How Do You Discourage A Crank?, Weapons against ignorance

This forum is being dominated by ignorant 'tards. Any suggestions on how to get rid of them?

My suggestion would be for rpenner to appoint some more mods who can ban those who are repeat offenders. Is there a way that we can get a more active police force? I nominate AlphaNumeric.

I don't have the patience that Rpenner does and I'm a lot shorter with cranks than a good mod should be.

My suggestion would be a reputation meter, sort of like the feedback function, but in which individual posts, not members are rated. Moderators will have to approve all post ratings, which can only speak to the intelligence or knowledge of the poster. That way, the people who continually make bad posts will end up with a very bad reputation, and it will be immediately apparent to all who makes bad posts, meanwhile, you won't have people like Edward 3 and Confused2 going around giving positive feedback to all the cranks.

I do believe that's the point of nominating you. You would ban someone like Cusa without a second thought, whereas rpenner waits until there's a solid case against him, made up of posts made since rpenner was mod. Farsight, 4Dguy, magpies and others would get banned for bad science content, rather than being allowed to post whatever they want without consequences, so long as they're not too aggressive with their crap.

This post has been edited by MjolnirPants on Jul 7 2009, 10:17 PM

Well... I am going to throw my voice in here and hope it's not badly taken.

1. I do not think that posters should be banned for being unpopular.

2. I do think a number of academically solid mods should be elected with the power to ban. I think there is too much work for Rpenner and I also agree that he is somewhat more lenient than I would personally prefer.

3. I think that posts should be considered not only on their science content (some people are not scientists but are good posters and good thinkers nonetheless), but on their intelligence and coherence. Whatever makes for a cogent and interesting dialog is fine by me.

4. People who troll, who make no effort to understand the subject they are posting on, or who are simply too deluded to see any other viewpoint than their own should be permanently banned.

5. There should be a separate section named "Crank Theories" where crank posts could be relegated. In this section, even completely ridiculous theories could be aired without mod interference ... with the understanding that to argue there is to argue with probable crackpots.


Don't get me wrong ... I have the greatest respect for Rpenner and I also agree that Alpha would make a good mod. However.... the question that needs to be asked is this...

What sort of forum is this?

Is it a general forum?
Is it a science forum?
Is it a science forum looking for legitimate scientific discussions only?

There are a lot of gray areas but a specific direction is always best.

I hope this has not offended anyone. It's only my opinion obviously.

This post has been edited by RobDegraves on Jul 7 2009, 11:52 PM

Myself (perhaps this is just me), i don't mind reading some of these crazy science-related theories, because they are mistakes i myself could have made. By reading what is not, it helps me understand further just what is.

There are exceptions, because i am not fond of re-reading the same debunked theory over and over again (as i do recall doing so with a certain bigbang - nuclear relation thread that pops up continuously...).


Then there are those who just abuse this forum, with NO scientific contribution whatsoever.


I wouldn't mind some more mods, or mjolnirpants suggested feedback system.

IMHO one of the the goals of all members of this forum must be to convince our host(s) that we deserve the server space and bandwidth which they so generously provide.

As a result of a few direct communications and many clues I conclude (perhaps incorrectly) that our host(s) sympathise with the intent to make physics as interesting and accessible (to all) as possible.

If someone knows slightly (or much) more physics than (say) 4Dguy and treats him like *** - the 'treating like ***' will far outweigh the 'more physics' .

.. I have simply run out of time. I will try to continue later.

-C2

I definitely agree. The problem lies with people like amrit, 4DGuy and magpies who have been around forever but still post a million stupid new topics. The lack of administration seems to encourage them to higher levels of idiocy.

Absolutely, i have noticed this. You are right, i chose not to name the names, but you nailed it head on! Atleast Cusa keeps his to one massive useless post

I suppose i should have worded myself a bit better. I don't mind reading incorrect theories, but the crank's just seem to take it too far. Especially the ones who insist their ignorant claims, without providing any proof, except for their "well prove me wrong" attitude. Only thing is, they were never right in the first place!

This post has been edited by Michael J on Jul 8 2009, 12:59 AM

When the mood strikes me and I see Philip347 post ...

I respond with excessive information about the glory of Nachos.

My hope is that it completely invalidates whatever crap he's spewing.

Was this in response to my suggestion? I'm not bothered, if it was. I suggested that the mods should approve the post feedback, and that the feedback must address the post's intelligence and accuracy specifically to ensure that it's not a popularity contest.

I tend to agree with your views on the matter. I was a moderator on another forum, and I continually fought for a special place for the cranks, as well as moderation of by a coherent set of rules. Unfortunately, the admin and one or two of the other mods were more apt to act according to their current moods than according to a coherent set of rules.

Although I generally tend to agree with much of what rpenner does here, I see him doing much the same as those on the afore-mentioned forum. Whomever is annoying him the most lately is the only one who seems to see any consequences to misbehaving, and while he tends to act pretty fairly in this regard, this results in most of the bad posters having their run of the place.

I actually agree with this. Unfortunately, it ignores the oft-stated fact that the very lack of moderation of poster integrity is the major motivating factor for those who treat the cranks like ѕhit.

I am not sure whether you stated what you intended to state :-

Are we in agreement that 'bullying' by an individual or group is a manifestation of 'lack of integrity'?

-C2

[/QUOTE]5. There should be a separate section named "Crank Theories" where crank posts could be relegated. In this section, even completely ridiculous theories could be aired without mod interference ... with the understanding that to argue there is to argue with probable crackpots.

[QUOTE]

I like this idea as suggested by RobDegraves and others

Let the cranks (I do not need say that I am a crank) have their own non-moderated section where they can speak for themselves - let them the chance to demonstrate their level of crankieness - and let them show to what extent they can arouse attention and discussion and arguing. There is relevance in having such a section till the opposite has been proven.

Perhaps such a section will show to be one of the more popular places - also for the mainstreamers.

How do you discourage a "crank"?

Hmmm... wait. Is this, like, a trick question?

Kind of like asking others how to bring to their senses those who believed the earth, heavens forbid, round 600 or so years ago?

"Well," one person might posit, "we could burn the witches."

"No! No! No," might come the passionate and very well-intended response...

"Death by drowning is so much more humane."

Best,
Raphie

P.S. Serious response forthcoming, but this admittedly sarcastic comment is far more to the point in meaningful manner IMHO.

This post has been edited by Raphie Frank on Jul 10 2009, 03:34 AM

No.


So tell me Raphie, who was the first 'crank' to sit around and say "What if the earth were round?"
I ask because apparently, you don't think that people like Aristotle (a lot more than 600 years ago!) actually gathered evidence to support this round earth theory, just like the cranks here don't gather any evidence to support their own claims.

Oh, and for the record? Widespread knowledge of the spherical shape of the earth goes waaaaaay back in history. 600 years ago, the people who thought the earth was round comprised pretty much every educated person alive in the western world.

First, MP, we'd have to define "crank," since one Age's "crank" is the latter Age genius, as we see so often and clearly in the Arts, and less so clearly in the Sciences.

Second, I'd like you to imagine a scenario of a young child by the water with his parents watching a ship go off in to the sunset... let's say, not 600, but 1000 years ago...

After a time the ship "sinks" below the horizon.

"Mommy, Daddy!" the young child cries. "Did you see that?!? The ship sank! This must mean the earth is round!"

"No, son," they reply, each in turn, using not these specific words, but words to the effect. "This is just an optical delusion you are having. And besides, there are other explanations. For instance, maybe the ship sank"

"Ah," says the child. "MY parents are so very wise!"

And then that same ship that "sank" comes back to port six months later.

How now to explain?

Perhaps it was simply that the light the child received (i.e what he or she saw) was "bent" in reception?

Bent? Oh, come on now... we are truly bordering on hysteria when such words may be taken seriously. If the world is not round then the light must have BENT (either in actuality or within the sphere of cognitive perception...)?

PLEASE...
:-)

Not to be taken too literally, MP. I am making a somewhat poetic point here...

Best,
Raphie

This post has been edited by Raphie Frank on Jul 10 2009, 04:32 AM