NationStates Jolt Archive

You had every reason to close it. But please, hear me out.

When Valentasia first forward his claims about the moon, somebody quickly found out that he was, without citation or reference, just cutting and pasting somebody else's work. His "brilliant" deductions about megalithic geometry, the ratios of celestial bodies, etc, all drawn wholesale, often verbatim, from an author's published work, taken without credit.

This board is the creation of an author, a man who makes his living on his books, and yet here was a blatant act of plagiarism. Ardchoille, who I deeply hate, never-the-less very quickly dealth with it and with diligence, explained the rules.

But if we leave it at that, we deny Valentasia the opportunity to at least try to append something original to the idea.

I'm asking to be allowed to start a thread (if someone else hasn't already), where Valentasia can present the evidence that he claimed he would work on for hours. We can discuss the idea. Several people have expressed willingness to do so.

Please.

As I said before, he is allowed to make a thread on the topic. However, he should at least partially deliver his idea in the opening post. That's the only condition I place on this particular issue. We've already shut down two threads because there was no attempt to present said ideas.

You had every reason to close it. But please, hear me out.

When Valentasia first forward his claims about the moon, somebody quickly found out that he was, without citation or reference, just cutting and pasting somebody else's work. His "brilliant" deductions about megalithic geometry, the ratios of celestial bodies, etc, all drawn wholesale, often verbatim, from an author's published work, taken without credit.

This board is the creation of an author, a man who makes his living on his books, and yet here was a blatant act of plagiarism. Ardchoille, who I deeply hate, never-the-less very quickly dealth with it and with diligence, explained the rules.

But if we leave it at that, we deny Valentasia the opportunity to at least try to append something original to the idea.

I'm asking to be allowed to start a thread (if someone else hasn't already), where Valentasia can present the evidence that he claimed he would work on for hours. We can discuss the idea. Several people have expressed willingness to do so.

Please.we were all waiting for his evidence. however, after hours of supposed typing he said he was "doing the real life thing" and insulted everyone by saying 'he had to now dumb it down for us". Bad enough that his complaint in the OP of his thread said he was posting his evidence when the first thread was closed, but after hours of waiting we were not given the evidence as promised.

as Kryo stated, he can start it again, but he better start it with the evidence.

If you want to discuss the idea of interventionary evolution, evolutionary intervention, or whatever, you could always start a thread on the broad concept yourself.

It's common enough in science fiction: Asimov's 2001 megalith is just one example.

I'm talking about the idea that could be summarised, in general terms, as: human beings evolved, but intervention by [agent] at [time] directed the evolution towards [aim].

How NSers fill in the brackets could make interesting reading.

If you want to discuss the idea of interventionary evolution, evolutionary intervention, or whatever, you could always start a thread on the broad concept yourself.

It's common enough in science fiction: Asimov's 2001 megalith is just one example.

I'm talking about the idea that could be summarised, in general terms, as: human beings evolved, but intervention by [agent] at [time] directed the evolution towards [aim].

How NSers fill in the brackets could make interesting reading.

Wasn't 2001 by Clarke?

If you want to discuss the idea of interventionary evolution, evolutionary intervention, or whatever, you could always start a thread on the broad concept yourself.

It's common enough in science fiction: Asimov's 2001 megalith is just one example.

I'm talking about the idea that could be summarised, in general terms, as: human beings evolved, but intervention by [agent] at [time] directed the evolution towards [aim].

How NSers fill in the brackets could make interesting reading.

Intangelon and Articoa were already doing that. But this guy is presenting a specific claim, he calls it Valentaekyo, and claims to have evidence.

Many of us are genuinely interested in his evidence and I promise I won't flame him and you never let me do anything and I hate you and I want to go live with Dad and his new wife.

So, if he comes back, and actually opens a thread with this "evidence", can we keep it? For a while, at least?

So, if he comes back, and actually opens a thread with this "evidence", can we keep it? For a while, at least?

As I said before, he is allowed to make a thread on the topic. However, he should at least partially deliver his idea in the opening post.

Wasn't 2001 by Clarke?

Damn you. :D

Damn you. :D

Yeah, but you know he's going to include some "you all have miniscule minds" stuff, that probably is flaming...what I'm hoping for is that we can stomach a little of his flaming long enough to really get into his evidence, beyond just the first post.

I guess what I'm hoping for is some kind of "controlled burn", because I don't see how any thread with him is going to endure flame-free...or flameless...unflamed...flame retarded?

If he cannot present an idea neutrally, without abusing his audience, he will have to find another place to present it.

People with brilliant ideas may be socially inept. The internet offers them a resource in which to present their ideas in an a-social situation. They can put them up on a web page, invite comments and moderate those to their own standards.

To come to a discussion board like this one argues a desire for an audience. To reach this audience a poster has to accept the ToS. These include not abusing others. Audience= no abuse. Abuse= no audience. It's his choice, not ours.

If he cannot present an idea neutrally, without abusing his audience, he will have to find another place to present it.

People with brilliant ideas may be socially inept. The internet offers them a resource in which to present their ideas in an a-social situation. They can put them up on a web page, invite comments and moderate those to their own standards.

To come to a discussion board like this one argues a desire for an audience. To reach this audience a poster has to accept the ToS. These include not abusing others. Audience= no abuse. Abuse= no audience. It's his choice, not ours.

Look, all I'm asking you to do is make an unreasonable accommodation for an abusive plagiarist, and while it would set a horrible precedent, violate the terms of service, and generally contribute nothing of positive worth to the board, it would be funny.

Look in your heart, Ard. Sometimes, a bad idea is just right.

Sometimes, a bad idea is just right.

The last time I persuaded myself of that, I ended up married. Retro me, Sathanas!

Look, all I'm asking you to do is make an unreasonable accommodation for an abusive plagiarist, and while it would set a horrible precedent, violate the terms of service, and generally contribute nothing of positive worth to the board, it would be funny.

Look in your heart, Ard. Sometimes, a bad idea is just right.

That would be more to the Posters, not the mobs. if the majority of the posters can keep on subject (and Valentasia posts his evidence) then chances are the mods will let the thread live and just 'cherry pick the offenders'. of course, that does include Valentasia if he/she cannot be civil. to allow one poster to get away with rule breaking will be a violation on whatever rules the mods go by as well as being a clear example of Mod Bias. I (and several others) like these forums because the mods are fair (or strive to be fair.)

That would be more to the Posters, not the mobs. if the majority of the posters can keep on subject (and Valentasia posts his evidence) then chances are the mods will let the thread live and just 'cherry pick the offenders'. of course, that does include Valentasia if he/she cannot be civil. to allow one poster to get away with rule breaking will be a violation on whatever rules the mods go by as well as being a clear example of Mod Bias. I (and several others) like these forums because the mods are fair (or strive to be fair.)

I would imagine that any thread started by Valentasia would have a heavy mod presence rather quickly. How about an early mod post telling everyone to behave and threatening all kinds of awful torments for infractions soon after the op.

I know this may not be the standard for threads in general but I think quite a few posters would like to see this thread and debate it sensibly, myself included, and I'm struggling to see it happening.

Look, we've all done our best to be clear about this. Try it in dot-points:

Valentasia may start another thread, IF
his first post at least partially delivers his idea.

You'll notice there's no undertaking to do our best to keep it open. That's because we already do that. That's why we read through stuff we aren't in the least interested in, delete posts, kill links, change thread titles, merge topics, split topics, nanny around going "play nice" and, if left with no other choice, warn posters and ban posters. The object is to keep threads open so topics can be discussed, no matter how ill-considered, meaningless, biased or downright loopy we may personally consider the topics to be.

Active threads get closed when posters wander off into the green fields of spam or when they start a civil war because "Somebody's wrong on teh internetz!!!" We close them because so many people are drawn into them so quickly and the toxic repercussions can go on for weeks, with even normally civil posters drawn into racking up infractions as if they were trying to match symbols on a poker-machine.

No way, NO WAY, are any of the mods going to promise not to do that.

Look, we've all done our best to be clear about this. Try it in dot-points:

Valentasia may start another thread, IF
his first post at least partially delivers his idea.

You'll notice there's no undertaking to do our best to keep it open. That's because we already do that. That's why we read through stuff we aren't in the least interested in, delete posts, kill links, change thread titles, merge topics, split topics, nanny around going "play nice" and, if left with no other choice, warn posters and ban posters. The object is to keep threads open so topics can be discussed, no matter how ill-considered, meaningless, biased or downright loopy we may personally consider the topics to be.

Active threads get closed when posters wander off into the green fields of spam or when they start a civil war because "Somebody's wrong on teh internetz!!!" We close them because so many people are drawn into them so quickly and the toxic repercussions can go on for weeks, with even normally civil posters drawn into racking up infractions as if they were trying to match symbols on a poker-machine.

No way, NO WAY, are any of the mods going to promise not to do that.

You don't have to promise, this isn't an abstinence pledge, or something serious.

I'm just asking you to at least consider keeping it going past the points so far when they've been shut down...you know, to the point where its out of control and needlessly combative to the point of absurdity.

Look, if you were a fire marshall, and somebody wanted to hang propane tanks out the windows of an old folks home and shoot at them 7.62 tracer rounds for Halloween, wouldn't you do it?

Look, if you were a fire marshall, and somebody wanted to hang propane tanks out the windows of an old folks home and shoot at them 7.62 tracer rounds for Halloween, wouldn't you do it?


Explosions! YAY!!!

*explodes thread*