Remember me
▼ Content

Another better way to post on Climate-debate.com



Page 2 of 2<12
14-06-2024 00:25
sealover
★★★★☆
(1713)
Tim the plumber wrote:
sealover wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
sealover wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
sealover wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
sealover wrote:
branner wrote:
Thanks, trafn, for your thoughts and effort to push Climate-Debate.com in a more constructive direction. Also thanks to all other users who will refrain from making personal attacks.

As you have probably found out, I simply don't have the time to participate in the many threads myself at the moment. As the forum matures, I think it would be great to find some moderators among the regular contributors, but it can be difficult to find someone neutral that everyone trusts, as the debate tends to get very polarized...

Also, I need to write some guidelines, and an "About Climate-Debate.com" page soon, which I think will help giving a more "established" impression to new visitors coming by.

I think it's just a matter of time, before the number of regular contributors will grow. Just keep posting great relevant content, and more and more visitors will discover the site (from Google or from some of you telling others directly about the site!).



Branner Jeppe, I have a request to make of you.

Could you please revive the moderated sub forum?

I would love to moderate a sub forum.

It could even be just ten of the threads I already started two years ago.

During those 26 months since I first posted, 128 new people joined as members of climate-debate.com

ONE of them continues to post.

I believe that if I moderate a sub forum, it could improve the new member retention in the future.

I would keep it on topic for global change science.

I would delete the most offensive posts, perhaps before the new member even knows that anyone called him a lying Marxist.

New members might stick around a little longer if they are not immediately met with hostile confrontation. ("You won't be here long" kind of thing)

This is more than a simple request.

Branner, I BEG you to let me moderate a sub forum.


I am reminded of the insults you have hurled at me. I have not insulted you just shown why your ideas are drivel.

Your idea the the wrold is headed for a Venus style over heating is drivel. You are doing great damage to humanity by proporgating this propaganda.


Debate is a harsh thing.

You will have your ideas achallenged.

Your religion will be dismantled and if there is no science to support it you wil have that explained to you.

That's the idea.

That's what it's for.



NOW I know what the "dox" reference is about.

IBdaMann posted a Google map to what he apparently believed was your home.

The FIRST time he doxed ME, he did the same. He also posted a lot of personal information about my family members, and Branner removed those posts.

More recently, he posted a Google map to someone ELSE'S home, claiming it to be where I live.

Gotta love that IBdaMann! This website would be DEAD without him.

I would be in favor of banning him.



I do not think that the quality of discussion would be diminished at all if he were to be banned.

He has made it his mission to drive new members away for more than nine years.

I hope to have a sub forum that is insulated from his ugliness. And doxing.

To what degree would you allow such things as hate speech?



Good question.

Hate speech would be a very odd way to discuss the science related to global change.

Being so far off topic, alone, would be a reason to delete it.

In general, the standard would be common decency.

Calling someone a scientifically illiterate moron is not only off topic, it displays no common decency.

What I, personally, would be posting is science related to global change.

I will use the same language that scientists use, and I will make reference to peer-reviewed scientific research, including my own.

I don't think that I need to provide a list of terms that would be considered "hate speech" or even just trolling. If it is too far off topic, it gets deleted.

Insults are off topic. Calling someone a liar is off topic. Telling someone that they don't even know what science is is off topic. Accusations of Marxist affiliation is off topic. Mockery is off topic.

What I hope will happen is that before long, the discussion will be joined by others with a genuine interest in the science related to global change.

Especially given that applied biogeochemistry is such an important part of the solution, whether regarding carbon sequestration in terrestrial ecosystems or restoration of alkalinity in the ocean.

I am a PhD biogeochemist with widely cited peer-reviewed scientific publications that are directly relevant to emission or sequestration of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide.

I have doctorate from UC Davis, master's from UC Berkeley, and a bachelor's from UC Santa Cruz.

No, sorry mate.

You may well be a nice and respectable type.

But Ibtheidiot needs to be told he is an unscientific prat.

Hate speech is a vital part of necessary dialog.

The needs to be the option for insults, if you can justify them, including, if you can justify it, calling somebody a liar.

Rough and tumble rules apply mosty..... doxing is out.



Well, you certainly have the whole website, until a sub forum is established as the one exception, for all the rough and tumble insult fest you need.

I was impressed to see where IBdaMann posted the Google map to dox you, because I wasn't sure how much of a history he had doing such things.

Was it coincidence of timing that you decided to leave after being doxed by IBdaMann, or am I getting it all wrong?

At least we can agree that IBdaMann and his doxing are effed up things to have on this website.
14-06-2024 00:52
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14728)
Tim the plumber wrote:Rough and tumble rules apply mosty..... doxing is out. [/color]

It's interesting that people who dox themselves, e.g. Robert Northup and yourself, go to absurd lengths to blame others. If you didn't want personal information about you known, why did you post it on the internet?

You doxed yourself and then blamed me. That is rather dishonest of you.

So, you would ban me because you doxxed yourself? Interesting. I, on the other hand, wouldn't ban either you or me no matter how many times you doxxed yourself, or how many times Robert Northup doxxed himself.

But it's good to have you back. I was wondering how long it would take for you to thrill us with your acumen. I'm hoping Robert Northup gets his own site to censor so you can join him and be censored while I laugh at you for walking right into it. Robert is an irrational, scientifically illiterate Global Warming undead who resorts to hissy-fits whereby he spams the board. He does nothing but whine and snivel and pout ... and you're about to get it with both barrels.

It will be glorious for us onlookers.
14-06-2024 00:59
sealover
★★★★☆
(1713)
branner wrote:
Thanks, trafn, for your thoughts and effort to push Climate-Debate.com in a more constructive direction. Also thanks to all other users who will refrain from making personal attacks.

As you have probably found out, I simply don't have the time to participate in the many threads myself at the moment. As the forum matures, I think it would be great to find some moderators among the regular contributors, but it can be difficult to find someone neutral that everyone trusts, as the debate tends to get very polarized...

Also, I need to write some guidelines, and an "About Climate-Debate.com" page soon, which I think will help giving a more "established" impression to new visitors coming by.

I think it's just a matter of time, before the number of regular contributors will grow. Just keep posting great relevant content, and more and more visitors will discover the site (from Google or from some of you telling others directly about the site!).


Branner Jeppe, I have a request to make of you.

Could you please revive the moderated sub forum?

I would love to moderate a sub forum.

It could even be just ten of the threads I already started two years ago.

During those 26 months since I first posted, 128 new people joined as members of climate-debate.com

ONE of them continues to post.

I believe that if I moderate a sub forum, it could improve the new member retention in the future.

I would keep it on topic for global change science.

I would delete the most offensive posts, perhaps before the new member even knows that anyone called him a lying Marxist.

New members might stick around a little longer if they are not immediately met with hostile confrontation. ("You won't be here long" kind of thing)

This is more than a simple request.

Branner, I BEG you to let me moderate a sub forum.


Tim the Plumber asked:
To what degree would you allow such things as hate speech?


Good question.

Hate speech would be a very odd way to discuss the science related to global change.

Being so far off topic, alone, would be a reason to delete it.

In general, the standard would be common decency.

Calling someone a scientifically illiterate moron is not only off topic, it displays no common decency.

What I, personally, would be posting is science related to global change.

I will use the same language that other scientists use, and I will make reference to peer-reviewed, published scientific research, including my own.

I don't think that I need to provide a list of terms that would be considered "hate speech" or even just trolling. If it is too far off topic, it gets deleted.

Insults are off topic. Calling someone a liar is off topic. Telling someone that they don't even know what science is is off topic. Accusations of Marxist affiliation is off topic. Mockery is off topic.

What I hope will happen is that before long, the discussion will be joined by others with a genuine interest in the science related to global change.

Especially given that applied biogeochemistry is such an important part of the solution, whether regarding carbon sequestration in terrestrial ecosystems or restoration of alkalinity in the ocean.

I am a PhD biogeochemist with widely cited peer-reviewed scientific publications that are directly relevant to emission or sequestration of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide.

I have doctorate from UC Davis, master's from UC Berkeley, and a bachelor's from UC Santa Cruz.
14-06-2024 01:32
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22251)
sealover wrote:
Hate speech would be a very odd way to discuss the science related to global change.

There is no 'science of global change'.
sealover wrote:
Being so far off topic, alone, would be a reason to delete it.

In general, the standard would be common decency.

Stop whining.
sealover wrote:
Calling someone a scientifically illiterate moron is not only off topic, it displays no common decency.

You are describing yourself.
sealover wrote:
What I, personally, would be posting is science related to global change.

There is no 'science of global change'.
sealover wrote:
I will use the same language that scientists use,

Your buzzwords are meaningless.
sealover wrote:
and I will make reference to peer-reviewed scientific research, including my own.

Science does not use consensus. There is no voting bloc in science. Science isn't a research or study.
sealover wrote:
I don't think that I need to provide a list of terms that would be considered "hate speech" or even just trolling. If it is too far off topic, it gets deleted.

Insults are off topic. Calling someone a liar is off topic. Telling someone that they don't even know what science is is off topic. Accusations of Marxist affiliation is off topic. Mockery is off topic.

You are describing yourself again.
sealover wrote:
What I hope will happen is that before long, the discussion will be joined by others with a genuine interest in the science related to global change.

There is no 'science of global change'.
sealover wrote:
Especially given that applied biogeochemistry is such an important part of the solution, whether regarding carbon sequestration in terrestrial ecosystems or restoration of alkalinity in the ocean.

There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry' (except as a religious artifact). There is no 'solution', as there is no 'problem'.
Carbon is not carbon dioxide.
Ocean water is already alkaline. There is no need to 'restore it'.
sealover wrote:
I am a PhD biogeochemist

No such thing, except from quack universities. This is a religious title.
sealover wrote:
with widely cited peer-reviewed scientific publications

Science does not use consensus. There is no voting bloc in science. Science is not a publication, paper, magazine, journal, website, article, title, degree, license, university, college, government agency, academy, society, or community.
sealover wrote:
that are directly relevant to emission or sequestration of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide.

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You are still ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics. You cannot create energy out of nothing.
sealover wrote:
I have doctorate from UC Davis, master's from UC Berkeley, and a bachelor's from UC Santa Cruz.

So you studied religion at quack schools that try to label this 'sCiEnCe'. Meh.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
14-06-2024 17:56
sealover
★★★★☆
(1713)
branner wrote:
Thanks, trafn, for your thoughts and effort to push Climate-Debate.com in a more constructive direction. Also thanks to all other users who will refrain from making personal attacks.

As you have probably found out, I simply don't have the time to participate in the many threads myself at the moment. As the forum matures, I think it would be great to find some moderators among the regular contributors, but it can be difficult to find someone neutral that everyone trusts, as the debate tends to get very polarized...

Also, I need to write some guidelines, and an "About Climate-Debate.com" page soon, which I think will help giving a more "established" impression to new visitors coming by.

I think it's just a matter of time, before the number of regular contributors will grow. Just keep posting great relevant content, and more and more visitors will discover the site (from Google or from some of you telling others directly about the site!).



Branner Jeppe, I have a request to make of you.

Could you please revive the moderated sub forum?

I would love to moderate a sub forum.

It could even be just ten of the threads I already started two years ago.

During those 26 months since I first posted, 128 new people joined as members of climate-debate.com

ONE of them continues to post.

I believe that if I moderate a sub forum, it could improve the new member retention in the future.

I would keep it on topic for global change science.

I would delete the most offensive posts, perhaps before the new member even knows that anyone called him a lying Marxist.

New members might stick around a little longer if they are not immediately met with hostile confrontation. ("You won't be here long" kind of thing)

This is more than a simple request.

Branner, I BEG you to let me moderate a sub forum.


follow up:

Branner, if you see the posts above this one, you will see that Tim the Plumber rejoined the discussion yesterday.

He was DOXED a couple of years ago, and he then stopped posting. (Another victory!) You can see it in the discussion forum, under "Other", on the thread "Put your money where your mouth is".

One reason I believe that a moderated sub forum would be a good thing is to have a place where any post that DOXES a member will get removed without a long, slow process of trying to contact the administrator, and hope to eventually get a response.

A place where participants will know that personal attack posts get deleted immediately.

It wouldn't be as much fun for those who love a rough and tumble insult fest.

But there are only half a dozen members who would have reason to feel left out.

And more than 1700 OTHER members, and potential NEW members, who might want to stay on topic to discuss climate change in a manner that rational adults discuss things.

As for the half dozen who believe that free speech rights include trolling, spamming, and doxing... There are HUNDREDS of other threads available.

Or they could start a new thread of their own at any time, to attract members back to discussion in one of the unmoderated forums

I think that the biggest reason trafn's attempt failed was that he had only been here a few weeks before making it.

It takes more than a few weeks to unravel all the word games and manipulative provocations.

And recognize that some forms of mental illness don't allow rational discussion.
15-06-2024 19:06
sealover
★★★★☆
(1713)
markjfernandez, I hope you are here today.

Once before, a moderated sub forum was created.

The person who Branner gave it to had only been posting a few weeks before beginning the assignment, and very quickly gave up.

I have more than a few weeks experience here, and I don't I would have the same problem.

I think that it wouldn't take long to dramatically increase interest and participation in the website if there were such a sub forum.

For example, my own friends and colleagues who took one look at the place and recoiled in revulsion two years ago.

I could invite them to a safe space within the rabbit hole.

You, and any other rational adult who wants to stay on topic for discussion of global change and related science would have all troll attack posts toward you immediately deleted.


branner wrote:
Thanks, trafn, for your thoughts and effort to push Climate-Debate.com in a more constructive direction. Also thanks to all other users who will refrain from making personal attacks.

As you have probably found out, I simply don't have the time to participate in the many threads myself at the moment. As the forum matures, I think it would be great to find some moderators among the regular contributors, but it can be difficult to find someone neutral that everyone trusts, as the debate tends to get very polarized...

Also, I need to write some guidelines, and an "About Climate-Debate.com" page soon, which I think will help giving a more "established" impression to new visitors coming by.

I think it's just a matter of time, before the number of regular contributors will grow. Just keep posting great relevant content, and more and more visitors will discover the site (from Google or from some of you telling others directly about the site!).



Branner Jeppe, I have a request to make of you.

Could you please revive the moderated sub forum?

I would love to moderate a sub forum.

It could even be just ten of the threads I already started two years ago.

During those 26 months since I first posted, 128 new people joined as members of climate-debate.com

ONE of them continues to post.

I believe that if I moderate a sub forum, it could improve the new member retention in the future.

I would keep it on topic for global change science.

I would delete the most offensive posts, perhaps before the new member even knows that anyone called him a lying Marxist.

New members might stick around a little longer if they are not immediately met with hostile confrontation. ("You won't be here long" kind of thing)

This is more than a simple request.

Branner, I BEG you to let me moderate a sub forum.


follow up:

Branner, if you see the posts above this one, you will see that Tim the Plumber rejoined the discussion yesterday.

He was DOXED a couple of years ago, and he then stopped posting. (Another victory!) You can see it in the discussion forum, under "Other", on the thread "Put your money where your mouth is".

One reason I believe that a moderated sub forum would be a good thing is to have a place where any post that DOXES a member will get removed without a long, slow process of trying to contact the administrator, and hope to eventually get a response.

A place where participants will know that personal attack posts get deleted immediately.

It wouldn't be as much fun for those who love a rough and tumble insult fest.

But there are only half a dozen members who would have reason to feel left out.

And more than 1700 OTHER members, and potential NEW members, who might want to stay on topic to discuss climate change in a manner that rational adults discuss things.

As for the half dozen who believe that free speech rights include trolling, spamming, and doxing... There are HUNDREDS of other threads available.

Or they could start a new thread of their own at any time, to attract members back to discussion in one of the unmoderated forums

I think that the biggest reason trafn's attempt failed was that he had only been here a few weeks before making it.

It takes more than a few weeks to unravel all the word games and manipulative provocations.

And recognize that some forms of mental illness don't allow rational discussion.
16-06-2024 02:16
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14728)
sealover wrote: I think that it wouldn't take long to dramatically increase interest and participation in the website if there were such a sub forum.

I hope you are correct and I wish you godspeed in getting your censorship-zone. Nonetheless, I know that you haven't thought this through. You have taken no notice that the previous censored kids' table did not generate any additional interest and have not considered how to address the root problem. In fact, you don't even know what the root problem is.

There's no time like the present for you to learn the extent of the mistake you're making. @Branner, please give Robert a subforum to censor.

sealover wrote: For example, my own friends and colleagues who took one look at the place and recoiled in revulsion two years ago.

I think it's a little too much to ask rational adults to believe that you have friends and colleagues.

sealover wrote: I could invite them to a safe space within the rabbit hole.

You haven't thought this through. Anyone you invite would quickly abandon the site for one of two reasons:
1. You begin censoring him
2. He becomes exceedingly bored because he's already a member of your thought-collective.

sealover wrote:You, and any other rational adult who wants to stay on topic for discussion of global change and related science would have all troll attack posts toward you immediately deleted.

You obviously haven't thought this through. You are clearly operating under the mistaken impression that the people who post on Climate-Debate are going to somehow flock to your censorship. What will happen is that the people who post on this site will create threads to discuss your censorship forum and what's going on with it, and the commentary won't likely be complimentary.


sealover wrote: Branner Jeppe, I have a request to make of you.
Could you please revive the moderated sub forum?

After insulting Branner every chance you could, you now are begging for privileges. Too funny!

sealover wrote: I would love to moderate a sub forum.

Good luck. I hope you get it.

sealover wrote: I would keep it on topic for global change science.

A scientist would know that there is no science of global change.

Your censorship platform is doomed from the start. Nonetheless, good luck.
16-06-2024 09:32
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22251)
IBdaMann wrote:
sealover wrote: I think that it wouldn't take long to dramatically increase interest and participation in the website if there were such a sub forum.

I hope you are correct and I wish you godspeed in getting your censorship-zone. Nonetheless, I know that you haven't thought this through. You have taken no notice that the previous censored kids' table did not generate any additional interest and have not considered how to address the root problem. In fact, you don't even know what the root problem is.

There's no time like the present for you to learn the extent of the mistake you're making. @Branner, please give Robert a subforum to censor.

sealover wrote: For example, my own friends and colleagues who took one look at the place and recoiled in revulsion two years ago.

I think it's a little too much to ask rational adults to believe that you have friends and colleagues.

sealover wrote: I could invite them to a safe space within the rabbit hole.

You haven't thought this through. Anyone you invite would quickly abandon the site for one of two reasons:
1. You begin censoring him
2. He becomes exceedingly bored because he's already a member of your thought-collective.

sealover wrote:You, and any other rational adult who wants to stay on topic for discussion of global change and related science would have all troll attack posts toward you immediately deleted.

You obviously haven't thought this through. You are clearly operating under the mistaken impression that the people who post on Climate-Debate are going to somehow flock to your censorship. What will happen is that the people who post on this site will create threads to discuss your censorship forum and what's going on with it, and the commentary won't likely be complimentary.


sealover wrote: Branner Jeppe, I have a request to make of you.
Could you please revive the moderated sub forum?

After insulting Branner every chance you could, you now are begging for privileges. Too funny!

sealover wrote: I would love to moderate a sub forum.

Good luck. I hope you get it.

sealover wrote: I would keep it on topic for global change science.

A scientist would know that there is no science of global change.

Your censorship platform is doomed from the start. Nonetheless, good luck.

Well said, and said from experience. This sub forum thing has been tried before and it resulted in exactly what you describe. Trafn couldn't cope with it after bugging Branner about creating one, and he went back to spamming. Branner eventually banned him because of the spamming.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
06-07-2024 18:53
sealover
★★★★☆
(1713)
branner wrote:
Thanks, trafn, for your thoughts and effort to push Climate-Debate.com in a more constructive direction. Also thanks to all other users who will refrain from making personal attacks.

As you have probably found out, I simply don't have the time to participate in the many threads myself at the moment. As the forum matures, I think it would be great to find some moderators among the regular contributors, but it can be difficult to find someone neutral that everyone trusts, as the debate tends to get very polarized...

Also, I need to write some guidelines, and an "About Climate-Debate.com" page soon, which I think will help giving a more "established" impression to new visitors coming by.

I think it's just a matter of time, before the number of regular contributors will grow. Just keep posting great relevant content, and more and more visitors will discover the site (from Google or from some of you telling others directly about the site!).


Branner Jeppe, I have a request to make of you.

Could you please revive the moderated sub forum?

I would love to moderate a sub forum.

It could even be just ten of the threads I already started two years ago.

During those 26 months since I first posted, 128 new people joined as members of climate-debate.com

ONE of them continues to post.

I believe that if I moderate a sub forum, it could improve the new member retention in the future.

I would keep it on topic for global change science.

I would delete the most offensive posts, perhaps before the new member even knows that anyone called him a lying Marxist.

New members might stick around a little longer if they are not immediately met with hostile confrontation. ("You won't be here long" kind of thing)

This is more than a simple request.

Branner, I BEG you to let me moderate a sub forum.


Tim the Plumber asked:
To what degree would you allow such things as hate speech?


Good question.

Hate speech would be a very odd way to discuss the science related to global change.

Being so far off topic, alone, would be a reason to delete it.

In general, the standard would be common decency.

Calling someone a scientifically illiterate moron is not only off topic, it displays no common decency.

What I, personally, would be posting is science related to global change.

I will use the same language that other scientists use, and I will make reference to peer-reviewed, published scientific research, including my own.

I don't think that I need to provide a list of terms that would be considered "hate speech" or even just trolling. If it is too far off topic, it gets deleted.

Insults are off topic. Calling someone a liar is off topic. Telling someone that they don't even know what science is is off topic. Accusations of Marxist affiliation is off topic. Mockery is off topic.

What I hope will happen is that before long, the discussion will be joined by others with a genuine interest in the science related to global change.

Especially given that applied biogeochemistry is such an important part of the solution, whether regarding carbon sequestration in terrestrial ecosystems or restoration of alkalinity in the ocean.

I am a PhD biogeochemist with widely cited peer-reviewed scientific publications that are directly relevant to emission or sequestration of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide.

I have doctorate from UC Davis, master's from UC Berkeley, and a bachelor's from UC Santa Cruz.
08-07-2024 02:31
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22251)
sealover wrote:
[quote]branner wrote:
Thanks, trafn, for your thoughts and effort to push Climate-Debate.com in a more constructive direction. Also thanks to all other users who will refrain from making personal attacks.

As you have probably found out, I simply don't have the time to participate in the many threads myself at the moment. As the forum matures, I think it would be great to find some moderators among the regular contributors, but it can be difficult to find someone neutral that everyone trusts, as the debate tends to get very polarized...

Also, I need to write some guidelines, and an "About Climate-Debate.com" page soon, which I think will help giving a more "established" impression to new visitors coming by.

I think it's just a matter of time, before the number of regular contributors will grow. Just keep posting great relevant content, and more and more visitors will discover the site (from Google or from some of you telling others directly about the site!).

...and it didn't work. Trafn eventually got banned, for the same reasons that you might be...your incessant spamming across threads.
sealover wrote:
Branner Jeppe, I have a request to make of you.

Could you please revive the moderated sub forum?

I would love to moderate a sub forum.

It could even be just ten of the threads I already started two years ago.

During those 26 months since I first posted, 128 new people joined as members of climate-debate.com

ONE of them continues to post.

I believe that if I moderate a sub forum, it could improve the new member retention in the future.

I would keep it on topic for global change science.

There isn't any.
sealover wrote:
I would delete the most offensive posts, perhaps before the new member even knows that anyone called him a lying Marxist.

New members might stick around a little longer if they are not immediately met with hostile confrontation. ("You won't be here long" kind of thing)

So your standard is to delete everything that isn't yourself. Borrrrinnnnnnnnnng!
sealover wrote:
This is more than a simple request.

Branner, I BEG you to let me moderate a sub forum.


Tim the Plumber asked:
To what degree would you allow such things as hate speech?


Good question.

Hate speech would be a very odd way to discuss the science related to global change.

Being so far off topic, alone, would be a reason to delete it.

In general, the standard would be common decency.

There is no 'science of global change'.
sealover wrote:
Calling someone a scientifically illiterate moron is not only off topic, it displays no common decency.

It was on topic, moron.
sealover wrote:
What I, personally, would be posting is science related to global change.

No such thing.
sealover wrote:
I will use the same language that other scientists use,

Science is not buzzwords.
sealover wrote:
and I will make reference to peer-reviewed, published scientific research, including my own.

Science does not use consensus. There is no voting bloc in science. Science is not a research or study. Quoting yourself is only uselessly flapping your own ego and is spamming.
sealover wrote:
I don't think that I need to provide a list of terms that would be considered "hate speech" or even just trolling. If it is too far off topic, it gets deleted.

So you would delete yourself. Gotit.
sealover wrote:
Insults are off topic. Calling someone a liar is off topic. Telling someone that they don't even know what science is is off topic. Accusations of Marxist affiliation is off topic. Mockery is off topic.

So you would delete yourself. Gotit.
sealover wrote:
What I hope will happen is that before long, the discussion will be joined by others with a genuine interest in the science related to global change.

There isn't any.
sealover wrote:
Especially given that applied biogeochemistry is such an important part of the solution,

A buzzword is not a solution.
sealover wrote:
whether regarding carbon sequestration in terrestrial ecosystems or restoration of alkalinity in the ocean.

The oceans are already alkaline. There is nothing to restore.
sealover wrote:
I am a PhD biogeochemist

No such thing.
sealover wrote:
with widely cited peer-reviewed scientific publications

Science does not use consensus. There is no voting bloc in science. Science is not a paper, book, magazine, journal or website. It is not a research or study.
sealover wrote:
that are directly relevant to emission or sequestration of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide.

You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are still ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics.
sealover wrote:
I have doctorate from UC Davis, master's from UC Berkeley, and a bachelor's from UC Santa Cruz.

A doctorate in religion? Meh.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
08-07-2024 03:09
keepit
★★★★★
(3330)
itn,
Who do you think you're kidding? You spam more than many posters.
08-07-2024 06:57
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14728)
keepit wrote: itn, Who do you think you're kidding? You spam more than many posters.

You have no credibility, keepit. Too many false statements.
08-07-2024 17:05
keepit
★★★★★
(3330)
ibd,
Name one or maybe a few.
08-07-2024 18:49
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22251)
keepit wrote:
ibd,
Name one or maybe a few.

RQAA. Denying your own posts won't work, keepit.
Denying IBDaMann's posts won't work either.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
08-07-2024 18:50
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22251)
keepit wrote:
itn,
Who do you think you're kidding? You spam more than many posters.

LIF. Grow up.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
15-07-2024 16:58
sealover
★★★★☆
(1713)
Once before, a moderated sub forum was created in this website.

Trafn, the member who Branner gave it to, had only been posting a few weeks before beginning the assignment.

Trafn very quickly gave up.

I have more than a few weeks experience here, and I don't believe I would have the same problem.

I think that it wouldn't take long to dramatically increase interest and participation in the website, if there were such a sub forum available again.

For example, my own friends and colleagues who took one look at climate-debate.com and recoiled in revulsion, two years ago.


I could invite them to a safe space within the rabbit hole.

Any rational adult who wants to stay on topic for discussion of global change and related science would know that vicious attack posts by trolls will be deleted very quickly from the moderated sub forum.

The post below is from October, 2015

branner wrote:
Thanks, trafn, for your thoughts and effort to push Climate-Debate.com in a more constructive direction. Also thanks to all other users who will refrain from making personal attacks.

As you have probably found out, I simply don't have the time to participate in the many threads myself at the moment. As the forum matures, I think it would be great to find some moderators among the regular contributors, but it can be difficult to find someone neutral that everyone trusts, as the debate tends to get very polarized...

Also, I need to write some guidelines, and an "About Climate-Debate.com" page soon, which I think will help giving a more "established" impression to new visitors coming by.

I think it's just a matter of time, before the number of regular contributors will grow. Just keep posting great relevant content, and more and more visitors will discover the site (from Google or from some of you telling others directly about the site!).


Back to 2024:

Branner Jeppe, I have a request to make of you.

Could you please revive the moderated sub forum?

I would love to moderate a sub forum.

It could even be just ten of the threads I already started two years ago.

During those 28 months since I first posted, 131 new people joined as members of climate-debate.com

NONE of them continue to post.

I believe that if I moderate a sub forum, it could improve the new member retention in the future.

I would keep it on topic for global change science.

I would delete the most offensive posts, perhaps before the new member even knows that anyone called him a scientifically illiterate moron liar and Marxist who came to preach for the Church of Global Warming.

New members might stick around a little longer if they are not immediately met with hostile confrontation. ("You won't be here long" kind of thing)

This is more than a simple request.

Branner, I BEG you to let me moderate a sub forum.


follow up:

Branner, if you see the posts above this one, you will see that Tim the Plumber rejoined the discussion.

Tim the Plumber was DOXED a couple of years ago by IBdaMann.,

You can see it in the discussion forum, under "Other", on the thread "Put your money where your mouth is".

IBdaMann posted a Google map to an address where he believed Tim the Plumber "lived or worked or both".

Similar to the one that Jeppe deleted two years ago, posted by IBdaMann with a Google map to MY home.


There are more such Google maps now posted by IBdaMann in an effort to... well he claims that this is how I dox MYSELF.

Perhaps Branner will eventually delete those as well.

One reason I believe that a moderated sub forum would be a good thing is to have a place where any post that DOXES a member will get removed without a long, slow process of trying to contact the administrator, and hope to eventually get a response.

A place where participants will know that personal attack posts get deleted immediately.

It wouldn't be as much fun for those who love a rough and tumble insult fest.

But there are only half a dozen members who would have reason to feel left out.

And more than 1700 OTHER members, and potential NEW members, who might want to stay on topic to discuss climate change in a manner that rational adults discuss things.

As for the half dozen who believe that free speech rights include trolling, spamming, and doxing... There are HUNDREDS of other threads available.

Or they could start a new thread of their own at any time, to attract members back to discussion in one of the unmoderated forums

I think that the biggest reason trafn's attempt failed was that he had only been here a few weeks before making it.

It takes more than a few weeks to unravel all the semantic word games and manipulative provocations.

And eventually recognize that some forms of mental illness simply do not allow for any rational discussion.
15-07-2024 19:09
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14728)
sealover wrote: Once before, a moderated sub forum was created in this website.

trafn didn't think it through.

sealover wrote: Trafn, the member who Branner gave it to, had only been posting a few weeks before beginning the assignment.

He had posted a bit longer than you imply, and he had boasted about providing 25% of the content on Climate-Debate.

sealover wrote: Trafn very quickly gave up.

Nope. trafn very quickly realized his error of not having thought it through. The mere existence of the uncensored rest of the site burned within him and consumed him, as it will consume you. He absolutely needed to censor the rest of the board as well, as will you. You will not be content to merely have your own censorship zone; you will need to censor all discussions on Climate-Debate.

trafn lost it and began spamming the board. You already spam the board so I can imagine just how bat-shit crazy you're going to be. Anyway, that is what got trafn banned.

sealover wrote: I have more than a few weeks experience here, and I don't believe I would have the same problem.

You have the same problem. You need to censor what others post. You are only here to preach your science-denial and you find the free flow of information to be insufferable. Heck, you're already half out of your mind; being given the taste of censorship power will drive you out of the other half as well.

sealover wrote: I think that it wouldn't take long to dramatically increase interest and participation in the website, if there were such a sub forum available again.

Ironically, this post of yours is spam. You've already posted it several times and now you are spamming the board again with it. How do you pretend to care about the interest and participation of a board that you are spamming?

sealover wrote: For example, my own friends and colleagues who took one look at climate-debate.com and recoiled in revulsion, two years ago.

This didn't happen.

[/quote] I could invite them to a safe space within the rabbit hole.[/quote]
Admittedly, it would be a good thing for you to usher others of your biogeocollective into a hermetically sealed buffer zone that resists changes in pH.

sealover wrote: Any rational adult who wants to stay on topic for discussion of global change and related science would know that vicious attack posts by trolls will be deleted very quickly from the moderated sub forum.

If you can keep it at that, it will certainly be value-added. I hope you get your C-Zone soon.
Page 2 of 2<12





Join the debate Another better way to post on Climate-debate.com:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Washington Post reports that a majority of covid deaths are happening to vaccinated people5304-12-2022 06:24
How Did TrueCompanion Create a New Thread/Post in a Closed Forum?326-08-2021 00:43
The Savior Will Post 2 Godlike Articles About How Become Millionaire And Ascension Topic Very Soon304-01-2021 10:29
Post-COVID syndrome010-12-2020 05:10
A Post On Quora Explaining What is Wrong With The 97% Consensus Studies208-03-2020 18:17
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact