PowerSwitch going downhill - Stage 4/5 collapse?

[mikepepler]

I've also noticed the arguments, but I just don't bother reading those threads. It's a shame though, as many useful threads go way off topic in this way.

I agree with bandidoz that moderation is one way to solve it - we just clearly lay out the rules of the community and then enforce them. Of course, that assumes we can come to a set of rules we all agree on...

I like the idea of the "members bar", I assume whole threads aren't moved there, just the posts that are breaching the "pub test" rules?

[JohnB]

I like the idea of the "members bar", I assume whole threads aren't moved there, just the posts that are breaching the "pub test" rules?

If they're breaching the pub test, they shouldn't be in the bar. How about a "behind the dustbins out the back of the pub" forum?

[RenewableCandy]

"Pub car-park" forum...

Oi!! You callin' my bird a slut??

[Mean Mr Mustard]

I've decided to leave the bar, as the once pleasant atmosphere has changed markedly. And I should really be studying more and prepping than hanging around here anyway.

All the best to the old timers.

Mustard

[emordnilap]

There's an avalanche of spam appearing. Combine this with RGR nonsense and the forum's in a sorry state.

[Forever_Winter]

There's an avalanche of spam appearing. Combine this with RGR nonsense and the forum's in a sorry state.

I'm not sure what's worse - the constant inflitration by the Russobots or johnny / RGR's constant shilling? It could be worse though - if you go ver to peakoildotc0m, some of the comments after the news entries are pretty incredible; that is what moderation failure looks like!

[johnny]

There's an avalanche of spam appearing. Combine this with RGR nonsense and the forum's in a sorry state.

I'm not sure what's worse - the constant inflitration by the Russobots or johnny / RGR's constant shilling? It could be worse though - if you go ver to peakoildotc0m, some of the comments after the news entries are pretty incredible; that is what moderation failure looks like!

The comments after the news entries aren't moderated. You are correct that they are about as ridiculous as the internet can get.

[Ralphw2]

I have also needed to re register, as it no longer logs me in, or sends me a reset password email, but won’t let me register using my own email address.

[BritDownUnder]

I am not sure about downhill. You might say the whole of the UK is going downhill.

This site has been a great source of information and a good gauge of national mood.

People make comments based on their personal gain. It is had to make a man believe in something if it is in his financial interest not to believe it. And it helps to convince others to believe the same thing.

[Forever_Winter]

I have also needed to re register, as it no longer logs me in, or sends me a reset password email, but won’t let me register using my own email address.

I had a ton of trouble trying to reset my password, and only managed to when I realised that I needed to use my very first username (Forever_Winter). The two newer usetnames (automaticearth and automaticearth2) seem to have disappeared.

[johnny]

People make comments based on their personal gain.

Interesting. So how do scientists work? They get paid to science stuff. Does the getting paid to do science, and advocate/publish/discuss the resulting answer, mean that the answer should be automatically discounted because they were paid to sort it all out?

[Ralphw2]

Whist the majority (hopefully nearly all) scientists carry out science objectively and report results irrespective of their funding source, the topics of research that they follow , and the questions they try to find answers to, are effectively chosen by the body that provides the funding. Also, research which does not find 5he answers the funding body was hoping for, somehow finds it much harder to get widely published.

This has been found many times, in many high profile industries.

[BritDownUnder]

People make comments based on their personal gain.

Interesting. So how do scientists work? They get paid to science stuff. Does the getting paid to do science, and advocate/publish/discuss the resulting answer, mean that the answer should be automatically discounted because they were paid to sort it all out?

In my limited experience, scientists are always chasing those elusive research grants.

Or that guy who was the subject of the movie starring Russell Crowe about smoking.

[johnny]

Whist the majority (hopefully nearly all) scientists carry out science objectively and report results irrespective of their funding source, the topics of research that they follow , and the questions they try to find answers to, are effectively chosen by the body that provides the funding.

Are you speculating or do you have experience as a scientist ordered to answer questions by those providing your funding? The concept it is foreign to me.

Also, research which does not find 5he answers the funding body was hoping for, somehow finds it much harder to get widely published.

Again, personal experience or something you've heard somewhere or from someone? My "funding body" had already been in business across three centuries, nothing I ever published was "hard", I wasn't asked to deliver answers but to do the work honestly and provide it for the education of all who might be interested. Are you discussing what might be called "soft money" as a "funding body"? Academics looking beyond their salaries and expected to deliver an answer for a price, and thereby potentially compromised by a money motive?

This has been found many times, in many high profile industries.

Could you provide an example I can look up? I find it terrible that science could be so compromised for some, and yet so invisible to others. I presume it is a "follow the money" game depending on the organization doing the "science".

[johnny]

People make comments based on their personal gain.

Interesting. So how do scientists work? They get paid to science stuff. Does the getting paid to do science, and advocate/publish/discuss the resulting answer, mean that the answer should be automatically discounted because they were paid to sort it all out?

In my limited experience, scientists are always chasing those elusive research grants.

So, soft money scientists.

Or that guy who was the subject of the movie starring Russell Crowe about smoking.

I am unfamiliar with the reference.