Moderators on Alternative

Enough is enough. It’s not just that the mods couldn't care less about half the stuff being discussed on the alternative boards, or that they clearly don't have a clue what's actually going on before they go on a random deleting spree. It's not even just the fact that anyone posting on the alternative sections feels like they're on trial, having to justify their every thought. Or how some random science major can waltz onto an alternative forum and start a war, backed by mod protection. No, it goes deeper. Get this: moderator BAT Kol actually has this link http://symblogia.files.wordpress.com...rprijevod1.png right there in his signature. It isn't just offensive; it’s a direct slap in the face to every single person who has ever voiced a supportive opinion on any alternative topic. And trust me, his other link isn't any better.

The whole thing is a disgrace. I’m calling for BAT Kol to be stripped of his moderator status permanently and slapped with a multi-month ban. Like I said, he’s insulted every individual contributor on the alternative boards. Either that, or let me take over moderation for any board where I can openly mock and belittle the "experts" who think they own the place.

I’ve noticed the same thing. And it isn’t just limited to the alternative scene; it's happening in religion too. You have several moderators spending their time editing a PDF that details things they personally don't believe in—things they consider nonsense that ought to be wiped out entirely. If that's the case, why on earth are they even moderating that document in the first place?

Personally, I don't see the issue... It's not like his signature itself is offensive, it's just the link. You can easily avoid it if you just don't click on it..

Besides, that link was clearly meant as a joke. Even if we're moving past the realm of personal opinion... 🤷

Arthur Fowler83 said:I noticed that too. Not just on the alternative boards, but in religion as well. There are several moderators editing a PDF that contains things they believe don't exist or are just stupid and need to be wiped out. So why on earth are they even moderating that PDF??

Well, it would be just as problematic if someone who actually believes in that stuff were moderating the PDF... there needs to be some level of objectivity... and an objective skeptic is probably going to be more fair than a fanatic, right?

brightpuma said:Look, it would be just as problematic if someone who actually believes in that PDF were the one moderating it... there has to be some level of objectivity... and an objective skeptic is always going to be more reliable than a fanatic.

It’s not about whether they believe it or not; it’s about having enough respect to value people who think differently instead of just mocking them—kind of like that moderator Kyle Roberts5 brought up.

As for objectivity, I never said we needed a zealot. All I'm saying is we need someone who is actually open to different perspectives.

Objectivity doesn't mean being some smug atheist who thinks their job is to "enlighten" everyone else, dismissing religious, spiritual, or alternative beliefs as primitive or stupid simply because they haven't experienced them firsthand.

brightpuma, you’re missing the forest for the trees here. I remember our talks. Don't act like you don't. For instance, looking at this thread, you clearly aren't the guy people come to for answers. It’s actually the opposite. You're just one of those types who trashes anyone pushing an alternative without having any actual arguments or even basic high school level knowledge—all while hiding behind the moderators protecting the alternative side. Regarding objectivity, sure, it matters, but someone lacking a solid foundation in the basics (like you or BAT Kol) who doesn't bother to actually study the subject matter—you know, the stuff they don't teach in American public schools, or cover on prime-time news, or even discuss on gaming forums—can't claim to be objective if they just dismiss everything as "stupid." Plus, there's the ego issue. We all have it, let's be real, but you can't stand being questioned or faced with a decent argument.

Arthur Fowler83 said:He doesn't have to believe it, but he should at least respect others who do, instead of mocking them—like that moderator Kyle Roberts5 was talking about.

Regarding objectivity, I never said you need some fanatic. Just someone open to different perspectives.

Objectivity isn't about being some hardcore atheist who thinks they need to "enlighten" everyone else, looking down on religious or alternative beliefs as primitive just because they haven't experienced them firsthand.

You don't get it... just because he doesn't believe doesn't mean he isn't open-minded. It just means he doesn't believe. Look, it's silly for me to talk about him, so let's just say I'm speaking for myself and my own view...

In his case, objectivity on a forum like this means being able to tell when someone actually has an alternative idea they believe in, versus when they're just trolling a discussion. Believe me, that’s not easy.

Also, personally, I think you're taking a joke way too seriously. For instance, I don't respect it when believers take harmless little jabs at their faith so deeply to heart. I mean, your faith isn't going to weaken, and God isn't going to feel insulted by something coming from an atheist's mouth... I honestly think that same joke would hurt a lot more if it came from a believer.

Kyle Roberts5 said:brightpuma, you're missing a lot here. I remember our talks. Don't you? Like on this thread, you aren't really the one asking questions. Instead, you're one of those people tearing down alternative views without any arguments or even basic knowledge—all while having the "alternative" moderator protecting you. As for objectivity, sure, it's needed. But someone lacking a solid education (like you or BAT Kol), who doesn't bother studying topics outside of school or mainstream media, and insists everything else is "stupid," can't be objective. Plus, there's the ego issue—we all have it—but being unable to handle criticism or actual arguments makes it impossible.

Kyle Roberts5, I remember our talks just fine. You spent pages trolling without any real substance. I get that you like to philosophize and throw around syllogisms, but for a real discussion like the one we had, you actually need hard evidence. Otherwise, the whole thing just turns into a contest of who can shout the loudest.🤷

It’s pretty obvious you’ve forgotten how badly you tanked on those vector problems, even after being warned you were talking nonsense. Now you think you’re qualified to judge a much more complex issue? Look, like I said before, you aren't the main event here. You could probably be fixed with a few years of intensive tutoring.

The real issue is the moderator. Faith isn't some topic you should be dragging a moderator into. By definition, if you believe, you don't "know." If you know, then you aren't believing anymore; you just have facts. Personally, I wouldn't even touch religion, but the fact that you, as an atheist, think discussing God isn't offensive is just another glaring hole in your upbringing and education. That’s what makes it especially insulting. If someone has zero relationship with their own mother, they shouldn't even attempt to grasp the relationships other people share—let alone make comments about mothers or intimate matters. And honestly, the question of God is way more intimate than that. In my neck of the woods, people would get rightfully slapped for that kind of lack of class.

So, it’s not the moderator’s job to decide whether to believe or not; that’s a personal matter. His job is simply to understand the conversation he’s supposed to be moderating. Since he lacks the education, the interest, the intellect, and the basic decency, he has no business being there.

Kyle Roberts5 said:It’s pretty clear you forgot how badly you flopped on vector math, even after being warned you were talking nonsense. Now you think you can judge much more complex issues? Like I said, you aren't the focus here. You could be fixed with a few years of intensive tutoring.

What vectors? I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about... 🙄

The issue is the moderator. Faith isn't something a moderator should be forced to deal with. By definition, if someone believes, they don't "know." If they know, then they aren't acting on faith. I wouldn't even bring up religion, but the fact that you, as an atheist, think discussing God isn't offensive is just another flaw in your upbringing and education. That's when it gets especially insulting. If a person has no relationship with their own mother, they can't even attempt to understand the relationships other people share—so making comments about mothers or intimate matters (and the question of God is far more intimate) is something that, in my community, would rightfully earn you a slap for lack of manners.

Arthur Fowler83 brought up the question of faith, not me. I was explaining it to him, not you. Stop trolling... and I really hope the moderators sanction this subtle insulting behavior once they show up.

So, how does one actually go about getting an alternative education?
Is it through some kind of specialized certification program?

hollowtrucker77 said:so how does one actually get an alternative education?
just by checking boxes?

I think he’s mostly talking about mixing logic, keeping an open mind, and pulling from different books and websites... He isn't wrong, per se. But if you mess up the ratio of those ingredients, you just end up with nonsense and conspiracy theories...

hollowtrucker77 said:So how does one actually get an "alternative" education?
Is it just about being labeled?

Look, you finish your standard schooling and then you start digging into things that haven't been fully mapped out yet. Everything you uncover feels new, and at first, people slap the "alternative" label on it even if it’s been proven a dozen times over. Basically, if it isn't sitting in a textbook, they call it alternative. If you want a real answer, it’s constant learning from solid, accessible sources while keeping a critical eye on everything—basically just constantly challenging the status quo. It’s a scientific mindset where you don't go in expecting to find any specific answer.

But whatever, just get through high school and college first. It'll be easy after that...

It’s rough, honestly—what I’ve managed to wrap my head around so far is just this
I’ve basically only learned enough to realize that there is an alternative, that there are actual professionals out there, and then, of course, there is pure idiocy—the kind of people who would happily swallow any subpar product if you just slapped an "alternative" label on it, and when you try to explain why that's happening, you just get hit with: "it's too complicated, you wouldn't understand."
🙂

hollowtrucker77 said:It's tough. All I've managed to learn so far is that there is an alternative, there are serious people, and then there's pure idiocy—and plenty of people who would happily swallow any product pushed as "alternative." In those cases, you usually hear: "It can't be explained that way; you just wouldn't understand."

🙂

Sure, there are charlatans and scammers out there—people driven solely by greed or a desperate need for validation—but there are also individuals who actually possess genuine insight. That’s exactly why studying the alternative scene is interesting; it gives you the tools to distinguish what's real from what's fake.
Dismissing everything outright and mocking the subject shouldn't be the defining traits of a moderator on an alternative forum (or in any religion, for that matter).

And who exactly is dismissing all of that right out of the gate?
I mean, I’m mostly just messing around here, but honestly, we aren't going to get anywhere if we don't stop playing games and actually engage in some real conversation instead of just sticking to an alternative dialogue.
Can we get a little empirical evidence on the table, perhaps?

Arthur Fowler83 said:Sure, there are plenty of scammers and frauds out there—people who only care about grabbing cash or feeding their own egos. But then you have people who actually possess genuine insight or talent. That’s why studying alternative medicine makes sense; you have to learn how to tell the real deal from the fake stuff.
A moderator on an alternative health forum (or even within a religion) shouldn't just dismiss everything right out of the gate or mock people.

Well, obviously... that's why things like holistic medicine or similar "sciences" hold some weight. They have actual results to back them up, which allows for a decent, reasoned debate. But on those fringe forums? You run into conspiracy theories and nonsense that are just pure idiocy.

Look, I’m all about the empirical data here. Theories are fine if you just want something to chew on during a conversation, but facts matter. So, strictly from an empirical standpoint, is it actually okay for a moderator to start insulting the very people this PDF was designed for? It’s a bit much. If you have thoughts on those alternative topics, just take them to the right thread in the appropriate PDF. With that whole "it's all just snake oil" attitude, you'd probably fit right in with how things are running lately.

Honestly, 🤦 this is such a blatant violation of everything we call empirical evidence

empirical - empirical stuff
definition - what you learn just by watching and actually living through things; hands-on experience

Kyle Roberts5 said:Clearly, you've forgotten how badly you flopped on vectors. Even after being warned that you were talking nonsense, you still think you have the right to judge something this much more complex? Look, like I said before, you aren't the focus here. You’re fixable, though—maybe after a few years of intense tutoring.

The problem here is the moderator. Honestly, why bother dragging them into a debate about faith? It’s a lost cause. By definition, if you truly believe, you don't have all the answers. If you think you do, then it isn't really faith anymore, is it? You just know. I wouldn't even bring religion into this. And look, as an atheist, I feel the same way—discussing God shouldn't be considered offensive just because an atheist is the one bringing it up. Looks like there's another gap in your upbringing and education. That’s just plain insulting. If someone can't even maintain a basic relationship with their own mother, how are they supposed to grasp how anyone else connects? Making comments about mothers and intimate matters—not to mention bringing God into it, which is way more personal—is just low. In my neck of the woods, you'd get slapped for that kind of lack of class.

This one hit home for me...

Whether or not the moderator chooses to believe it is entirely up to him. That's his call. It's on him to actually grasp the conversation he's supposed to be moderating. If you don't have the education, the drive, or the intellect to back it up, there’s just no place for you there. Why even bother?

That PDF was actually talking about the moderators...

Kyle Roberts5 said:You finish your standard education and then start digging into the stuff that hasn't been fully mapped out yet. Everything you uncover feels fresh. At first, people just label it an alternative, even if it’s been proven right time and time again. Basically, if it isn't in the textbook, it gets tossed into the "alternative" pile. So, how do you answer your own question? You keep learning. You stick to high-quality, reliable literature, but you keep a sharp, critical eye on everything you read. You constantly challenge the status quo. It's about following a true scientific approach—without deciding what the answer is before you've actually found it.

Forget all that. Just focus on finishing high school first, then grab your degree. Once you've got those out of the way, everything else becomes a lot easier.

So he tells the admin that he needs to finish high school, get through college, and all that? Apparently, it’s just not enough to be smart. Is that really how it works?

Kyle Roberts5 said:I’m all about the data. Theories are fine for small talk, but let's look at the facts. Empirically speaking, is it actually okay for a moderator to insult the very people this PDF was created for? Is that good practice for a forum? As for the specifics, just post your observations regarding those alternative topics under the correct thread in the relevant PDF. With that "it's all just snake oil" attitude, he might actually find himself doing quite well given how things are currently running.

Kyle Roberts5 said:empirical - empirical
definition - knowledge gained through observation and experience; firsthand experience

And here, he’s just straight-up mocking people and trolling...

I honestly can't believe this kind of insult and trolling gets away with it here... Look, Sash, I get it, you aren't supposed to be handing out participation trophies in the debates you join, but this guy is literally just making fun of people and being completely disrespectful... 🤷

You're just completely missing the point, Dukakis, and I could prove it if I felt like it. It’s cute how you bolded my comments, though—even if they always include an explanation that seems to fly right over your head. Cause and effect matters if you actually want to observe things objectively. That's what science is built on, but maybe try reading a book instead of just wandering the streets once in a while and you might actually get somewhere. There's hope for you, I guess. Not much, but there's some.

Why don't you just start a whole new thread to obsess over my character and my work? This isn't the place for it. Honestly, it blows my mind that this kind of off-topic trolling gets away with everything, while nobody ever talks about the terrible moderation over at Alternative or how the Moderator clearly has a massive grudge against anyone following the Alternative path.