problem is not that moderators post are not
moderated (I find interesting many moderators posts) but when *one*
moderator systematically reject posts he dislikes or are proving his
personal theory to be a fiasco.
In any case, your proposal would solve it!
--
http://www.canonicalscience.org/
Usenet Guidelines:
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.html
Juan R.
> Thus spake harry <harald.NOTT...@epfl.ch>
>>Form another thread:
>>
>>>>Do I understand correctly that the moderators post without moderation?
>>>>Then
>>>>I hereby propose to change that rule! And because of lack of
>>>>moderation, here a "moderating" comment:
>>>>
>>>>Gentlemen, please stop your tit-tat arguing!
>>>>
>>> You are right. I have raised this problem with the other moderators
>>> and if it does not stop the only resolution will be the removal of a
>>> moderator.
>>
>>I insist, in my opinion the only *correct* resolution is the imposition
>>that every posting passes through a moderator - even posts by
>>moderators. That takes care of the above problem and eliminates any
>>unfairness in discussions.
>>
> The technology does not allow a way of preventing self moderation.
I am sure that this could be solved.
> If,
> as has been the case, a moderator decides to deliberately break the
> rules, for whatever reason, and if there is any indication that this
> will continue, the only resolution is that he should cease to moderate.
Since many many users of this fantastic newsgroup (including moderators)
are having troubles with just *one* moderator (he is always the same), I
agree that maybe he would cease to moderate.
Maybe an open poll about moderators would be interesting among users. I
would vote against certain individual to cease moderation if he insists
in using his moderator status to promote his own theory and ideas in a
truly unfair way.
Regards
Peter
Hello Harald,
Thank you for your proposal! We moderators are working on a solution
of the issue you have risen :-)
Looking forward,
Peter
Oh No
>
>Since many many users of this fantastic newsgroup (including
>moderators) are having troubles with just *one* moderator (he is always
>the same), I
It is very funny you should say this, since the moderator who has
generally rejected your posts is not the moderator with whom you have
most disagreements on the group. A certain difficulty counting perhaps?
one=two, and many many users amounting to one Juan?
Juan R.
> Thus spake Juan R. González-Álvarez <juanR...@canonicalscience.com>
>
>
>>Since many many users of this fantastic newsgroup (including moderators)
>>are having troubles with just *one* moderator (he is always the same), I
>
> It is very funny you should say this, since the moderator who has
> generally rejected your posts is not the moderator with whom you have
> most disagreements on the group. A certain difficulty counting perhaps?
> one=two, and many many users amounting to one Juan?
You have used this newsgroup to claim my misunderstanding of physics, my
poor grasp of English, and now my unability to count "one=two".
It is interesting that I did not cite any moderator but you have replied.
Do you feel identified in above description?
If as you claim I am the only poster who disagrees with the posting
style, rejection of posts, personal insults (send by the wire via email),
closing of threads, approval of /ad hominem/ messages by others poster...
of certain moderator...
why you have deleted my proposal to public poll.
Lester Welch
> Charles Francis wrote:
> >Thus spake Juan R. Gonz�lez-�lvarez:
>
> >>Since many many users of this fantastic newsgroup (including
> >>moderators) are having troubles with just *one* moderator (he is always
> >>the same), I
>
> >It is very funny you should say this, since the moderator who has
> >generally rejected your posts is not the moderator with whom you have
> >most disagreements on the group. �A certain difficulty counting perhaps?
> >one=two, and many many users amounting to one Juan?
>
> >Regards
>
> The poster will not be given an opportunity to respond to this public
> attack because the group guidelines won't allow posting of this type of
> personal disagreements.
>
> If there were unbiased moderation, then this last reply would have been
> rejected.
>
> It's the moderators' sandbox; it's their rules. The only choice one has
> if he doesn't like the game played here is to not to play. That's the
> option I've chosen.
>
> I won't be surprised if a moderator won't permit this article to be
> posted.
>
> ======================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
> �Metadiscussions on moderation policy are allowed on this newsgroup.
I guess I missed the physics lecture where it is necessary for a
physicist - a moderator or not - to be arrogant and dismissive.
======================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
I do not see the relevance, please bring discussion back to constructive comments or preferably to physics.
Oh No
>
>>
>>
>>>Since many many users of this fantastic newsgroup (including moderators)
>>>are having troubles with just *one* moderator (he is always the same), I
>>
>> It is very funny you should say this, since the moderator who has
>> generally rejected your posts is not the moderator with whom you have
>> most disagreements on the group. A certain difficulty counting perhaps?
>> one=two, and many many users amounting to one Juan?
>
>You have used this newsgroup to claim my misunderstanding of physics, my
>poor grasp of English,
In fact you have used the newsgroup to publicise some rather severe
misconceptions. I have merely identified where the errors in those
misconceptions lie. Identifying non-trivial errors is a major purpose of
the newsgroup. We all make errors. You should be happy that yours are
considered "knowledgeable errors", and hence appropriate for discussion.
>and now my unability to count "one=two".
perhaps the humour in the remark escaped you.
>It is interesting that I did not cite any moderator but you have replied.
>Do you feel identified in above description?
It is irrelevant whether or not I do.
>If as you claim I am the only poster who disagrees with the posting
>style, rejection of posts, personal insults (send by the wire via email),
>closing of threads, approval of /ad hominem/ messages by others poster...
>of certain moderator...
Please note that repeating errors without answering the refutation, and
responding to refutation with ill-mannered ad hominem accusation is not
acceptable, and will lead to rejection of posts.
>why you have deleted my proposal to public poll.
>
It is not deleted - the post in which you made it is still there. It is
correct to snip parts of posts which are not being answered.
Juan R.
> Thus spake Juan R. González-Álvarez <juanR...@canonicalscience.com>
>>Oh No wrote on Fri, 08 May 2009 16:28:47 -0600:
>>
>>> Thus spake Juan R. González-Álvarez <juanR...@canonicalscience.com>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Since many many users of this fantastic newsgroup (including
>>>>moderators) are having troubles with just *one* moderator (he is
>>>>always the same), I
>>>
>>> It is very funny you should say this, since the moderator who has
>>> generally rejected your posts is not the moderator with whom you have
>>> most disagreements on the group. A certain difficulty counting
>>> perhaps? one=two, and many many users amounting to one Juan?
>>
>>You have used this newsgroup to claim my misunderstanding of physics, my
>>poor grasp of English,
>
>
>
> In fact you have used the newsgroup to publicise some rather severe
> misconceptions.
I think you are using this newsgroup to publicise some rather severe
misconceptions that would be mostly rejected in other moderated
newsgroups.
However, I continue posting in sci.physics.research, in several non-
moderated groups...
(...)
> Identifying non-trivial errors is a major purpose of the newsgroup.
It is good that your postings will continue to be corrected then!
> We all make errors. You should be happy that yours are considered
> "knowledgeable errors", and hence appropriate for discussion.
>
>>and now my unability to count "one=two".
>
> perhaps the humour in the remark escaped you.
Do you mean the same kind of humour that in my remark?
>>It is interesting that I did not cite any moderator but you have
>>replied. Do you feel identified in above description?
>
> It is irrelevant whether or not I do.
Difficult to believe, if you feel identified, you would stop from
moderate, if you do not then you would continue to do it.
>>If as you claim I am the only poster who disagrees with the posting
>>style, rejection of posts, personal insults (send by the wire via
>>email), closing of threads, approval of /ad hominem/ messages by others
>>poster... of certain moderator...
>
> Please note that repeating errors without answering the refutation, and
> responding to refutation with ill-mannered ad hominem accusation is not
> acceptable, and will lead to rejection of posts.
This rejection has not applied certain moderator own posts.
This rejection has not applied to other posters who submitted /ad hominem/
accusations against the poster rebating moderator views.
>>why you have deleted my proposal to public poll.
>>
> It is not deleted - the post in which you made it is still there. It is
> correct to snip parts of posts which are not being answered.
Evidently, I did not mean were deleted from the archive. This is one of
your typical responses to posts with a non-issue.
I was asking why was deleted in your reply. Now you are giving the reason.
Peter
"Erites sicus deus scientes bonum et malum"
(Goethe, Faust)
Thank you,
Peter
maxwell
Please, please Peter, give us a translation. I love aphorisms (highly
condensed wisdom) and this seems interesting but most of do not have
the benefit of a classical (Latin) education.
Peter
>
> - Zitierten Text anzeigen -
Hello Harald,
google.de yields, among others (replace "sicus" with 'sicut' - sorry!)
Erĭtis sicut Dēus scientes bonum et malum (lat., "Ihr werdet sein wie
Gott und wissen, was gut und böse ist"), Bibelstelle (1. Mos. 3, 5),
die Goethe in der Schülerszene des "Faust" anwendet.
‘Eritis sicut Deus, scientes bonum et malum’, Genesis 3:5, according
to the Vulgate. In Faust I by Goethe these words are written in the
student's album by Mephistopheles disguised as the learned Doctor
Faust (Studierzimmer 2). The Authorized Version has, ‘ye shall be as
gods, knowing good and evil’.
Best wishes,
Peter
harry
Clearly the problem has not been solved: posts continue to pass
through unfiltered while protests about that fact are rejected.
Consequently I stop my participation to this group and wish the
remaining people good luck with their endeavors.
Regards,
Harald
maxwell
>
> > >>Since many many users of this fantastic newsgroup (including
> > >>moderators) are having troubles with just *one* moderator (he is always
> > >>the same), I
>
> > >It is very funny you should say this, since the moderator who has
> > >generally rejected your posts is not the moderator with whom you have
> > >one=two, and many many users amounting to one Juan?
>
> > >Regards
>
> > This is an example of a moderator making personal attack on a poster.
> > The poster will not be given an opportunity to respond to this public
> > attack because the group guidelines won't allow posting of this type of
> > personal disagreements.
>
> > If there were unbiased moderation, then this last reply would have been
> > rejected.
>
> > It's the moderators' sandbox; it's their rules. The only choice one has
> > if he doesn't like the game played here is to not to play. That's the
> > option I've chosen.
>
> > I won't be surprised if a moderator won't permit this article to be
> > posted.
>
> > ======================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
>
> I guess I missed the physics lecture where it is necessary for a
> physicist - a moderator or not - to be arrogant and dismissive.
>
> ======================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
All moderator's comments should be separate so that they can be
identified & moderated by other moderators (even the police have to be
policed).
Chalky
Yes, in other moderated newsgroups, the moderators Identify themselves
(eg, in spr by initials). Extending that courtesy to readers (and
other moderators) here, would be a good starting point.
FrediFizzx
news:50f0af41-855a-4179...@b1g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
> Yes, in other moderated newsgroups, the moderators Identify themselves
> (eg, in spr by initials). Extending that courtesy to readers (and
> other moderators) here, would be a good starting point.
I rarely make moderator comments and always intend to initial them when
I do but most of the time I just forget by the time I write the comment
(must be an old age thing). Remember, we are not machines. ;-)
As to the moderators moderating other moderators, as has already been
explained, it is not practical the way the moderation web interface
works (there is no way to not self-moderate) and would also make the
flow of discussions much slower as the moderators are spread out
half-way around the world. I don't want to wait hours and hours for
another moderator to moderate my posts and I am not going to because I
want a poster to see my reply in a timely fashion. So that should
settle that matter for all time. Let's put it to bed. Any more posts
on this particular topic will be rejected on grounds of repetition.
Best,
Fred Diether