Fussy moderation in 'Sustainability & Environmental issues'

Macha

Chloe Pink wrote: »

That's a big typo but thanks for the correction - any chance of a link please?

It's not a big typo - it's one extra numeral. You can find it on the Dept of Environment website. Let me know if you can't find it.

P. Breathnach

Chloe Pink wrote: »

...
See msg 142 in this thread:
easychair
"As I sit here, at the height of summer, in the middle of July in the middle of the day, my weather station tells me it's 11.5°C outside..."
djpbarry:
"So what? You wouldn’t be taking a single weather event in isolation and using it to characterise the climate, would you?"

Msg 125 at this link: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056225183&page=9
me
...winds are high over most European countries at the same time.
djpbarry
"The average wind speed here in London is about 8 – 10 knots, depending on the time of year. The average wind speed in Donegal, however, is about 11 – 17 knots. What gives?"
...

One is a single data point; the other gives averages. I trust that you know that an average represents a set of data.

Chloe Pink

P. Breathnach wrote: »

One is a single data point; the other gives averages. I trust that you know that an average represents a set of data.

Yes I do thank you, the issue is that the wind speeds in Dublin and London are not representative of those across Europe, those across Europe being the point in question (and both of them are at the low end of the scale with regard to generating electricity with wind turbines).

Macha

Chloe Pink wrote: »

Yes I do thank you, the issue is that the wind speeds in Dublin and London are not representative of those across Europe (those across Europe being the point in question).

Chloe Pink, you are guilty of choosing statistics that suit your argument, as per the carbon tax thread.

I'm not sure what the point of this particular tangent is.

Chloe Pink

easychair wrote: »

We are all, I am sure, capable of hypocrisy. While I observe djbarry's aggressive language, unfriendly attitude and nitpicking so often derailing threads in SEI, or bringing them to a stop or end, I'm not sure how helpful it is here to detract from the argument by discussing hypocrisy.

This thread is about the SEI forums being neutered by the way they are moderated and about the fact that SEI is much less busy as a result, a fact which is acknowledged by djbarry himself. What he seems to be incapable of understanding is that he is at least partly responsible for the low level of activity on the SEI forums.

Examples of double standards aren't going to help resolve the substantive issue, and just serve to act as a distraction.

Thanks for your view on this easychair but I personally find it to be an issue or at least a symptom of the issue (bear in mind, there's still apparently doubt as to whether there's a problem).

easychair

Chloe Pink wrote: »

Thanks for your view on this easychair but I personally find it to be an issue or at least a symptom of the issue (bear in mind, there's still apparently doubt as to whether there's a problem).

There is no doubt that there (a) is a problem and (b) that the problem is the moderation, in the views of the many posters who no longer post in SEI. the only people who appear to have doubts are the moderators (no surprise there) and the admins (whatever an admin might be).

Chloe Pink

Macha wrote: »

Chloe Pink, you are guilty of choosing statistics that suit your argument, as per the carbon tax thread.

Please would you explain what you are saying here.

Macha wrote: »

I'm not sure what the point of this particular tangent is.

- that djpbarry used (in earnest) just two locations to represent wind speeds when the discussion was about wind speeds across Europe. Yet he hauled up a poster for using just one weather event (light heartedly) when the discussion was about AGW/CC.
djpbarry requested (in post 188 of this thread) that this be demonstrated.

Scofflaw

easychair wrote: »

We are all, I am sure, capable of hypocrisy. While I observe djbarry's aggressive language, unfriendly attitude and nitpicking so often derailing threads in SEI, or bringing them to a stop or end, I'm not sure how helpful it is here to detract from the argument by discussing hypocrisy.

This thread is about the SEI forums being neutered by the way they are moderated and about the fact that SEI is much less busy as a result, a fact which is acknowledged by djbarry himself. What he seems to be incapable of understanding is that he is at least partly responsible for the low level of activity on the SEI forums.

For that, I think, one needs to refer all the way back to page 1 or 2 of this thread, and Cookie_Monster's comment:

the modding there is heavy handed for a reason. Go back about a year or so and you used to get huge amounts of waffle and crap posted by several posters, one of two in particular.
every post would be an essay of random semi factual blather that ruined every topic in the forum. Mods had to deal with it, feedback from users in the feedback thread asked them to, so they did.

Since then the forum is a lot tidier, more usable and certainly more readable for general or specific queries, that's something that's very easily lost again though it discussion is allowed revert back to what it was.

So, what you describe as "much less busy" can also be described as "you used to get huge amounts of waffle and crap posted by several posters, one of two in particular".

And I'm afraid that looking back over the forum supports the latter view, not the former. To be fair, of course, neither you nor Chloe would necessarily know that, since you're both quite recent posters.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Macha

Chloe Pink wrote: »

Please would you explain what you are saying here.

I'm saying that you're guilty of what you're accusing djpbarry of, ie using statistics that suit an argument, instead of the more appropriate ones - albeit the argument itself was a tangent with little relevance to the main point of the thread.

Chloe Pink wrote: »

- that djpbarry used (in earnest) just two locations to represent wind speeds when the discussion was about wind speeds across Europe. Yet he hauled up a poster for using one weather event (light heartedly) when the discussion was about AGW/CC

In earnest and light heartedly - you assume to be able to speak for the intentions of others and conveniently so. I might add you pursued this particular issue by reporting a post in a discussion in which you were not involved and on the basis of a false assumption.

Scofflaw

Chloe Pink wrote: »

Yes I do thank you, the issue is that the wind speeds in Dublin and London are not representative of those across Europe, those across Europe being the point in question (and both of them are at the low end of the scale with regard to generating electricity with wind turbines).

Let's see - djpbarry's answer was:

Can you not see that nothing you have posted thus far supports this statement? Let’s make it real simple...

The average wind speed here in London is about 8 – 10 knots, depending on the time of year. The average wind speed in Donegal, however, is about 11 – 17 knots. What gives?

and it was in response to your claim that:

...winds are high over most European countries at the same time.

Choosing any two points in Europe would make it fairly clear that the idea of there being some kind of universal speed across Europe is false. Your response to the point was:

Wind turbines operate from between 6 to 49 knots. Depending on the number and size of turbines in either of the locations you cite, they would both be generating at the lowish end of the scale.

Is there a problem with the information in the links in post 116?

That has absolutely nothing to do with the point being discussed. It is an irrelevant answer. And in this thread you are bringing it up as if it was some kind of statistical cherry-picking, which completely misrepresents what it was in answer to, and endeavouring to continue the argument.

It's increasingly clear that this thread has been a huge waste of time by a couple of posters with a grudge.

regards,
Scofflaw

Chloe Pink

Scofflaw wrote: »

Choosing any two points in Europe would make it fairly clear that the idea of there being some kind of universal speed across Europe is false.

Well evidence says otherwise as pointed out in post 116 at this thread http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056225183&page=8 (and quoted below for convenience)

"http://www.ref.org.uk/publications/2...ttency-studies

"In subsequent work for REF, published in July 2010, Mr Bach updated and extended his work in a book entitled, The Variability of Wind Power: Collected Papers 2009-2010. This work revealed the degree to which wind variability might be synchronized across Europe, with the implication for spot prices and the value of trans-continental interconnections. As Mr Bach wrote: “The combination of wind power in Denmark, Germany, and Ireland produces a statistical smoothing effect […] however, the effect is not strong, and even assuming market interconnections which are perfect in a physical and regulatory sense there would still be extreme peaks and troughs in wind output” (p. 47)."


"Pöyry’s study goes some way to addressing the questions raised by Oswald and Bach’s work, and reiterates many of the conclusions previously drawn by REF in its research work on intermittent renewables, namely that:

(i) A geographical spread of wind (and, Pöyry argue, solar) supported by a supergrid would not resolve the problems of intermittency because similar weather patterns can extend across much of the continent of Europe and the UK and Ireland."


Quote from the summary of the Pöyry report which can be down loaded from here: http://www.poyry.com/media/media_2.h...301471113.html

"This heavy reinforcement of interconnection doesn’t appear to offset the need for very much backup plant, however. This surprising observation comes from the fact that weather systems – in particular high pressure ‘cold and calm’ periods in winter – can extend for 1000 miles, so that periods of low wind generation are often correlated across Europe.""


My response was to point out that the two examples djpbarry used were both at the low end of the scale when it came to generating electricity. As the discussion was about generating electricity using wind turbines it had absolutely everything to do with the point being discussed and was a relevant answer.


Anyway I got a ban (and one that was described as "not clear cut" in DRP) and this is what I mean when I say that the problem with the moderation is subtle and not as obvious as bullying; it seems that, as in the case above, if the evidence isn't welcome, then djbarry will "nit-pick" on some minor factor rather than acknowledge it or he'll detract from the main point.
Scofflaw, at least you are direct, you came clean out with the point I was making (not so much a universal wind speed mind but a pattern of like wind speeds).
I'd say it is djpbarry who could be described as "slippery".

djpbarry

Chloe Pink wrote: »

Please would you respond to msg 170 in which I ask you to back up your claim that you questioned the data in the Sharman report.

Here, here and here.

If all we’re doing at this stage is re-hashing arguments from old threads on SEI, then I think I’m done here.

easychair

Scofflaw wrote: »

So, what you describe as "much less busy" can also be described as "you used to get huge amounts of waffle and crap posted by several posters, one of two in particular".

And I'm afraid that looking back over the forum supports the latter view, not the former. To be fair, of course, neither you nor Chloe would necessarily know that, since you're both quite recent posters.

I'd have thought that you would have know that I am as capable as you are at looking back over the forum. Which I have done. Both djbarry and I simply disagree with your analysis, as he points out lamenting the current "trough" of activity on the SEI forums.

It is said there is none so deaf as those who do not want to hear. You don't want to hear that I, and others, do not take part in the SEI forums due to what we view as djbarry's often aggressive, unfriendly and hostile attitude.

You seem to view this as some sort of battle which you have to win. I view it somewhat differently, and have tried to give constructive criticism in the hope things will improve for us all. Your apparent desire to win seems to blind you to the fact that so many have voted with their feet and no longer interested in SEI forums due to the behaviour mainly of one mod, djbarry. My view is that the SEI forums are impoverished as a result.

easychair

djpbarry wrote: »

Here, here and here.

If all we’re doing at this stage is re-hashing arguments from old threads on SEI, then I think I’m done here.

I agree. Pointless nitpicking over old arguments is diverting attention away from the real issue here.

Scofflaw

easychair wrote: »

I'd have thought that you would have know that I am as capable as you are at looking back over the forum. Which I have done. Both djbarry and I simply disagree with your analysis, as he points out lamenting the current "trough" of activity on the SEI forums.

It is said there is none so deaf as those who do not want to hear. You don't want to hear that I, and others, do not take part in the SEI forums due to what we view as djbarry's often aggressive, unfriendly and hostile attitude.

You seem to view this as some sort of battle which you have to win. I view it somewhat differently, and have tried to give constructive criticism in the hope things will improve for us all. Your apparent desire to win seems to blind you to the fact that so many have voted with their feet and no longer interested in SEI forums due to the behaviour mainly of one mod, djbarry. My view is that the SEI forums are impoverished as a result.

Shrug - I'm not trying to "win" here. Indeed, I'm not even certain what would constitute a "win" for me. I'm making plain that I'm not very impressed by the complaints you've made, or those made by Chloe, because you've basically failed to substantiate them. In respect of the argument that the forum "used to be" a livelier place - how would you know? You registered your account in Mar this year, so either you're a re-reg (in which case, the obvious question is why?), or you can't actually have any direct experience of the forum in those better days you speak of.

cordially,
Scofflaw

FlutterinBantam

In my opinion Scoffers, the forum has gone very dry and dusty.

Needs a bit of 'chutzpah' from someone to bring back the bite and razzle dazzle.

Gone very staid.

Still very interesting though and well controlled.

nesf

Chloe Pink wrote: »

A fair point.
(Although equally I think it is healthy to sow doubt among the populace, less apathy and less sheep and lemming behaviour would be good)

Sowing doubt for the sake of undermining something is bad. E.g. look at how the tobacco industry sowed doubt about the health effects of smoking back in the day. Was it a good thing?

The biggest issue is that doubt is healthy and good only when people can understand what's being talked about. With complicated science this is a very difficult thing to achieve and requires an awful lot of education before people can appreciate what's good doubt and bad doubt and what doubt actually means in this instance.

Cicero

Needler wrote: »

Not sure if this has been brought up before or if this is even the right place for it but it is a genuine problem. Also this is not a dispute between me and a moderator just a general observation of what's been going on in there.

The whole forum has become a very forboding place with the two mods there regularly using their mod powers to intimidate new users and steer the debate in their favour.

I've taken a look at the place out of curiosity and I don't totally agree with you...however....I do think that there are some very fundamental flaws in the forum design that you might be forgiven to formulate that view

1. The forum charter has 18 very distinct and very detailed tenets- most of which would not be common to other forums..I don't think I've ever seen a charter so detailed and that alone would stop me posting there- I'm not sure I understand 1/2 it and would lose interest very quickly trying to...It's as if all permutations and combination's of what is not wanted in the forum have been listed ...I would have thought at this point it might be easier to post what is allowed...not what isn't
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055899550

2. The moderators implement this charter quite rigorously

3. The moderators contribute quite a lot to the forum...both posting and applying the very detailed charter...some mods in some forums rarely contribute to threads in forums and simply moderate them- the fact that this forum isn't one of the more popular ones, the effect is exaggerated somewhat as their posts appear very regularly- both contributions and challenging others on their posts

4. So, while I can see why you have developed your viewpoint, I don't think the mods are doing anything "technically" incorrect- but I do see how it could become quite intimidating for a new poster to post there, being challenged on the source of their argument etc..it feels like a very "specialist" type of forum..if that's what it is, then I don't think it's ever going to attract a large or "popular" following- maybe that's what the mods want?

nesf

Yeah, I'd agree the charter isn't the most readable out there, which is a problem I think.

easychair

Scofflaw wrote: »

Shrug - I'm not trying to "win" here. Indeed, I'm not even certain what would constitute a "win" for me. I'm making plain that I'm not very impressed by the complaints you've made, or those made by Chloe, because you've basically failed to substantiate them. In respect of the argument that the forum "used to be" a livelier place - how would you know? You registered your account in Mar this year, so either you're a re-reg (in which case, the obvious question is why?), or you can't actually have any direct experience of the forum in those better days you speak of.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I haven’t made a complaint. I have simply stated my experience, and reported the experience that others have discussed with me. Even ignoring what I have shared about my experience, the evidence regularly shows a new poster contributing, then djbarry works his magic, and the new poster stops contributing.

Why you are expecting to be impressed by the fact that I, and others, have found the moderators in SEI, particularly djbarry, to be unfriendly, aggressive and hostile, is uncertain. That you appear to ignore everything everyone else has said in this thread, and elsewhere, and say here that it’s just Chloe and I, appears revealing. Like djbarry, I am not sure why Chloe has attempted to turn this thread into a regurgitating of arguments from elsewhere, which seems pointless and a distraction.

Then you try to belittle me by making obscure allegations and claiming that my opinion is not valid because I have only been here a few months. For some reason, you seem to think that it’s not possible to view threads from the past.

All of which helpfully lets you avoid the fact that djbarry has stated that he agrees with me that the SEI is much quieter now that it has been in the past. I know why I no longer contribute there. I know what others have also told me is the reason they no longer post there. Others have stated here in this thread the reasons they no longer, or rarely, contribute there. Others have stated elsewhere why they no longer, or rarely, contribute there.

If you choose to not hear what they all say, that’s your choice. Just as it’s the choice of us not to contribute to a forum where we find others unfriendly, aggressive and hostile. No one can be certain quite how many have come to that conclusion, but what is certain is that if those had felt welcome, rather than have been greeted by what they say they found to be an unfriendly, aggressive and hostile moderator, then the SEI forums would certainly be more lively and interesting than that are.

Chloe Pink

easychair wrote: »

I am not sure why Chloe has attempted to turn this thread into a regurgitating of arguments from elsewhere, which seems pointless and a distraction.

My apologies that you see it that way easychair, I was using examples of what has happened to illlustrate the problems (we have been asked to show there's a problem)

Scofflaw attempted to illustrate that I was incorrect in what I was saying by writing, as quoted in post 222, "Choosing any two points in Europe would make it fairly clear that the idea of there being some kind of universal speed across Europe is false."
He was incorrect; I supplied the evidence and he has not responded (yet).
When this happened in the S&EI thread itself, djpbarry banned me.

As I've said in post 222, the problem with the moderation is subtle and not as obvious as bullying; it seems that, if the evidence isn't welcome, rather than acknowledge it, djbarry will "nit-pick" on some minor factor or he'll detract from the thrust of the discussion and he appears to ignore any scientific evidence that doesn't suit his cause.
It is virtually impossible to have a constructive discussion if contributors won't take on board the evidence put before them and particularily if their modding the forum as well.

Chloe Pink

nesf wrote: »

Sowing doubt for the sake of undermining something is bad. E.g. look at how the tobacco industry sowed doubt about the health effects of smoking back in the day. Was it a good thing?

The biggest issue is that doubt is healthy and good only when people can understand what's being talked about. With complicated science this is a very difficult thing to achieve and requires an awful lot of education before people can appreciate what's good doubt and bad doubt and what doubt actually means in this instance.

A fair point although I think an intelligent and questioning mind are as important as if not more so than an awful lot of education.

Chloe Pink

Macha wrote: »

I'm saying that you're guilty of what you're accusing djpbarry of, ie using statistics that suit an argument

Well that's what statistics are all about isn't it and I'm not sure I've accused djpbarry of that, it's what I'd expect him to do. I have accussed him of ignoring evidence put before him as he did in the situation cited in post 222.

Macha wrote: »

In earnest and light heartedly - you assume to be able to speak for the intentions of others and conveniently so. I might add you pursued this particular issue by reporting a post in a discussion in which you were not involved and on the basis of a false assumption.

Apologies I should have used the words 'it appears' or 'IMO'. Can one only report a post if directly involved in it?

nesf

Chloe Pink wrote: »

A fair point although I think an intelligent and questioning mind are as important as if not more so than an awful lot of education.

You can't question something unless you understand it. To understand it one needs to educate one's self.

e.g. it's all well and good to consider whether increased sunshine is why temperatures have risen but if one hasn't checked things out and hasn't discovered that studies have shown no increase in sunlight over the past 30 years then one can't reach a reasonable conclusion about the matter consistent with the facts.

Chloe Pink

Macha wrote: »

Chloe Pink, you are guilty of choosing statistics that suit your argument, as per the carbon tax thread.

I don't believe this is correct.

Chloe Pink

nesf wrote: »

You can't question something unless you understand it. To understand it one needs to educate one's self.

e.g. it's all well and good to consider whether increased sunshine is why temperatures have risen but if one hasn't checked things out and hasn't discovered that studies have shown no increase in sunlight over the past 30 years then one can't reach a reasonable conclusion about the matter consistent with the facts.

OK let me put it another way, what happens if you give an "awful lot of education" to someone without an intelligent and questioning mind?

nesf

Chloe Pink wrote: »

OK let me put it another way, what happens if you give an "awful lot of education" to someone without an intelligent and questioning mind?

Depends, all most people need is the executive summary. e.g. smoking kills you.

djpbarry

nesf wrote: »

Yeah, I'd agree the charter isn't the most readable out there, which is a problem I think.

It has occurred to me in the past that it could be more concise – apart from anything else, there’s a bit of repetition and redundancy in there. It’s certainly something we could look at.

djpbarry

easychair wrote: »

I haven’t made a complaint.

So what’s this then...

easychair wrote: »

... I, and others, have found the moderators in SEI, particularly djbarry, to be unfriendly, aggressive and hostile...

djpbarry

Chloe Pink wrote: »

I don't believe this is correct.

That’s kind of the problem (and the reason this thread is unlikely to result in any kind of satisfactory resolution for you). Despite having had it pointed out to you multiple times in the SEI forum (see below), you still refuse to accept that you’re doing anything wrong or that there’s anything that you could be doing differently.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68923101&postcount=40
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68946988&postcount=46
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68955469&postcount=48
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=69038387&postcount=65
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70298966&postcount=152
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70438993&postcount=164
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70483084&postcount=171
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70483142&postcount=172
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70518238&postcount=188