- #1
Mental Gridlock
- 17
- 0
What is the warning next to my name all about? It says 33%. What does that mean?
Evo said:...You do not have the authority to decide on your own that you will continue a closed topic.
You knew full well from the PMs you were sent. A thread being locked means the TOPIC of that thread is CLOSED for discussion.Mental Gridlock said:I didn't know it was a "topic" being locked. I thought it was a "thread" being locked. So I submitted part II in full complaince to all P&WA and General guidelines (unless is it redundant because of part I?). Sorry but it had to be redundant so it could serve as a standalone to comply with P&WA guidelines.
Moonbear said:You knew full well from the PMs you were sent...
A thread being locked means the TOPIC of that thread is CLOSED for discussion.
Evo said:Your best bet is to always pm the mentor any time you want an explanation or think you have reasons for a post that haven't been considered.
Moonbear said:It seems pretty self-explanatory that if a thread is locked, it's because the moderators have decided discussion on that topic will not continue.
Mental Gridlock said:MK, you are right. I am lost and confused. I have tried numerous times and through numerous methods to determine why I was suddenly banned, and still eight days later I have not received an explanation for the ban.
When the ban screen appeared, it read, "You have been banned for the following reason: next time will be permenant." Usually when you give someone a timeout, you should make sure they know what they did wrong, so they can think about what they've done. I don't know what I was supposed to rethink, and also a sudden unexplained ban where you have to wait at least three days, (or in this case eight or more) to find out why you're banned, does not serve as a "cool off" at all, rather it just makes me more mad.
chroot told me why I was warned, but not why I was banned. I asked if they were for the same thing. I'm still waiting for that response in this thread. In fact the warning wasn't even there until after I came back from my cool down anyway. There was no warning whatsoever, via PM or anything, telling me to cut it out. Just an instant ban. If someone PM'd me like you would think, and said, "Mental Gridlock, the topic being closed means you cannot make any more threads about it, so cut it out or you'll be banned". I would think that would be the courteous thing to do. I would have definatily respected that and promptly cut it out.
Now here is where I'm at with finding out what rule I broke. I have definatily been told why I was warned, as well as what I did wrong (continued the topic of a locked thread). Upon numerous requests, however, I have not yet been told what rule this is. I asked chroot, and I asked Moonbear. Please quote the rule from the guidelines that I have breached. You have left me on my own to find out, and I have made it clear that I need help with that.
Like I said, the closest guideline I can determine is the one about no redundant topics. I don't believe this is it, because the context seems like they are talking about spam, which I was not doing, and also because the second thread I made after the lock was not redundant; it contained more info and support, a counterargument to the claim that I was wrong from the first thread, and was a complete post pursuant to the P&WA guidelines. That's why I asked chroot to confirm if THIS is the rule I breached. If this is indeed the case, I suppose it only takes one rule violation to be suddenly and instantly banned without warning.
The only reason I was told why the thread was locked was because I did not substantiate my position, which was not true. I figured that wouldn't be an issue anymore with my second topic which had lots more content and substantiation, and fully backed up my position and countered Evo's argument. Of course in the rules it states that a mentor can lock a thread for any reason at all. It could be just because they don't agree, or they are frustrated or had a bad day or any other reason, not necessarily a rules violation. So my thread being locked indicated nothing about a rules violation, which is why I honestly felt it would be okay to repost the topic with more substantiation to make the mentor happy and actually get a discussion out of it.
Does it say that in any of the written guidelines? If not, does this mean that users here are accountable for what is "self-explanatory" yet not disclosed?
Also, I don't believe that's self explanatory. If a mentor locks a thread for the reason of lack of substantiation, I just assume that if the topic is brought back up with plenty of substantiation, that reason is no longer relevant and the topic should be valid for discussion as much as any other that had full compliance the first time around. Otherwise any mentor, since they have the authority to lock a thread for any reason, can permenantly stop all discussion on pretty much any topic they choose. Think about it. Let's say somebody made a thread about evolution. They said "evolution is a bunch of crap" and provided nothing to back that up. I'm sure we all know that thread would be promptly locked. Or perhaps they had full substantiation and complied with every last rule, and the thread was still locked on the whim of a mentor who locked it for "any reason". Then in this case, you are saying that we are all forbidden from discussing the topic of evolution ever again on physicsforums.com?
It's the unfriendliness/bickering that's a problem, not the disagreements. There are ways to discuss disagreements without it getting nasty or personal. When a topic gets out of control, with too much nastiness, and we lock it to put an end to growing involvement in the nastiness, and increasing needs to moderate that thread, the LAST thing we want is someone to start a brand new thread where the fighting will continue. It defies common sense to think that once a thread has been locked, we would want it to just start up again in a new thread.Mental Gridlock said:Any topic can cause unfriendliness, and people can disagree about any topic. You name it. Abortion, evolution, relativity or recipe trading. It is up to users to not get unfriendly because they disagree. If the topic is at fault you would need to lock every thread on the board, because disagreement can occur anywhere, right? That's just my opinion but I am not the boss. I certainly respect the standard that this board is held to.
P&WA has been a beast to moderate for a long time, and as has been discussed in feedback before, the mentors were getting to a point where it was taking so much of our time that we were either going to close P&WA completely or make some major changes in the guidelines for that forum. There was enough support for keeing P&WA open that we've done that and gone for the latter option of implementing tougher rules and basically lowering the threshold of what we'll tolerate there so that we aren't spending so much time cleaning up after people.Of course I was not trying to start any flame wars. Like you, I come to this place because I want intelligent discussion. I know plenty of free speech forums without moderators where I can easily have my flame war, if that's what I was going after in the first place.
Moonbear said:It's the unfriendliness/bickering that's a problem, not the disagreements. There are ways to discuss disagreements without it getting nasty or personal.
Moonbear said:When a topic gets out of control, with too much nastiness, and we lock it to put an end to growing involvement in the nastiness, and increasing needs to moderate that thread, the LAST thing we want is someone to start a brand new thread where the fighting will continue.
Moonbear said:...the mentors were getting to a point where it was taking so much of our time that we were either going to close P&WA completely or make some major changes in the guidelines for that forum. There was enough support for keeing P&WA open that we've done that and gone for the latter option of implementing tougher rules...
pallidin said:Ok, I think I see what the problem is here.
Mental Gridlock(MG), I took the time to look at the post in question, and with an open mind.
What I found was the very reason I no longer participate in a different forum(no way related to PF; a wholly different web-site).
That is, being subjected to personal opinions worded in such ways as to provide "doubt" in the "reader" and to incite agreement with the "poster"
In other words, the posters (in the OTHER forum) are not truly interested in an intellectual debate, rather, are MORE interested in convincing you that their non-scientific, personal opinion is "right".
Kind of like "This is what I believe and you MUST believe it too"
Some posters would go so far as to say, when intellectually challenged, that the "substantiated counter-claim" from the reader is a "conspiracy" or should be interpreted in some other way.
So, those types of posts are not really a matter of seeking truth, they are a matter of convincing others about biased opinions.
In that other forum, ANYONE can be right about ANYTHING.
In PF, only facts are right, not the person.
In that other forum, speculation is welcome unconditionally!
In PF, speculation is welcome, but ONLY if presented responsibly and dealt with maturely throughout the thread.
MG, my above statements are NOT a hit on you or that you are not mature, rather an effort to illustrate why I respect PF above that other forum.
I'm not responding here to your specific case, only to the general questions you're asking. If you want specific details, that should be handled via PM, just like you've been told several times here already.Mental Gridlock said:But at least now I finally got a reason for my ban.. Temporary insanity!
The warning next to your name signifies that there is an issue or concern related to your account or profile. It is a way for the system to alert you to take action or be aware of a potential problem.
The percentage shown in the warning is an indication of the severity or urgency of the issue. In this case, 33% could mean that the issue is moderate or requires some attention, but may not be critical.
To find out more about the warning, you can click on it to see more details or refer to the system's help or support section for further information. You can also reach out to the system administrator for clarification.
It is always best to take any warning seriously and investigate it further. While 33% may not seem like a high percentage, it is still important to address and resolve any issues or concerns with your account or profile.
The warning will typically be removed once the issue or concern has been addressed and resolved. However, if the warning persists, it could indicate an ongoing problem that needs to be resolved or monitored.