To clarify, if you really must post a PM from a mod, you can. — Baden

So you agree that this was abuse of mod power. How about the posts he deleted out of the climate thread. Can you review those and explain why they needed to be urgently deleted?

So you agree that this was abuse of mod power. — Tate

I do... ?

How about the posts he deleted out of the climate thread. Can you review those and explain why they needed to be urgently deleted? — Tate

No. I accept the reason given that it was due to them being off-topic. If another mod deems this worthy of further investigation, I have no objection. But I don't see why you must post in a way that an OP writer says, apparently with some justification, isn't on topic.

So you agree that this was abuse of mod power.
— Tate

I do... ? — Baden

He deleted posts out of a feedback thread that was about him. You said I should have been able to post that.

Tate

No. I accept the reason given that it was due to them being off-topic. If another mod deems this worthy of further investigation, I have no objection. But I don't see why you must post in a way that an OP writer says, apparently with some justification, isn't on topic. — Baden

Imagine you're debating a topic and your opponent deletes your posts. He subsequently states that your posts were off topic. Does that sound good to you? Do you think it might undermine discussion on the forum if a moderator is doing that?

Xtrix simply disagreed with me. The post he deleted was about information one would learn in a freshman class on global warming. It was on topic and non-offensive in any way.

Your position on this isn't making a lot of sense.

Perhaps Xtrix could post what he deleted and explain further.

Imagine you're debating a topic and your opponent deletes your posts. He subsequently states that your posts were off topic. Does that sound good to you? Do you think it might undermine discussion on the forum if a moderator is doing that?

Xtrix simply disagreed with me. The post he deleted was about information one would learn in a freshman class on global warming. It was on topic and non-offensive in any way. — Tate

Xtrix only deleted them after I raised the issue that I thought you were trolling. The only reason I didn't delete them is because I wanted others to look (because I'm on holidays) into whether this was a general issue or just in the climate thread. Because I raised it Xtrix felt comfortable deleting the posts another moderator (eg. me) already flagged.

Tate

Xtrix only deleted them after I raised the issue that I thought you were trolling. The only reason I didn't delete them is because I wanted others to look (because I'm on holidays) into whether this was a general issue or just in the climate thread. Because I raised it Xtrix felt comfortable deleting the posts another moderator (eg. me) already flagged. — Benkei

I'm surprised you didn't explain this earlier.

One of the posts he deleted was one where I mentioned the content of a freshman class in global warming. Did you flag that? If so, why?

The following post:

We are in an ice age guys. Get yourself up to speed. — Tate

Is irrelevant and off topic. Not to mention rather snarky. Easy to go back and look up.

Apparently you were responding to -- without quoting or mentioning -- Olivier5, who did not once mention ice ages. No one could possibly know that from your post, and I'm only now assuming it because of what Olivier5 has said in that thread.

I don't think you deleted that one, did you?

The issue is that you disagreed with what I said and subsequently deleted my posts.

Also you deleted posts out of the feedback thread that was about you.

These kinds of actions are a detriment to robust discussion. Do you see why?

that is awesome! I've always wanted to ride in a spaceship :nerd:

The issue is that you disagreed with what I said and subsequently deleted my posts. — Tate

I deleted your posts because they were irrelevant, and explained why. Nothing to do with "disagreement."

The post deleted in this feedback thread was because you posted private correspondence in public, for no good reason. I've since found out that, since I'm a moderator, this is generally OK. If you wish to post them publicly again, feel free. I personally think it's tacky, but that's your business.

I did: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/723090

I deleted your posts because they were irrelevant, and explained why. — Xtrix

Do you remember the content that you deleted? I was simply saying that information about ice ages can be shocking, but it's taught in classes on global warming. It's basic climatology.

Why would you need to delete that?

You were "simply saying" it after you were told that it was off topic. Furthermore, the fact that "information about ice ages can be shocking" says nothing whatsoever about why that comment was made to begin with, and is therefore just as irrelevant and off topic as stating, out of the blue, that "we're in an ice age guys."

Honestly, I thought just raising the flag about the abuse would be enough to end it. This has gotten ten times more dramatic than I thought would be necessary.

You were "simply saying" it after you were told that it was off topic. Furthermore, the fact that "information about ice ages can be shocking" says nothing whatsoever about why that comment was made to begin with, and is therefore just as irrelevant and off topic as stating, out of the blue, that "we're in an ice age guys." — Xtrix

If you have a concern, how about throwing it to another moderator to look at? I advised you to do that and you said "Thanks for the feedback."

Don't moderate a thread you're engaged in, especially after you're getting insulting and aggressive.

If you have a concern, how about throwing it to another moderator to look at? — Tate

That was done.

Don't moderate a thread you're engaged in, especially after you're getting insulting and aggressive. — Tate

If necessary, I will continue to do so. Especially when one makes off-topic remarks and continues to after being asked not to. I'd gladly hand it over to others, as is my usual protocol; none happen to be around at the time -- as was already explained to you. Also, I didn't once insult you.

Next time, don't make off-topic remarks.

These kinds of actions are a detriment to robust discussion. Do you see why? — Tate

Deleting unargued, un cited, and un related content promotes robust discussion, it is not a detriment.

If you want to join in robust discussion, post relevant, argued and cited positions.

Isaac, how would you feel if I deleted that comment?

Next time, don't make off-topic remarks. — Xtrix

I think you know they weren't off topic. It's just sad you can't muster the character to admit it.

What's sad is that you feel, despite near unanimous feedback from both other moderators and other posters, that the comment "We are in an ice age guys. Get yourself up to speed" was anything other than a non-sequitur. But you're free to play the victim and waste everyone's time. I suppose that's a sign of "character" in your view. So be it.

@Tate

Yes, we need to be careful about moderating stuff we're involved in. I haven't been perfect in that area either. But the consensus seems to be that the posts were off topic. So, I don't see any further action being required here.

Yes, we need to be careful about moderating stuff we're involved in. I haven't been perfect in that area either. But the consensus seems to be that the posts were off topic. So, I don't see any further action being required here. — Baden

I think you're making a mistake, but ok.

that is awesome! I've always wanted to ride in a spaceship :nerd: — Merkwurdichliebe

We, collectively, have been and are on a spaceship (earth). William Shatner (Capt. Kirk) is unaware of this! :zip: Shhhhh!

Pro tip: We live on the surface of the Earth which is not navigable body in space whereas astronauts live inside a navigable spaceship; ergo, inapt metaphor – Earth is not a "spaceship". :nerd: LLAP.

Pro tip: We live on the surface of the Earth which is not navigable body in space whereas astronauts live inside a navigable spaceship; ergo, inapt metaphor – Earth is not a "spaceship". :nerd: LLAP — 180 Proof

It's on autopilot! :grin:

It is even possible that we will rendezvous with a wormhole somewhere in the future. Galaxy-hopping solar systems! :cool:

The topic is a scientific one (albeit the philosophical implications). We ought to expect citation. It's standard practice. We're not interested in what you 'reckon' is the case with regards to climatology. — Isaac

No offense, but this is bullshit. Citation is only accepted here if what you're saying is relevant and/or accepted by thread participants -- sadly. Anyone could give a citation.

But I'll give my opinion to the conflict happening in this thread and the climate change thread. Tate went it and blew some crap out of the water by stating "We are in an ice age, guys." He is wrong and makes a good point all at the same time. In fact, we're in interglacial period. Which means, sooner or later, we're going to enter the ice age. But not yet.

The climate change thread in question is only talking about the man-made increase in CO2 for a very brief period in the natural history of the Earth, not the whole epoch of climate change to warrant bringing in the glacial/ice age period. Context is important here. If we're talking about the period between 1800 to 2021, this hardly warrants talking about the ice age. (You don't want the thread to turn into a comical exchange between "like-minded" people, do you?) Hence, even mentioning "are we turning the Earth into Venus" is laughable.

Over indulgence in a pet thread is a vice.

No offense, but this is bullshit. — L'éléphant

What is bullshit? That we should expect citations, or that it's standard practice? Your comment only goes on to describe the situations in which citation is accepted (though is unclear on how you measure this). My comment, however, is about what ought to be the case, not what is the case.

In fact, we're in interglacial period. Which means, sooner or later, we're going to enter the ice age. But not yet. — L'éléphant

That is not happening: the ice caps are fast melting. The Artic one will be history soon, by 2040 or so. Then, in the absence of the moderating factor that the artic ice cap represents, summer temperatures in the northern hemisphere will most certainly shoot up.

Antarctica is a bigger piece but all models predict that summer ice there will be gone in a few centuries.

Tate's "ice age" (defined by the presence of ice caps) is ending. Because of us.

:100:

It's odd to me that people universally assume I'm a climate change denier because I brought up the fact that we're in a large scale ice age. I actually brought it up to explain why climate science is complicated, but people latched on to a certain narrative and decided to be vomit their angst at me.

Anyway, I started a potentially doomed thread in the topic. We can close this thread now, I think

This is not about everybody else but you just writing really bad posts. If everybody interprets it a certain way, you're going to have to work on how to better convey what you actually mean.