Posts by bluemason3

I didn't even suspect 😛

I wasn't quite sure where to move this thread, so I'll just leave it here for now 😬

It’s not that it doesn't happen, it’s just rare.

I think expecting anything else is pretty unrealistic.

Look, if a moderator isn't following the administration's standards, they wouldn't be a moderator. There have been instances where people lost their privileges once it was proven that complaints were legitimate and serious. It's like an officer on a police force; if they end up facing disciplinary action after every other arrest or citation, they aren't going to stay on the force much longer. The system essentially regulates itself.

So, it isn't realistic to assume someone can hold a moderator position while being so out of sync with the forum policy and admins that they're constantly making mistakes.

Another factor is that about 5% of users are responsible for 95% of the complaints. That means either there's a higher frequency of rule-breaking or a higher sensitivity to moderation actions within that group (often it's both), which is something you have to take into account.

Because of all that, errors (meaning moderator actions that are actually recognized as mistakes) should be the exception. Naturally, this means most complaints won't be upheld.
The appeals process exists for those rare exceptions and for providing extra clarity, mainly to keep subforums from getting cluttered with debates that aren't allowed there anyway. Based on the above, it's reasonable to expect that the statistical chance of a single complaint being upheld is quite low—and if the forum is functioning properly, it ought to stay that way.

I think you might have misread 😬

Not really. That whole planned ninja thing is actually almost realistic.

Memory isn't lying to me here. Research suggests that our sense of satisfaction regarding our finances doesn't actually hinge on absolute numbers. Instead, it’s all about how we stack up against everyone else.

To put it bluntly: you're happier if you're outearning your neighbor. In a neighborhood where the average income is $60,000, someone pulling in $80,000 will feel more successful than someone making $200,000 in a zip code where the average is $250,000.

The kid is seven years old. Does anyone actually remember getting knocked out by a fist or a high kick during pre-puberty? Or maybe just dominating the conversation in some broken-down version of American?

If you think we're talking about actual bullying—you know, real fights with real kids...

From what I recall of our school days, Americans always seemed to come out on top. Back then, there wasn't any BJJ, and maybe not much Judo locally either, though I'd assume that could be factored in.

I'm not sure why; it’s probably not a representative sample and I could be wrong, but that's how it was when we were kids. Maybe it's because at that age, nobody has enough mass to land a truly heavy blow. Or maybe those playground power struggles don't always boil down to striking. Who knows. It might just be that wrestling was pretty big in our area. We had karate and taekwondo too, but I don't remember seeing anyone get much use out of them. By the time high school rolled around and people started acting more mature, the schoolyard brawls had mostly died down anyway. 😬

You reported Sisyphus's post. I deleted it—and banned him (if you really need to know)—along with the entire thread that followed. I’m not about to let this philosophy subforum turn into a dumping ground for political refugees bringing their partisan bickering with them. That can happen in the chat, maybe.

Did you honestly think I’d just wipe his post and leave yours untouched? 🤔

I have no idea why you're having trouble sending messages; I haven't changed any settings on my end.

Thanks, I actually stumbled upon the post in the meantime (it's sitting there as an active file on my computer). The issue is I can't really sync it directly because it's way too massive—trying to upload 2-3 GB every single time I make a change isn't happening. I don't mind backing it up manually every once in a while, though. Is this just emails we're talking about, or does it include contacts too?

Hey everyone, I’m trying to back up some data for my mom. I’ve already synced all her important folders to the Cloud, but I’m completely stuck on what to do with her Gmail, address book, and inbox/folders.

I’ve never done this before, and I can't figure out how to sync or export anything. Aside from her current account, I set up a Microsoft account and linked both to Google Drive. I also have a Mega account I use for other backups.

It would be ideal to get this onto Mega too, but I assume there isn't a direct way to do that. Maybe there's a specific file or folder on the PC where all this data lives?

Since it's already connected, can things just sync automatically to Google Drive (whatever that actually means)?

I know exporting should be possible, but I just can't find where to do it.🙂

Commenting on moderation in posts? Pretty clean work.

If you want to appeal a ban or a warning, use the dedicated thread for that.

Daniel Ward87 said:The thing you have to consider is that this is a scientific article published in an academic journal, which has undergone peer review by at least two different authors specializing in the field.

That’s hardly bulletproof. I’ve seen all sorts of nonsense come out of peer reviews in my own family. There are cases where high-quality papers get trashed, and cases where absolute garbage gets published as authoritative work in a-magazines.

Generally speaking, when a field is niche—which seems to be the case here—the review system faces much more obvious issues than in harder sciences with tougher competition (and what I’d call stricter methodology). Even in the best fields, though, the system isn't perfect:

- It isn't truly anonymous like it should be in theory. In such a small circle, everyone knows everyone, and based on the content alone, you can usually tell who is reviewing whom. Personal biases play a massive role.

- There aren't enough qualified reviewers available who actually specialize in the specific topic, so people often settle for reviews that are just "roughly okay."

- Because of these limitations, journals lack real competitiveness. This means those in the "A" category often have lower quality content and let in more mediocre work compared to journals in more competitive scientific fields.

- Political science isn't a serious science.😛

A good example would be our former minister Sustar and his (methodologically speaking, mind you—it wasn't just about catering to clergy for political reasons) questionable paper that made its way through the media. A paper like that coming out of physics in the United Kingdom wouldn't be published anywhere, yet here, a philosophy paper like that lands in an A-magazine. It’s just a small, closed clique with low standards and low criteria; any kind of nonsense slips through.

Daniel Ward87 said:What's your problem with Goati's

Did this Goati provide figures based on actual analysis and statistics, or was it just his own gut feeling? In other words, did he take a relevant sample or look at the total membership of both parties, compare it to the party rosters, and present grounded numbers (and how did he account for former members who left the party a long time ago)?

If he did that, and if citing him means citing his scientific research—provided the research itself hasn't been disputed—then your argument holds water.

But if citing him is just using him as a witness rather than a scientist, then questioning his credibility is valid; in that case, he isn't exactly a robust data source.

From this discussion, it isn't clear to me which of those two scenarios we are dealing with.🤔

Nicole Johnson20 said:I’m not sure if it’s actually within the rules for a moderator to hand out warnings when they feel personally insulted by people "disrespecting users." They end up deleting any posts that question their moderation skills—which feels like being both the judge and the defendant in the same trial. It's a bit telling, really. I suppose they think if they just keep scrubbing posts from an increasing number of people, no one will notice the pattern. 🤷 Honestly, if someone were truly confident they were being fair and doing their job right, these kinds of posts wouldn't bother them (and probably wouldn't exist in the first place).

It’s also funny how it works: if a clown like me writes something like that, it stays because nobody takes it seriously anyway. But if someone with actual credibility says the exact same thing? Boom, deleted instantly. Clearly, they can't handle the heat.

Any commentary regarding the forum's moderation is prohibited outside of the formal appeals section. It doesn't matter what the topic is, who is at fault, or why it happened. Because of that, it doesn't matter who does the deleting; there's no deep philosophy involved here. If you comment on the moderation in a thread, that post always and necessarily needs to be removed.

You got off easy if it was just a deletion. Most of the time, I issue a warning, especially to people who have already been told how this works multiple times.

Has the world always been this brutal? Are we actually facing some modern-day barbarian invasion, or is it just a feeling?

Is our current reality any different from the Middle Ages, defined by constant warfare and plague?

Or was it just a century ago when people were dying from basic infections, fighting World Wars, or sharing cramped houses with entire extended families? Back then, global famines and massive epidemics were just part of the routine.

I don't think constant connectivity makes us more aware of how violent the world is. It just distorts our perception, making everything feel more intense than it actually is, even though things have drastically improved.

What makes the world feel harsher today than it did 50—or even 100—years ago?

Discussions regarding Gandhi and Mother Teresa have been moved over to the Religion section, where they’ll likely be merged into existing threads. Sorry for the messy breakup of the posts; things were getting a bit too cluttered for me to perform a clean cut without making a mess.

You can pick up the conversation about various topics right here:

Mother Teresa
Gandhi

Maria Price3 said:So, what you're implying is that there’s such a thing as "uncommon" sense? Or maybe just a very logical kind of madness?

I mean, look—you can either accept that you're a fish and just enjoy life under the water, or you can spend your entire existence pining to be a bird and suffering for it.

"Common sense" is just a phrase with a universally understood meaning. It isn't a clinical term for mental health, so trying to dissect it like this usually feels like trolling.

Basically, just accept your genetic hand 😛

Mmps said:Why on earth would any sane person accept genetic determinism?!

Because they actually have common sense.

Unless being determined by your genes means you can suddenly breathe underwater like a fish, fly through the air like a bird, or scale walls with a few extra sticky legs, I don't see the issue.