Mid-discussion, a moderator starts handing out warnings

About ten days ago, I drifted into this subforum for the first time and dropped a comment about that ban I caught from a moderator over in the natural science section. shadoworca3So, what's the deal? Just one little sarcastic observation from me. Thought it was an insult:

Oh great, just what we need—a bunch of "experts" on this forum who think they have an answer for everything under the sun, ready to lecture us poor, clueless peasants. 🙂

I thought it was way too harsh, and honestly, I still do. Not gonna get into the weeds about it right now, but fine, whatever. (shadoworca3 then turns to the offended party with that patronizing tone that just gets under your skin.)

Here’s the deal: I see the issue. We’re deep in a debate about nuclear power—specifically that "Nuclear Safety Issues at Focus" thread—and since I’ve been an anti-nuclear activist since way back in '86, my main target for sarcasm is the pro-nuclear crowd, including shadoworca3. It feels like this whole dynamic is messing with how moderators decide what counts as an insult and what actually deserves a ban.

Turns out I called it. Saw the red flags early on and was totally right about the whole mess.

I see this pattern all the time in the El Niño threads: some guy claiming to be a natural science or tech expert who thinks he’s God’s gift to intelligence. He shuts down any actual philosophy like it's beneath him. To him, he just KNOWS. Yep. So what? Needs work..

On PZ, people actually know the difference between logic and total nonsense. A bunch of philosophers have churned out endless books trying to define what "rational" actually means, but honestly, we already get it on the PZ—it's basically just "I know what I know," and I don't need some academic lecture cluttering up my shop.

Regarding my point—back when I was trying to lay out my full stance in that one long-winded post... Just like I mentioned in a later post.):

You gotta look at the socio-psychological and political side of things here—those numbers? They don't mean squat to regular folks or politicians. They just don't move the needle.

It’s a total joke to claim those facts don't even matter.

All that psychological stuff you're rambling about regarding the NE issue? That’s exactly what needs to go. We don't need feelings or head games—just pure, cold numbers and a rational call.

He clearly has no clue what's actually going on—it’s like watching someone try to play quarterback without ever having stepped onto a football field.

Look, when it comes to renewables—if you ask lonetrucker4—there’s basically nothing worth looking at here except for some tiny fraction that isn't actually going to fix anything.

It shouldn't just be ironic—it needs to be full-blown sarcasm.

That was sarcasm, man. Basically saying your sources still aren't pulling their weight—or better yet, they shouldn't be in the game at all.

If you’ve got a philosophy degree, that effortless leap from "is" to "ought" is enough to make your eyes bleed. It's that classic Humov Is-Ought problem that people still can't stop tripping over today.

The idea that renewables aren't playing a major role? That argument died a decade ago. It's ancient history.

I get people like that, honestly. I don't let it get to me too much. But it’s a real mess when someone holds the power and uses it just to feed their own biases. It's like they suddenly stop being part of the debate and start acting like a judge, using their mod status to slap down anyone they disagree with.

After my two attempts to explain myself up there, this guy's already filing a complaint:I have absolutely no clue what you're talking about, responding Yeah, I know it’s not clicking for you., here’s the deal: So, I lay out the numbers, and you just hit me with "I don't get it." No explanation, nothing. You're playing a dangerous game, pushing the envelope. Look, I tried to explain—including the fact that it’s not all just about raw data. My response: I tried to be as clear as possible, but if you aren't getting it, I'm sorry, I can't make it any simpler. (...) And what does "pushing the envelope" even mean here?

Basically, he says, "Your argument makes no sense," and I say, "Sorry, I can't make it clearer." We could both just shrug and walk away; it’s not like we’re playing in the Wimbledon finals where there has to be one winner. Maybe we would have, if I wasn't so curious about this whole "pushing the envelope" thing.

shadoworca3: What that means is you can't just condescendingly tell someone they don't understand something—not just me—and then dodge the actual arguments. You've already caught a yellow card for stuff like that. Man, give me a break. I just said I didn't understand, so what am I supposed to argue? Here’s my take: It feels incredibly shady when someone is right in the middle of a heated debate, taking a massive stand and calling opponents paranoid and all that, only to suddenly flip the switch into moderator mode and threaten people with cards just because someone opposes them "condescendingly." It puts me, and everyone else arguing with him, in a totally rigged and unfair spot.

And now I'm getting a card for trolling. It’s actually pretty funny (honestly, endless pages of philosophy and psych analysis could be written here)—what even is "trolling"? Based on the last paragraph:

You're trolling because I already gave you a reasoned answer back on the "Corner" regarding who I was talking to.

Get the joke? I expressed frustration because someone is debating while simultaneously acting like a mod and threatening opponents with cards—and the response is that expressing that frustration is "trolling," which earns me a card. It’s like a variation of that "Catch-22" logic—you can't win; you're guilty no matter how you spin it! Seriously, you could write entire books on self-reference, reflexivity, consciousness, or paradoxes in set theory... but I won't go there.

Then comes the warning that we can only talk about "Focus and natural science" here, which is a total reach, since you naturally link different aspects when dealing with complex topics like energy.

Then another anti-nuclear guy gets a card, casualharbor9, and then the public message drops: Edit your post again to remove the part that got you flagged, or you're banned from PZ for life, followed by him deleting the post where the guy was explaining his reasoning (the guy decided to change it before he even saw the card).

I'm not delusional enough to think writing this will change anything. shadoworca3 isn't going to change his worldview (KJTV, it's like a religious mindset, everyone has one), and honestly, ever since the days of Usenet and Fidonet, it's been nearly impossible for a regular user to influence the mods.

But whatever, I'm putting this out there: "Don't hand out cards to an opponent in a discussion you're personally participating in!" should be part of some official moderator code of conduct (you know, conflict of interest and all that, like a variation on Kant's "categorical imperative").

And especially, don't throw a card at someone just because you're irrationally afraid they might throw one at you.😁

I'm done. I'm officially checking out of any nuclear energy debates here on the PZ forum. Honestly, I can't even guess when shadoworca3 is going to decide my post is an insult, trolling, or just off-topic. When you're dealing with someone that stubborn, impulsive, and trigger-happy—you just gotta get out of the way. Not exactly a huge loss for humanity, right? 🙂 Besides, there’s zero chance we're building a nuclear plant in America anytime soon, and renewables are definitely taking over anyway.

I honestly don't get why you're complaining, especially since I've been following this whole thread. The guy made it pretty clear: this is PZ, where we expect actual arguments, data, research, links, and stuff like that. But you kept dropping these opinions based on nothing but your own views, then acted surprised when you got flagged for trolling. 🤷
Damn, I interpreted those statements of yours as condescending and trollish too. If you aren't going to back things up with logic, saying stuff like "if you get it, you get it" is just trolling. 🤷

Look, some of the things you're saying about alternative or supplemental energy sources just don't hold water. Anyone working in the field would tell you that. For instance, you can't run the EES solely on solar panels and wind turbines. You need a conventional plant as a base—meaning gas, nuclear, or maybe a large hydro plant. From what I gathered in this debate, you wouldn't even touch gas, hydro, or nuclear. 🤷

As for casualharbor9, there's actually a bit of history between him and the PZ moderators (not just shadoworca3). Also, if someone edits their post after getting flagged, they totally earned that warning... I don't see what the issue is here. 🤷

brightpuma said:I honestly don't get why you're even complaining.

Look, this isn't even a formal complaint—I'm not actually asking for my ban to be lifted, because let's be real, that almost never happens anyway. It's more like a suggestion, a little commentary, or just an idea on how we could make this forum a bit better and less trashy.

I've been following this whole thread. Look, the guy made it crystal clear—this is a PZ where we actually expect people to back up their claims with some real arguments.

Honestly, I’m struggling to explain this any better without sounding like a broken record, and man, that constant "forum looping" really grinds my gears. If we’re fundamentally on different pages, we just gotta call it and move on. It's not like we're playing a tennis match where we have to rally forever until someone hits a winner. It's not even that deep—even in actual natural science, you hit walls when different fields start clashing. We're talking tech and industry here, not some abstract debate over PZ.

Like I said, this whole thread should've been shut down ages ago. It’s one of those classic catch-22 situations: if you keep arguing, you're a troll, but if you stop, you're being condescending. Total lose-lose. And the immediate reason for that second warning? Just because I called out how messed up it is to threaten someone with a ban mid-argument.

That take... Need it. Look, I can't exactly back this up using natural science, since debating isn't really part of that field. I could bring up legal stuff like a "conflict of interest," or lean on ethics via Kant's "categorical imperative"—you know, the idea that if everyone acted like this in a thread, the whole conversation would just collapse. I could probably dig up some analytic philosophy papers to back me up too, which is usually what the science crowd prefers anyway. But honestly? Most people from the STEM fields I deal with just roll their eyes and call it "philosophizing"—and they mean that in the most condescending, dismissive way possible. They think it's all just useless noise.

I laid out the main points of the debate just how I saw them—my own personal take on things. My point was simple: you have to account for the socio-psychological and political reality that these numbers don't actually move the needle for regular folks or politicians. shadoworca3 says we shouldn't even consider that factor. It's a tough spot to argue from there, especially since he keeps claiming my position isn't clear, while you keep trying to gatekeep what counts as an "argument" based on your own little rules.

Where are the numbers? Give me some actual data, research, or at least a link.

So, what kind of stats or studies could actually back that up? Just saying it isn't enough. Gotta take that into account.So, let's just strip it down and call it what it is: people are just plain terrified of radiation, right? Like, can we just assume that's the whole argument? We aren't even talking about nuclear energy as a whole here—this whole thread went off the rails because the topic was supposed to be about Focus, but since the moderator let it slide, I guess off-topic chatter is allowed. Off-topic stuff shouldn't be strictly banned anyway.

And then, shadoworca3 was like... Basically you'd have to be logical enough to calculate the "mathematical probability" of death tolls per unit of energy produced over time. My take? If we're talking massive fallout scenarios—think Chernobyl or Focus—it’s a non-starter. Doesn't matter how tiny the math says the risk is; if the consequences are that huge, it's unacceptable. Plenty of people feel the same way (I first heard this from an old contact about 30 years ago, back when I was actually a nuclear energy fanboy). I can't boil it down to a single number, though. (Honestly, I’ve always been skeptical of those "probabilistic studies." I once got sued for libel because of one, but I was cleared after a physics PhD testified for me. I haven't messed with that stuff in 25 years, so I'm out of the loop.)

If you aren't going to argue, then statements like "if you get it, you get it" are just trolling.

Actually, that used to be called undermining an opponent, which falls under "insulting". Look, I really don't think there's anything wrong with ending a discussion if we're just talking past each other. An opponent says "I don't follow your logic," I say "Sorry, I can't make it any clearer"—maybe it's on me, who knows—but I don't see why that should be punished, especially if you're directly involved.

I think some of the stuff you're saying about alternative or supplemental energy sources just doesn't hold up. Anyone working in the field will tell you that. For example, the EES can't rely solely on solar panels and wind farms. You need conventional plants as a base.

I'm not diving into that debate here, since, from what I gather, that wasn't even the reason for the ban. Regardless, it's not true that "anyone in the field will tell you that." (Unless you add extra criteria where plenty of pros with actual degrees "don't understand.") People are having very serious debates about the US power grid for 2050—whether it'll be 50% wind or 80% renewables (counting hydro, obviously). And the whole "conventional plant as a base" argument falls apart if you have storage options, like pumped-storage hydro. I won't derail the thread; there are specific threads on PZ about solar, wind, and general economics.

Also, if someone edits a post after getting banned for it, they totally deserved the warning... Not sure what the issue is. 🤷

Since I haven't dealt with this specific issue before, ignoring the immediate drama, I'd ask the moderators for a general clarification—this applies to all forums.

Say I lose my cool and type something like "get lost, you..." Ten minutes later, I've cooled off, I regret it, and I delete it. If a moderator hasn't jumped in yet, I assume we're good. But if they already handed out a ban, why is it bad to fix it? I repented, took back the insult, yet the ban stays.

Since nobody’s replied to my stuff in the "Admin Questions" section for a few days now,
I’m just gonna drop this here for support—basically a second attempt at
calling out how this moderator is acting:

I’d really appreciate it if the admin team could weigh in on this:

Why does shadoworca3 get to act all high and mighty—after I already filed a complaint about his arrogance and
how he looks down on everyone else here—and then basically act like he's above the admins
and even the site owner by deciding the outcome of his own complaint? Like, look at this:

Quote:

As long as this mod team is running PZ, and as long as the admins and the owner are in charge—your partial won't be pulled from PZ. Seriously, what’s even the point of filing a complaint against a moderator if that exact same guy is the one judging it?

@lonetrucker4/">@@lonetrucker4

To begin with, I haven't been actively participating in this specific thread for quite some time; I have merely been observing from the sidelines. Your post, judging by the context, was dismissive and lacked any substantive arguments, which is why I issued a warning and provided an explanation.

lonetrucker4 said:Oh, how wonderful that on this American forum, we have universal experts on every global issue ready to explain everything to us poor, uneducated souls. 🙂

You are more than welcome to criticize whatever you like, but the one condition is that you must provide actual arguments.
Since you provided none, you receive the corresponding penalty.

EDIT by shadoworca3

Regarding your psychological arguments, you have to understand that within the realm of natural science, we deal with realities that do not shift based on public opinion, social trends, fashion, or personal sympathies. If the vast majority of scientific papers demonstrate that nuclear energy—even considering the Fukushima incident—is still roughly a hundred times safer than other energy sources and happens to be more cost-effective, then those facts should be what shapes public perception, rather than the other way around. For instance, I personally experience a sense of fear and unease when flying in an airplane, far more so than when driving a car, even though I am fully aware that my statistical probability of dying in a plane crash is also about a hundred times lower than in road transport. The root causes might lie in a fear of the unknown, a lack of perceived control, or perhaps the harrowing images the media broadcasts following aviation accidents... Those are subjects for psychology, but it would be absurd to demand that the natural science board ban air travel simply because of my personal anxieties.

In short, your argument regarding the psychological component is misplaced here. In fact, it misses the mark on several levels, but I won't dwell on that.

As for my supposed arrogance.
Only a handful of users have ever complained about it after being removed from the natural science board. These are typically the philosophical, religious, or fringe theorists who attempt to push their non-scientific views onto the science section. That isn't permitted here, and that has been the established moderation policy for a very long time.

Regarding casualharbor9, please refrain from intervening in matters you don't fully understand.
The post was made at 9:59 PM, the penalty was issued at 10:24 PM, and the edit (which involved obscuring the part that triggered the penalty) occurred at 10:51 PM. There was a twenty-five-minute gap between each action. 😉
The threat of receiving a partial ban from the science board was delivered at 12:33 AM.

I went ahead and deleted three other posts due to off-topic chatter just to avoid having to hand out further penalties.
And I stand corrected. ☕

Keith Lee2 said:Since nobody has bothered to respond to my inquiry on the "Admin Questions" board for several days now
regarding this matter involving the same moderator, I am going to post the exact same request here to serve as further support
against the conduct of the aforementioned moderator:

Both myself and the administration—who already closed the specific thread regarding your complaint—have explained the situation to you once before.

I don't consider myself above anyone else, but the reality is that your Partial appeal went through the proper channels and was upheld by the administration.
The owner simply doesn't get involved in matters of this nature.

shadoworca3 said:Look, both I and the admins—who already locked your thread regarding that complaint—have already explained this to you.

I’m not trying to act superior to anyone—your Partial went through the proper channels and the admin team signed off on it.
The owner doesn't deal with stuff like this.

Man, you again!
I already told you—my issue is with how you act, specifically that arrogance
and the way you look down on other people on the forum.
I don't really care about your explanations... what I care about is finding someone who can actually step in
and put a stop to that kind of behavior, if anyone even can.

Keith Lee2 said:Look, here we go again!
I have already made it clear that I am lodging a complaint regarding your behavior—specifically, your arrogance
and the way you dismiss other members of this community.
I am not interested in hearing your explanations; rather, I am looking for someone who actually has the authority to put an end to such
conduct, provided such a person exists here.

First off, please take a moment to read the rules, particularly the section I have highlighted for you.

Guidelines for posting threads in the PŽK and KzB sections

Threads are opened exclusively for the purpose of appealing a ban.

The title of a thread regarding a moderator appeal, a warning, or a ban must follow this format: /subforum name, moderator's username, brief description of the issue/. Anything else will be moved to the Trash bin without any prior warning or consideration of the complaint, regardless of how valid it might be.
The opening post must be concise, coherent, and backed by solid arguments—including mandatory links.

The designated moderator handles the initial response, followed by the supermoderator.
The supermoderator issues the final decision after hearing both sides of the story.

In exceptional circumstances, the supermoderator may render a decision without waiting for the moderator's statement if they are already fully briefed on the situation and generally familiar with that specific moderator's conduct and style.

The supermoderator’s decision regarding appeals is final; therefore, requesting a higher level of review is not permitted and will not receive a response. The administrator will only intervene if they personally deem it necessary.

Regarding your complaint about the partial restriction and my supposed arrogance, the administration has already provided their answer.

To begin with, the opinion of a single administrator is sufficient, and there is no need to seek out a second one. This applies not just to this specific instance, but as a general rule.

Nice said:Furthermore, you were previously warned about the partial restriction. The moderators informed you of what would happen if you didn't adjust your behavior on the PDF, which you failed to do, so the partial restriction should not have come as a surprise. After repeatedly ignoring warnings despite the accumulated warnings and simply tuning out the announcement of this penalty, there was no other choice. Moderators are responsible for maintaining the integrity of the PDF and protecting the community, even if that means barring those who persistently violate the rules.

Daniel Ward87 said:With this, we have concluded this thread.

shadoworca3 said:
The supermoderator makes a call after hearing both sides

Basically, hearing "my side" was cut short because you think you have the right to pass
judgment:

shadoworca3 says:

As long as this mod team is running PZ, and while this admin and the owner are in charge—your partial won't be pulled from PZ.

Then "Nice" just ignored it, and since "Daniel Ward87" isn't even
that bothered, he just locked the thread.

Your little hearing spanned a total of 32 posts, consisting of 16 from you, 4 from me, 1 from Timothy Jackson2, 5 from Daniel Ward87, 4 from Nice, and 2 others.

The Partial ruling was assigned to you strictly according to the rules, and since your complaint regarding that decision—as well as my own perceived arrogance—has been denied, I have to wonder: what exactly is your next move?

First things first, go ahead and start your own thread so the administrators don't have to shut down lonetrucker4's topic just because you're trying to hijack it.

shadoworca3 said:Look, just start your own thread next time so the admins don't have to shut down lonetrucker4's post because you're trying to hijack it.

Nah, we aren't doing that, don't even worry about it.

Keith Lee2, the Partial thing is solid. You already got the word from two admins, and now you're getting it from a third.

shadoworca3 said:Maybe just start your own thread next time—it’d save the admins from having to shut down lonetrucker4's post because you're trying to take over.

Honestly, you're the one hijacking the thread here. Instead of letting the admins focus
on dealing with complaints about how you act, you're stepping in their shoes and messing up
the whole dynamic between the users and the staff.

P.S.
I actually started this thread myself, but it got locked after you decided to play judge.
And hey, if the original poster has an issue with me jumping in early, they can
just say the word, and we can just wipe my post and all the replies
tied to it.

shadoworca3 said:—look, your complaint about me being arrogant is denied, so what's your next move?

The complaint about you being arrogant and belittling people on the forum wasn't actually rejected.
That’s literally the whole point of this thread.

Keith Lee2 said:In reality, you are the one hijacking this discussion, because rather than allowing the administrators to focus on
addressing the complaints regarding your own conduct, you step in ahead of them, effectively obstructing the necessary
dialogue between the community members and the administration.

Do you actually take the time to read what others are saying, or even consider the weight of your own words?

If you want to discuss my supposed arrogance, I am more than happy to lay out my pattern of behavior for you right now.
Whenever someone who is clearly uninformed starts acting like an expert and peddling nonsense, I shut them down decisively. I view it much like removing a gangrenous limb to save the rest of the body. Of course, if someone approaches a topic with genuine curiosity and politeness, they will always receive a thoughtful and well-intentioned response.
The reason I do this is simply because many readers here might not recognize an amateur when they see one, and could easily be misled by such individuals' misplaced confidence and bravado.

Keith Lee2 said:P.S.
I was the one who originally started this thread, yet it was locked immediately after you decided to pass judgment.
Furthermore, if the person who initiated this topic takes issue with me adding my initial post, then by all means, let them speak up; we can just have that post and every subsequent comment tied to it
deleted entirely.

I can assure you that I will not be engaging with your new thread.
If you need assistance, I can certainly put you in touch with Timothy Jackson2, who used to serve as a moderator. 😈

Keith Lee2 said:The complaint regarding your arrogance and the way you belittle other members of this forum was not rejected.
That is precisely what this entire thread is centered around.

And you’ve gone ahead and added that to your list of lamentations as well.

Keith Lee2 said:Perhaps the issue doesn't actually lie with my own writing style, nor does it stem from the way other forum members express themselves, but rather originates from the moderators.
It looks like El Niño is really starting to pick up the pace with all this chaos. Honestly, you can already sense that moderator's overwhelming arrogance dripping from every single word..

shadoworca3 said:It's just that a lot of people on this forum can't spot someone who doesn't know what they're talking about—so they end up getting sucked in by how confident and cocky he acts.

That's exactly my point.

Keith Lee2 said:That is precisely my point.

Actually, the reason I was chosen for the moderator role is simply because they view me as someone who actually knows what they're talking about.😉

shadoworca3 said:Nah, they picked me for moderator because they actually think I know what I'm talking about. 😉

Just totally blinded by all that grit and arrogance. 😉

Keith Lee2 said:They seem quite taken with that specific blend of determination and sheer arrogance. 😉

Before the moderation team stepped in, I didn't have the luxury of being arrogant, so they were forced to pick someone based on some other criteria that clearly doesn't resonate with you.

I wouldn't call myself arrogant, but then again, as Gott puts it, a moderator occasionally needs to flex a little muscle to get things done. 😍

Keith Lee2 said:Driven by pure arrogance and sheer audacity. 😉

You hit the nail on the head. I actually went looking for an arrogant colleague back in the day and ended up choosing shadoworca3. So, honestly, please stop trying to make this conversation all about you when it has nothing to do with your business.
Just so we're clear, I was the one who suggested the Partial ban for you. Every single thing you post just proves how right that decision was. And that ban isn't going anywhere as long as the PZ moderators continue to value my input...

I really think stepping away from this thread is the best move you could make right now. Stop being so exhausting and start listening to what people are telling you (the moderators and the 3 admins). It’s exactly this kind of behavior—combined with your inability to argue actual facts and the nonsense you keep typing—that landed you this Partial ban in the first place... 😉