Fussy moderation in 'Sustainability & Environmental issues'

Macha

Chloe Pink wrote: »

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.

Well, not really but you've done that too. In the thread on carbon taxes, you continued to use Sweden's energy mix for electricity as an argument that Sweden as a low carbon economy, despite me pointing out a few times that the more appropriate statistic was the energy mix for all of Sweden's primary energy use, ie including transport and heating/cooling.

So you ignored evidence put before you.

Chloe Pink wrote: »

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

No, but you haven't reported other posts on behalf of another posters - why this one? And again, you reported on the false assumption that djpbarry had banned the user in question. From where I'm sitting, it seemed like you were looking for reasons to complain about djpbarry.

I think cicero has a point about the Forum Charter.

nesf

djpbarry wrote: »

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.

I'm thinking mostly of formatting and layout. It's a bit dense and unreadable at the moment.

djpbarry

nesf wrote: »

I'm thinking mostly of formatting and layout. It's a bit dense and unreadable at the moment.

Yeah, sure - it has a bit of a "wall of text" look to it at the moment. We'll try and make it more user-friendly.

ei.sdraob

Macha wrote: »

And it was regular rants like that, that got you banned. Thank you for confirming the decision.
.

So speaking out my opinion and pointing out / criticizing the failures of the environmental movement which is reflected in the attitude and postings of the "Green" members of the site is a "rant"?

Thanks for proving your bias and unwillingness to accept that there might be serious issues in the green movement which would (are) end up pushing people away and/or making them disinterested, by banning anything you dont agree with you endup with a forum where the only voices are the ones that havent passed you brand of censorship

There is a word the likes of @Scofflaw like to use and its called "groupthink" how is sitting about and patting each other on back lead to any critical and objective debate?

ei.sdraob

On the topic of global warming


The job of scientists is to observe, measure, report, and model the phenomena of climate change
The job of engineers is to make use of the science to make technologies to achieve aims such as reducing CO2 emissions


It is not the place of either scientists nor engineers to put forward and defend policies such as carpeting a whole country in windmills
that is the area for decision makers in business, politicians and economists


Just because one objects to a policy such as wasting billions on unreliable wind technology does not make one a "global warming" denier. I was accused earlier of "generalising" about the environmentalists but they do a good job at painting anyone whose opinion they dont agree with same brush, and in case of the forum being discussed banning them so as to not have to discuss any downsides of the policies based on climate change threat.

Macha

ei.sdraob wrote: »

So speaking out my opinion and pointing out / criticizing the failures of the environmental movement which is reflected in the attitude and postings of the "Green" members of the site is a "rant"?

Well part of the problem was/is your belief in a monolithic environmental movement. There is a diversity of opinion about the best course of action to resolve environmental issues but you dismiss(ed) those who didn't agree with your opinions as "Greenies". Not only is this inaccurate and poor debating, it's also not acceptable to indulge in name calling.

I actually thought you made a some good points, particularly about the tendency for some solutions to outsource problems to other countries.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Thanks for proving your bias and unwillingness to accept that there might be serious issues in the green movement which would (are) end up pushing people away and/or making them disinterested, by banning anything you dont agree with you endup with a forum where the only voices are the ones that havent passed you brand of censorship

I don't think I'm unwilling to accept flaws within the environmental movement - I work in this sector and see plenty of woolly thinking/blinkers every day that makes me despair.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

There is a word the likes of @Scofflaw like to use and its called "groupthink" how is sitting about and patting each other on back lead to any critical and objective debate?

I don't think this is a fair criticism. You weren't banned for your opinions so much as for rants against the environmental movement and name calling.

reallyrose

I’ve been following this thread in a half-hearted manner, mostly because it keeps popping up on the “New Posts” page.
I don’t post in the forum in question here so all I am doing is providing a bit of outside perspective.

I totally appreciate that Green issues can be ... controversial. However, whether or not the X report is accurate or whether climate change is being caused by humans or unicorns from space isn’t the issue brought up in the opening post.

The issue is moderation.

The issue seems to be moderation is quite heavy-handed, so new posters don’t feel welcome. The ability to debate an issue needs to be developed and practiced. So a new poster who isn’t able to debate and discuss to the same level as other regular posters gets a bit scared and runs away.

It’s totally understandable that the mods may not see that how their actions are viewed by other people.
The tone of a forum can be quite hard to sum up in a few example posts, so maybe the regular posters who claim ‘fussy moderation’ are quite correct in their opinions.

Could I suggest that despite the moderator’s opinion of their own moderating abilities, perhaps they could take a step back and try to take the feedback into account? Maybe for the next few weeks, before the smack is handed down for infractions, the mod with the smack could take a moment out to think about it.

Another suggestion could be to add the relevant quote from the forum charter to infractions, so that the poster will understand why they are being chastised.

Also, the use of bold text for modly declarations could be changed to coloured text? Red for naughtiness, leaving the bold text free to be used for emphasis, without posters feeling as if they are being given out to for partaking in debate.

As I mentioned at the start of my post, I don't post in the S&EI forum and I don't know anyone posting in this thread too well, (I think I've met one of ye!). So I don't have any emotional investment in this!

Scofflaw

easychair wrote: »

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.

OK - for that to be something that needs looking at you'd need it not to be anecdotal, and I don't really see it as likely that it isn't. It would also need to be the case that the 'new posters' in question aren't simply people coming to the forum in order to say "AGW is a scam".

easychair wrote: »

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.

I'm not saying it's just you and Chloe, but it's yourself and Chloe that have made the most serious complaints (bar Needler, who has apparently been sitebanned in the interim) and contributed the most posts - of the 108 posts which you could characterise as being negative about the forum, Chloe has contributed 54, and you're the next up. I accept that I'm lumping you slightly with Chloe there, and that that may be unfair.

easychair wrote: »

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.

It's possible for both of us to do it, but I don't think it provides anything like a reliable picture unless it's done objectively. And, as I've pointed out several times, having a forum full of noise is not the same as a forum being more 'active' in any positive way, and we have it expressed by other posters that it was in that fashion that the forum was livelier.

easychair wrote: »

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.

Lively - see above - and interesting for whom, though? What I'm getting from this thread is that some posters don't like djpbarry's tone (and that others don't like mine), but that other than that, the various more serious claims that have been made have all fallen down for lack of evidence, while the majority of posters who want the forum modding changed are really asking to be allowed to challenge the scientific consensus on climate change in the forum. And, sure, the forum would absolutely be "livelier" if that was allowed, but it wouldn't actually be more useful for the purposes expressed in its title. Instead it would just be endless reprises of the same argument.

There are always users who object to the moderation or running of any forum, and any disgruntled user can generally point to others who share their disgruntlement. But the idea of forums is not simply to cater to everybody in every forum, or even as many people as possible. Were that the case, sub-dividing the forums into areas of interest would be pointless.

If users want to challenge the consensus on climate change, why not ask for a new forum under Science to do so, or use the existing (and very unlively) "Environmental Science" forum to do so? After all, presumably you'll be objecting on the basis of science to the science, so that does seem the obvious place for it. And that means you can leave the SEI forum to handle what it's there to handle - the issues that result from trying to be sustainable and 'green'.

cordially,
Scofflaw

djpbarry

ei.sdraob wrote: »

So speaking out my opinion and pointing out / criticizing the failures of the environmental movement which is reflected in the attitude and postings of the "Green" members of the site is a "rant"?

Voicing your opinion and criticizing the failures of the environmental movement, based on your perception of the attitude and postings of the members of this site, perceived by you to be “green”, is most definitely a rant when it pops up in the middle of a thread for no apparent reason.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

... by banning anything you dont agree with you endup with a forum where the only voices are the ones that havent passed you brand of censorship

And yet, you are the only poster on this thread who is currently banned from the forum – what gives?

samsham

I have seen posts shut down because they were going on too long or going off the topic or in the wrong category. Discussions closed because they are about an ongoing Garda assault case. This despite every newspaper in the land discussing it. I think its gone a little crazy here, That's why I rarely visit these days. But instead of offering to look at this issues the moderators are throwing mud around, hoping some sticks on those who dare to complain.

Chloe Pink

djpbarry wrote: »

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

As far as I'm concerned these links, especially when viewed in the context of the threads in which they appear, simply demonstrate your absurd moderation and inability or reluctance to follow the thrust of the discussion because you don't like where it's going.

And going back to the OP of this thread, this thread is about you, not me. You've had plenty of opportunity to tell posters what you think of them when you've moderated them. This is an opportunity for us to give you feedback and there's plenty for you to working on, not just from me but from quite a few posters and other moderators, so why not, as already suggested, stop being defensive, sit back, take in all this lovely feedback and become a better moderator.

Chloe Pink

djpbarry wrote: »

And yet, you are the only poster on this thread who is currently banned from the forum – what gives?

This is not about who's been banned, it's about your moderation.
Typical djpbarry tactics - lets try and deflect from the point in discussion because it's easier than facing it.

easychair

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'm not saying it's just you and Chloe, but it's yourself and Chloe that have made the most serious complaints (bar Needler, who has apparently been sitebanned in the interim) and contributed the most posts - of the 108 posts which you could characterise as being negative about the forum, Chloe has contributed 54, and you're the next up. I accept that I'm lumping you slightly with Chloe there, and that that may be unfair.

Thanks for your thoughtful and considered reply. I have to point out again that I have not made any complaint, and have just tried to talk about my experience, and the experience of others to whom I have talked.

I can't stop you lumping me with whoever you choose, but thats not to say your lumping is accurate!

Scofflaw wrote: »

the majority of posters who want the forum modding changed are really asking to be allowed to challenge the scientific consensus on climate change in the forum. And, sure, the forum would absolutely be "livelier" if that was allowed, but it wouldn't actually be more useful for the purposes expressed in its title. Instead it would just be endless reprises of the same argument.

I suppose thats an important issue. I know lots of scientists, and the claims made for a consensus just aren't true. I read papers from across the world, and I know there are eminent scientists, from MIT, Yale and so on, who are not part of any consensus, and who claim that there is no consensus.

Additionally, Science is the term given to explaining how things work, Thus we know how the internal combustion engine works, how rockets fly to the moon, and why water flows downhill, and lots and lots of other wonderful and useful information thanks to science. Climate change, while it may well be based on science, is predicting the future, which is prediction and not science. Just because its based on science doesn't mean the predictions are scientific, they are still predictions.

In any case the SEI forum is not for scientists, but for us humbler mortals who have an interest, but are not ourselves scientists.

Scofflaw wrote: »

There are always users who object to the moderation or running of any forum, and any disgruntled user can generally point to others who share their disgruntlement. But the idea of forums is not simply to cater to everybody in every forum, or even as many people as possible. Were that the case, sub-dividing the forums into areas of interest would be pointless.

I'm sure we can all understand there are nay sayers at every turn of life. But that there are always users who object, doesn't mean that any objection must be disregarded. It's true I find djbarry unfriendly, aggressive and hostile, and that someone else on the site might make an unfair complaint, that doesn't diminish in any way my experience to date of djbarry.

Scofflaw wrote: »

If users want to challenge the consensus on climate change, why not ask for a new forum under Science to do so, or use the existing (and very unlively) "Environmental Science" forum to do so? After all, presumably you'll be objecting on the basis of science to the science, so that does seem the obvious place for it. And that means you can leave the SEI forum to handle what it's there to handle - the issues that result from trying to be sustainable and 'green'.

I also happen to think that "green" issues are not unchallengable. Ther is much which pretends to be green which is sham and needs rigorous challege, and if you are suggesting that anything should be not allowed to be challenged because it calls itself "green" is obviously ridiculous, so i am sure I have misunderstood.

We all need to be challenged to keep us on our toes, even me, even you, and dare I say it, even djbarry.

I'm now beginning to feel sorry for djbarry!, as I feel its a little like talking badly about the dead at their wake, and knowing that he is probably reading this. For me, it would be fatuous to say there is nothing personal about my experience, as it has to date been about the person, so i hope it is taken it in the spirit of constructive criticism in which it is meant.

Chloe Pink

Macha wrote: »

In the thread on carbon taxes, you continued to use Sweden's energy mix for electricity as an argument that Sweden as a low carbon economy, despite me pointing out a few times that the more appropriate statistic was the energy mix for all of Sweden's primary energy use, ie including transport and heating/cooling.
So you ignored evidence put before you.

Lets see shall we:
Here's me in post 31 at this link:
"Ah, thank you, Macha, I've found the Swedish Energy Agency's most recent report.
The point of note is that they do have a 'low carbon' economy.
Swedish electricity production is dominated by hydro (49%) and nuclear (37%) power production. This accounts for roughly a third of their energy use.
Much of their heating is from electricity and district heating.
And diesel plays a big part in their transport.
So I think they have a distinct advantage over SI and the UK when it comes to paying a carbon tax"

So I've thanked you, I've included transport and heating and acknowledged that electricty is only a third of the total mix.

But no you still persist:
Post 31 again:
You
"I have already given you the overall figures, which are the most relevant ones. You can hype up nuclear and hydro as percentages of electricity all you want. The figures that I referenced, which refer to total primary energy are the most important and show that hydro and nuclear combined make up less than 40% of energy used in the Swedish economy."

So me again:
"I think nearly 40% is a lot; it's more than a third.
Do you think Sweden has a low carbon economy?"

You failed to answer this question and went on again:
You
"I am talking about all energy inputs required to fuel the Swedish economy. You are focusing on electricity. There is a massive difference."

I kind of gave up the will to live here having acknowledged that electrcity accounted for only about a third of the energy mix; the fact that 86% of this third was from hydro and nuclear and that this made a significant contribution to Sweden's low carbon economy seemed to fall on deaf ears.

Macha wrote: »

No, but you haven't reported other posts on behalf of another posters - why this one? And again, you reported on the false assumption that djpbarry had banned the user in question. From where I'm sitting, it seemed like you were looking for reasons to complain about djpbarry.

Maybe because I just happened to look at the site again and I see the same ridiculous moderation going on.

Where's my false assumption? Here's my PM response to you:
"Hi Macha,
Thank you for your response.
I reported the post in line with bonkey's comment "I don't agree in general with the practice that a moderator issue a warning (or ban) to someone when both parties are active participants in the discussion. It is something I would urge all moderators to be considerate of. Unless its something that really needs speedy action, its better all round to ask a fellow mod to look at it, to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest."
I don't know if djpbarry issued a warning to easychair or not, but if he has, the above is worthy of note.
CP"

If people complain about djpbarry, perhaps there's a reason.

samsham

You've already been asked once to better formulate your posts/arguments - consider this an official warning: If you have nothing of value to contribute, then don't post.



That's hardly a nice way to talk to people, a few manners would not go astray.

Scofflaw

I also happen to think that "green" issues are not unchallengable. Ther is much which pretends to be green which is sham and needs rigorous challege, and if you are suggesting that anything should be not allowed to be challenged because it calls itself "green" is obviously ridiculous, so i am sure I have misunderstood.

Or, in brief, you do want to be able to use the SEI forum to "challenge" some or all of the science on which the current importance of sustainability and environmental issues is largely based.

I don't think that's in any sense useful. If you want to challenge the science, do it in the Science forums - otherwise you would be doing exactly what I pointed out earlier, which is to say, you want licence to do the equivalent of going into tLL and saying that there's no validity to a female-specific viewpoint, or into a rail forum to claim that rail is old hat and should just be dismantled. How is that not trolling? Because you're sincere in your opposition? In my book, that just makes it soap-boxing.

SEI is as it is, and is what it is - a forum for discussing issues that are important precisely because of the scientific consensus that there is a serious environmental issue to be addressed in climate change. You, and the rest of a very vocal minority, don't agree that there's an issue, and you want to be able to say that whenever such issues are being discussed. So? Why should you get to have the existing forum dedicated to your views? And the answer is that you likely want that because that's where your 'target market' is of people who you feel need to be 'enlightened' - you're not actually interested in discussing the science, you want to propagandise on behalf of your point of view.

As a CMod, I see plenty of demands from soapboxers to be allowed unfettered access to their target markets in various forums. Nearly all of them use the same arguments - "people are voting with their feet...it could be much livelier if you just let me...this is a serious issue not receiving attention...it's unfair and biased" and so on. I don't see any value in their requests, because they're fundamentally just asking to troll and disrupt with sincerity - and sincerity has got to be the most over-rated virtue in the whole lexicon.

You want to say that there's no scientific consensus, that the science is flawed? Go say it in Science, or lay out a good case why you should be able to do it in SEI.

regards,
Scofflaw

Overheal

SEI is as it is, and is what it is - a forum for discussing issues that are important precisely because of the scientific consensus that there is a serious environmental issue to be addressed in climate change.

This is not part of the Charter. It needs to be if thats how the forum wants to proceed. But Macha has launched the GW debate megathread so that may well alleviate the issue instead.

Chloe Pink

Overheal wrote: »

This is not part of the Charter. It needs to be if thats how the forum wants to proceed. But Macha has launched the GW debate megathread so that may well alleviate the issue instead.

You've beaten me to it (again I think); it's worse than that though because the charter actually says (at this link: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055899550 )

"Rules specific to this forum:
When starting a new thread, please use the relevant prefix:
"Advice" – general questions on anything from compost bins to renewable energy and everything in between
"News" - for discussion of a news story, such as an environmental disaster, for which use of one of the other prefixes is perhaps not suitable.
"Science" – when tech-speak is the order of the day, e.g. the science of climate change.
"Policy" – public policy, opinion and attitudes. The political implications of sustainability and environmental issues."

Something defintely needs to change

Scofflaw

Overheal wrote: »

This is not part of the Charter. It needs to be if thats how the forum wants to proceed.

I'd support that change, although to be fair the Politics charter doesn't say "don't bother posting your theory as to how the Rockefellers control the world through the Bilderberg Group", but we have a consistent mod line on such things.

Should it really be necessary to spell out that forums - bar the CT forum, obviously - are based in consensus reality? In the case of something like climate change I can see the value, because while the 'debate' is almost entirely manufactured by vested interests, the net has a lot of useful idiots for those interests. Still, the net has a lot of 9/11 truthers too, and that doesn't make that a respectable point of view.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Overheal wrote: »

This is not part of the Charter. It needs to be if thats how the forum wants to proceed. But Macha has launched the GW debate megathread so that may well alleviate the issue instead.

I'd say it still needs to be explicit in the Charter, though, if the idea is that the mega-thread is the only place in the forum where the consensus scientific view is not going to be the basis for discussion.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Macha

Chloe Pink wrote: »

Lets see shall we:
Here's me in post 31 at this link:
"Ah, thank you, Macha, I've found the Swedish Energy Agency's most recent report.
The point of note is that they do have a 'low carbon' economy.
Swedish electricity production is dominated by hydro (49%) and nuclear (37%) power production. This accounts for roughly a third of their energy use.
Much of their heating is from electricity and district heating.
And diesel plays a big part in their transport.
So I think they have a distinct advantage over SI and the UK when it comes to paying a carbon tax"

So I've thanked you, I've included transport and heating and acknowledged that electricty is only a third of the total mix.

The bottom line in this thread was that

But no you still persist:
Post 31 again:
You
"I have already given you the overall figures, which are the most relevant ones. You can hype up nuclear and hydro as percentages of electricity all you want. The figures that I referenced, which refer to total primary energy are the most important and show that hydro and nuclear combined make up less than 40% of energy used in the Swedish economy."

So me again:
"I think nearly 40% is a lot; it's more than a third.
Do you think Sweden has a low carbon economy?"

You failed to answer this question and went on again:
You
"I am talking about all energy inputs required to fuel the Swedish economy. You are focusing on electricity. There is a massive difference."

I kind of gave up the will to live here having acknowledged that electrcity accounted for only about a third of the energy mix; the fact that 86% of this third was from hydro and nuclear and that this made a significant contribution to Sweden's low carbon economy seemed to fall on deaf ears.

You don't want to acknowledge any wrongdoing on your part and will debate and debate ad nauseum. I have accepted criticism in this thread as a moderator but you don't seem willing to accept any. In fact, the above is a fantastic example of selective quoting and a misrepresentation of the thread. Also you conveniently left out your repeated assertions of Ireland's extraordinarily high energy prices, despite being given references that proved otherwise. And I don't appreciate the accusatory and negative language of me "failing" to answer you. The point is, you're guilty of what you accused djpbarry of and hypocrisy is never nice.

Chloe Pink wrote: »

Maybe because I just happened to look at the site again and I see the same ridiculous moderation going on.

Where's my false assumption? Here's my PM response to you:
"Hi Macha,
Thank you for your response.
I reported the post in line with bonkey's comment "I don't agree in general with the practice that a moderator issue a warning (or ban) to someone when both parties are active participants in the discussion. It is something I would urge all moderators to be considerate of. Unless its something that really needs speedy action, its better all round to ask a fellow mod to look at it, to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest."
I don't know if djpbarry issued a warning to easychair or not, but if he has, the above is worthy of note.
CP"

Yes, thank you for confirming that you reported a post about djpbarry based on a false assumption that he had issued a warning or ban to easychair.

At this stage, it seemed to me you were just waiting to trip him up. You didn't know if easychair had been issued with a warning but you sure weren't going to let the opportunity of getting a dig at djpbarry slip by.

djpbarry

Just letting everyone know that the charter has now been updated.

Scofflaw

You've beaten me to it (again I think); it's worse than that though because the charter actually says (at this link: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showt...p?t=2055899550 )

"Science" – when tech-speak is the order of the day, e.g. the science of climate change.

Um, yes, but there's a lot of science to discuss in climate change, because, as has now been noted several times, the details are not part of the general scientific consensus. There's a lot more to discussing the science of climate change than the "yes it is....no it isn't" debates about whether the consensus is generally correct - although you wouldn't often see that, because nearly any attempt to discuss the details of the science is immediately interrupted out by people claiming the science is just totally wrong.

cordially,
Scofflaw

djpbarry

Chloe Pink wrote: »

As far as I'm concerned these links, especially when viewed in the context of the threads in which they appear, simply demonstrate your absurd moderation and inability or reluctance to follow the thrust of the discussion because you don't like where it's going.

Or do they demonstrate that you are unable or reluctant to accept criticism of the means in which you engage in discussion?

Chloe Pink wrote: »

And going back to the OP of this thread, this thread is about you, not me.

Actually, it’s about the forum in general.

Chloe Pink wrote: »

You've had plenty of opportunity to tell posters what you think of them when you've moderated them.

I haven’t told anyone what I’ve thought of them. I’ve told a few people, you included, what I think if their posting style and the manner in which they engage in debate.

Chloe Pink wrote: »

This is an opportunity for us to give you feedback and there's plenty for you to working on, not just from me but from quite a few posters and other moderators...

At this stage, we’ve taken on board those suggestions that have merit and implemented the necessary changes. We’re still waiting for you and easychair to substantiate your claims.

Chloe Pink wrote: »

...so why not, as already suggested, stop being defensive, sit back, take in all this lovely feedback and become a better moderator.

I see. So I’m obliged to do everything you suggest, but you are above criticism? That’s convenient. Feedback is a two-way street you know.

Chloe Pink wrote: »

Typical djpbarry tactics - lets try and deflect from the point in discussion because it's easier than facing it.

Do hypocrisy much?

Chloe Pink

Macha wrote: »

In fact, the above is a fantastic example of selective quoting and a misrepresentation of the thread.

It unfolds pretty much as the thread did I believe.

Macha wrote: »

And I don't appreciate the accusatory and negative language of me "failing" to answer you.

Did or didn't you answer the question as to whether you thought Sweden had a low carbon economy...

Macha wrote: »

Yes, thank you for confirming that you reported a post about djpbarry based on a false assumption that he had issued a warning or ban to easychair.

Now if I'd made the assumption that easychair was banned, why on earth would I be saying I didn't know whether or not he'd been issued with a warning; I'd be saying 'as he's received a warning, the above is of note' wouldn't I...

Macha wrote: »

At this stage, it seemed to me you were just waiting to trip him up. You didn't know if easychair had been issued with a warning but you sure weren't going to let the opportunity of getting a dig at djpbarry slip by.

Well that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. IMO djpbarry is quite capable of tripping himself up.

Anyway back to the OP which is about moderation.

Macha

Chloe Pink wrote: »

It unfolds pretty much as the thread did I believe.

No it didn't. You've quoted selectively and left out parts that don't suit. I'll leave to anyone who wants to read through the thread to make up their own mind.

Chloe Pink wrote: »

Did or didn't you answer the question as to whether you thought Sweden had a low carbon economy...

Is it a "failure" if I didn't? I considered it a tangent to the thread and would have needed a whole new thread on the definition of a low carbon economy. Coincidentally, when I asked you to define a coherent energy policy, you avoided the question. Do I consider you to have "failed"? No, that's just the way the debate went.

Chloe Pink wrote: »

Well that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. IMO djpbarry is quite capable of tripping himself up.

Indeed I am. I didn't think you approved of personal comments about other posters.

Chloe Pink wrote: »

Anyway back to the OP which is about moderation.

You like trying to close down an argument like this, yet are happy to pursue tangents when it suits. It isn't nice.

overheal, I don't have much more to contribute to this thread but I've changed use of bold to <mod> tags, will be more lenient in future with warnings/bannings and not post them as much in-thread. We've started the climate change megathread. I'll wait to see what else is decided.

Chloe Pink

djpbarry wrote: »

Or do they demonstrate that you are unable or reluctant to accept criticism of the means in which you engage in discussion?

Far from it, I've tried to be a "good" poster but seem to be failing on the S&EI forum. This is not an experience I've had on any other forum, in fact on other forums, I've oftened been thanked for my input and information sources.

djpbarry wrote: »

Actually, it’s about the forum in general.

The OP is about the moderation but granted some issues re the forum itself have arisen

djpbarry wrote: »

I haven’t told anyone what I’ve thought of them. I’ve told a few people, you included, what I think if their posting style and the manner in which they engage in debate.

My apologies, I could and should have worded it better e.g. you've had plenty of chance to tell people what you think of their posting style and this is an opportunity for folks to tell you what they think of your moderation style.

djpbarry wrote: »

We’re still waiting for you and easychair to substantiate your claims.

Why only me and easychair, we're not the only people to have raised issue with the moderation, you'd be better looking to yourself on this one.

djpbarry wrote: »

I see. So I’m obliged to do everything you suggest, but you are above criticism?

Certainly not on both counts but as just said, you've had plenty of chance to give us feedback on our posting and debating style and this is outr chance to give you feedback on your moderating style.

djpbarry wrote: »

Do hypocrisy much?

Probably only as much as the next man

Chloe Pink

Macha wrote: »

No it didn't. You've quoted selectively and left out parts that don't suit. I'll leave to anyone who wants to read through the thread to make up their own mind.

Suits me

Macha wrote: »

Is it a "failure" if I didn't? I considered it a tangent to the thread and would have needed a whole new thread on the definition of a low carbon economy.

Well not necessarily but as it was exactly the point I was making, it was a little frustrating. I believe Seden id recognised as having a low carbon ecenomy.

Macha wrote: »

Coincidentally, when I asked you to define a coherent energy policy, you avoided the question.

But I did answer you on that one.

Macha wrote: »

I didn't think you approved of personal comments about other posters.

I don't but eh sometimes stuff happens

Macha wrote: »

You like trying to close down an argument like this, yet are happy to pursue tangents when it suits. It isn't nice.

I'm only trying to keep us in line with the OP. It isn't nice issuing rude comments, warnings and bans to try to close down an argument either (aimed at the forum not you).

djpbarry

Chloe Pink wrote: »

Far from it, I've tried to be a "good" poster but seem to be failing on the S&EI forum. This is not an experience I've had on any other forum, in fact on other forums, I've oftened been thanked for my input and information sources.

You’ve not posted on any other forum?

Chloe Pink

djpbarry wrote: »

You’ve not posted on any other forum?

There are forums outside of boards.ie