How are moderators allowed to lie?

[MK14]

Making a highly opinionated post on the topic and then immediately closing the thread is not acceptable, and is an abuse of the moderator's powers.

"Moderation" implies balance and restraint. Bringing things to a head and then making sure you have the last word is the opposite of moderation.

I agree.  The thread was obviously heading towards being locked, as it progressed only towards negative worth to everyone participating or reading it – less and less likely to lead to useful discussion to anyone as it progressed –, but the way it ended up being locked was a misstep/mistake/error (by Simon).

While I've butted heads with Simon myself, I don't think it is a big/significant mistake/error at all; definitely not worth any censure, especially because it is not an irrevocable decision, nor an unanticipated one.  It would be good and important to establish that that should not become a pattern, and that if a moderator participates in a fiery discussion they need to be doubly careful about moderation actions (and if possible, leave the moderation of that particular thread to others).

To me, it is very significant that we can actually talk about this like this, openly.  It is extremely rare, in my opinion and experience.  And very valuable to me personally.

Don't forget, that only some of the information, is openly/publicly visible.

There can also be moderator reports, moderator/users discussions/communications and other information (e.g. via the server and things).  Which can have a significant bearing, on their decisions.

I admire the moderators/administrators, who have to do lots of hard work, in short-timescales, and make quick, but sensible decisions, at various times.

It is all too easy to criticize their actions, when you can't see all the information.

[Xena E]

Tesla didn't invent the electric motor, but the AC induction electric motor?
Which is waaay more complicated.

Interesting... why?

[Nominal Animal]

It is all too easy to criticize there actions, when you can't see all the information.

If it matters any, I'm specifically referring to the closing post, and that only, being a misstep/mistake/error, and only a mild one, for the reasons ebastler listed.

In simpler terms, maintaining fairness requires moderators to avoid mixing heated discussion and moderator actions in the same thread, and especially in the same post.

[ebastler]

It is all too easy to criticize there actions, when you can't see all the information.

I struggle to imagine a back-story which makes this "parting shot, then lock" pattern a good idea. Even if there were, the public perception it creates is a bad one.

Nominal Animal said it well: That particular thread was headed to be locked, and I have no issues with Simon's decision to lock it at that point. Also, I have no issues with moderators participating in a discussion, including voicing strong opinions. But the two actions should not be combined, to make a strong and subjective point and then make it final by locking the thread right afterwards. Asking a co-moderator to take over the moderation of threads where one is personally engaged in the argument is the ideal solution, I'd say.

[tggzzz]

Lying is not about intention, but about the truth. He did not tell a truth, but a falsehood. Therefore, he lied. Can't know someone's intention with just a post.

In English and American "lie" requires intent to deceive. I don't know about Canuk; do they have a separate dictionary?
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/lie
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/lie
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lie
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/lie
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/lie
etc

[MK14]

It is all too easy to criticize there actions, when you can't see all the information.

If it matters any, I'm specifically referring to the closing post, and that only, being a misstep/mistake/error, and only a mild one, for the reasons ebastler listed.

In simpler terms, maintaining fairness requires moderators to avoid mixing heated discussion and moderator actions in the same thread, and especially in the same post.

In some forums (not this one, as I understand it).  For each thread (and maybe post), the moderators, have to decide (IIRC), if they are posting as a moderator, or user (which a moderator happens to be both).

So, if they are making a comment in the thread, as part of it, no moderator comments or actions, are in that post (perhaps thread).

But if they moderate a thread, then they can't put their own opinions or thoughts, into the thread, any more.

Some forums, even use different coloured text, to indicate if it is a user comment (black ink, IIRC), or official moderator comment (red and/or bold ink, IIRC).

[SteveThackery]

So, not a charlatan, then?

Never said he was. But some of his claims were either fantasies or lies - I don't know if that makes him a charlatan by your definition.

[EEVblog]

There was no way to discuss or explain.  Simon wrote Tesla is a charlatan that didn't invent anything, then the topic was locked.

Anyone, including the OP is free to quote that text and start a new topic called "Was Tesla a fraud" or some such and start a new topic branching off discussing that. If anyone cares, the thread gains traction, if no one cares, the thread dies in the first post.

Someone always appears to have "the last word" on any locked topic. But the same argument could be said about any post in the thread and complain "I don't have right of reply because a moderator locked the thread." So I think the "last word" thing is kinda moot.

[Siwastaja]

In simpler terms, maintaining fairness requires moderators to avoid mixing heated discussion and moderator actions in the same thread, and especially in the same post.

I wholeheartedly agree. I don't think Simon makes a very good moderator because this isn't the first time and won't be the last time when he wants to have a last word on some stupid argument and utilizes thread locking for this purpose. Among others; I have also caught him actually and intentionally lying in the past as a part of some such ridiculous social games. Basically making false claims about what I did or didn't do, then lock the thread so I can't defend myself, then admit in PM that he was lying, and yet refuse to either unlock the thread or even edit his lies out of this message. Such behavior is frustrating; it is abuse of power; it feels wrong. 

He is like that, but I don't see it as a huge problem, the problem is quite contained and does not get worse over time, and I still enjoy how this forum works out as a whole, even given that none of us is perfect. In the end, this isn't a democracy, this is privately owned and operated dictatorship and that's OK too.

And I have been noticing that some members behave like people behave in dictatorships: praise the dictators. And they are sometimes truly shocked when they see that some otherwise quite sensible people (like myself) do not participate in this praise, but instead apply critical thinking.

[ebastler]

Someone always appears to have "the last word" on any locked topic. But the same argument could be said about any post in the thread and complain "I don't have right of reply because a moderator locked the thread." So I think the "last word" thing is kinda moot.

I beg to differ. It seems problematic to me if one person has the power to ensure that they, personally, have the last word, and uses that power.

[MK14]

Someone always appears to have "the last word" on any locked topic. But the same argument could be said about any post in the thread and complain "I don't have right of reply because a moderator locked the thread." So I think the "last word" thing is kinda moot.

I beg to differ. It seems problematic to me if one person has the power to ensure that they, personally, have the last word, and uses that power.

But, appearances can be deceptive.

When a moderator, has been indicated (e.g. lots of user moderation reports, about an off-the-rails errant thread or similar), to need to close a particular thread.

It might be the first time, they have ever posted in that thread, so they may decide to make a closing post, on the subject, after quickly skimming through the thread.

So, it doesn't necessarily show any malice on the part of the moderator.

It is just their job as moderator, means that they at times, end up making the last post of certain threads.

But I do agree, that it would be better, to leave out, anything, that has elements of controversy or opinion, to it, when closing a thread.

[ebastler]

It is just their job as moderator, means that they at times, end up making the last post of certain threads.

I was not thinking of closing posts along the lines of "This discussion is going nowhere and violates forum rules, so I am locking the thread." That's fine with me, and probably better style than just locking without comment. It's taking a strong and subjective position in the arguments, then locking the thread (as was the case in the Tesla thread), which I am concerned about.

[Galenbo]

There was no way to discuss or explain.  Simon wrote Tesla is a charlatan that didn't invent anything, then the topic was locked.

He's doing it again, that guy is a real disgrace for this forum.

[MK14]

It is just their job as moderator, means that they at times, end up making the last post of certain threads.

I was not thinking of closing posts along the lines of "This discussion is going nowhere and violates forum rules, so I am locking the thread." That's fine with me, and probably better style than just locking without comment. It's taking a strong and subjective position in the arguments, then locking the thread (as was the case in the Tesla thread), which I am concerned about.

I agree with you, I've been bothered about essentially exactly that phenomenon, at other place(s).

E.g. A huge argument thread breaks out, as to which is better, Intel or AMD CPUs.

I'm fine for a moderator, to say "This thread has gone off the rails, please stop all the personal attacks.  Thread LOCKED".

But, I'm not fine, for that same moderator to say "AMD makes the best CPUs by far, long live AMD, thread LOCKED, due to too many arguments".

[radiolistener]

And there we have it! It's all a conspiracy!!

I doubt that this is really conspiracy.
It looks more like some stupid rumors and speculations with no any evidence, the same as other stupid theories like flat Earth, etc.

This is the fundamental principle that Tesla seemed unable to grasp.

I'm not sure why you decided that he didn't know what is Q-factor?
It looks strange that he designed large LC circuits and didn't know that.

Some time ago I was reading old archive magazines from the beginning of the last century and was surprised by the fairly good understanding of electromagnetic waves at that time. And regarding Q-factors, I remember article from 1920 magazine about Q-factor for radio-amateurs and it explained it very clear and well understand. Such clear and understandable articles are rare these days. So I doubt that Tesla didn't know that.

I am even inclined to believe that people were more educated in the past, although many things were not known then.

I suspect that such accusations against Tesla of not understanding physics are the same rumors and speculations.

[EEVblog]

But I do agree, that it would be better, to leave out, anything, that has elements of controversy or opinion, to it, when closing a thread.

I agree, and I try not to do that, but if I said I've never done it, I'd probably be lying.

[MK14]

And I have been noticing that some members behave like people behave in dictatorships: praise the dictators. And they are sometimes truly shocked when they see that some otherwise quite sensible people (like myself) do not participate in this praise, but instead apply critical thinking.

At certain times, the moderators/administrators, have to act like parents/headmasters/Policemen/judges, and carry out, what might appear wrong/unpleasant to some members, certain actions.

Such as closing threads, that might be popular to some or banning a member, who may still have some members, who like them.

But that is part of the life (duties) of a moderator.  In the same way, a Policeman might need to take a convicted criminal to prison or a Judge (if the jury agree) may need to find someone guilty of something.

As a thought experiment, what would the forum look like in the next 3 months, if all the moderators and administrators, took absolutely no actions at all.

I suspect we would either see:

"Website unavailable:  ERROR 403".

Or 1:
99% of the threads would be SPAM,

Or 2:
It would be full of almost everyone, having open flaming wars.

[EEVblog]

It is all too easy to criticize there actions, when you can't see all the information.

I struggle to imagine a back-story which makes this "parting shot, then lock" pattern a good idea. Even if there were, the public perception it creates is a bad one.

Nominal Animal said it well: That particular thread was headed to be locked, and I have no issues with Simon's decision to lock it at that point. Also, I have no issues with moderators participating in a discussion, including voicing strong opinions. But the two actions should not be combined, to make a strong and subjective point and then make it final by locking the thread right afterwards. Asking a co-moderator to take over the moderation of threads where one is personally engaged in the argument is the ideal solution, I'd say.

Sometimes to two action might not be linked. i.e. a timeline like this:
- the moderator makes a normal post on the thread
- before anyone else replies user reports come in to lock the thread
- said moderator checks the posts which he might not have been aware of previously and then decides "yeah this is going nowhere" so then locks the thread, coincidently giving them the last post.

I know that's happened to me personally.

[tggzzz]

Personally I don't think Tesla was a charlatan, for the reasons given here:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/how-are-moderators-allowed-to-lie/msg5603895/#msg5603895

Neither do I think he was always right; clearly he had mental issues.

It is worth glancing (no more!) at the threads the OP has started. They are revealing, IMHO. At least the OP has made a decent number of responses to his OPs, unlike another ex-member

Does the "DejanC" moniker make people think of the Balkans states?

As for moderation, nobody is perfect[1] but "good enough" is sufficient and valuable.

[1] Except me, of course. I tried to teach my daughter that, and was most irritated that my parents contradicted me.

[Halcyon]

It is all too easy to criticize there actions, when you can't see all the information.

I struggle to imagine a back-story which makes this "parting shot, then lock" pattern a good idea. Even if there were, the public perception it creates is a bad one.

Nominal Animal said it well: That particular thread was headed to be locked, and I have no issues with Simon's decision to lock it at that point. Also, I have no issues with moderators participating in a discussion, including voicing strong opinions. But the two actions should not be combined, to make a strong and subjective point and then make it final by locking the thread right afterwards. Asking a co-moderator to take over the moderation of threads where one is personally engaged in the argument is the ideal solution, I'd say.

Sometimes to two action might not be linked. i.e. a timeline like this:
- the moderator makes a normal post on the thread
- before anyone else replies user reports come in to lock the thread
- said moderator checks the posts which he might not have been aware of previously and then decides "yeah this is going nowhere" so then locks the thread, coincidently giving them the last post.

I know that's happened to me personally.

Happens to me too.

[pcprogrammer]

It is all too easy to criticize there actions, when you can't see all the information.

I struggle to imagine a back-story which makes this "parting shot, then lock" pattern a good idea. Even if there were, the public perception it creates is a bad one.

Nominal Animal said it well: That particular thread was headed to be locked, and I have no issues with Simon's decision to lock it at that point. Also, I have no issues with moderators participating in a discussion, including voicing strong opinions. But the two actions should not be combined, to make a strong and subjective point and then make it final by locking the thread right afterwards. Asking a co-moderator to take over the moderation of threads where one is personally engaged in the argument is the ideal solution, I'd say.

If Simon had refrained from making that last post, I would say yes a perfectly reasonable decision to lock the thread. But definitely not after making that very bold statement and providing the video as fact, without leaving it open to oppose against his and the videos point of view.

I second that he should have forked the moderating task over to one of the other moderators and one can only hope that they would have the insight to leave room for response instead of also locking it immediately.

I do concur with MK14 that since we don't have access to all the information makes it harder to question the moderators actions. They still do a very good job in my eyes. Anyone who has been in the position of supplying a service to a large group of people knows you never do it well. There is always someone who thinks you fucked up. You just can't please everybody.

[Zero999]

Energy is indeed all around us in large but finite amounts.  The problem is converting it into more useful forms.  It is not only an engineering problem, but also one constrained by the physically observable phenomena: just because we'd like some potential energy to convert to say kinetic energy, does not make it happen.  There must be a suitable repeatable physical phenomena for the conversion to occur.  None of the experiments Nikola Tesla did showed any such phenomena.

Of course, energy and work are different things. There's lots of energy in the environment, but to make use of it, i.e. perform work, there needs to be an energy difference. It's impossible to extract work from a system which is in equilibrium: same pressure, temperature etc.

[RoGeorge]

then the topic was locked.

Well, to use the Australian (as well as other countries) expression.

"Don't be a Dick".

The locked thread went to 6 pages, and the OP, (my remembered impression of the thread, possibly mistaken) still hadn't answered a single question, even simple/basic ones.

"You are barking at the wrong tree".

I was addressing Simon, for making an injustice and a false accusation to Tesla's legacy, then locking the thread.  This is not the first time Simon does that, throwing his own opinion as final, then locking a thread.  I don't want to see that turning into a habit.  No more, no less.


As for the thread that was locked, I didn't follow that thread at all, because I've explained that video already, a year ago, to a user Dejan567, probably the same DejanC.

Quote from Dejan567 https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/tesla-hairpin-circuit-curious-phenomenon/msg4857980/#msg4857980

Can you please comment on the below at around 28 minute mark? Feel free to watch the entire video [same video as in the last week thread].

And my explanation was this:  https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/tesla-hairpin-circuit-curious-phenomenon/msg4858439/#msg4858439

See MK14?  You even thanked me for that explanation.

To my eyes, there's nothing mysterious or unexplainable in that video.  All clear and explainable using no more than high school physics.

[Zero999]

Whilst I think the criticism of Simon's decision to post a controversial statement, before the thread being locked (assuming he locked it) is valid. Is this the right place to discuss it? Has anyone sent Simon or Dave a private message to discuss the matter? I think that's a more appropriate way to deal with the matter, rather than in the public forum.

[MK14]

then the topic was locked.

Well, to use the Australian (as well as other countries) expression.

"Don't be a Dick".

The locked thread went to 6 pages, and the OP, (my remembered impression of the thread, possibly mistaken) still hadn't answered a single question, even simple/basic ones.

"You are barking at the wrong tree".

I was addressing Simon, for making an injustice and a false accusation to Tesla's legacy, then locking the thread.  This is not the first time Simon does that, throwing his own opinion as final, then locking a thread.  I don't want to see that turning into a habit.  No more, no less.


As for the thread that was locked, I didn't follow that thread at all, because I've explained that video already, a year ago, to a user Dejan567, probably the same DejanC.

Quote from Dejan567 https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/tesla-hairpin-circuit-curious-phenomenon/msg4857980/#msg4857980

Can you please comment on the below at around 28 minute mark? Feel free to watch the entire video [same video as in the last week thread].

And my explanation was this:  https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/tesla-hairpin-circuit-curious-phenomenon/msg4858439/#msg4858439

See MK14?  You even thanked me for that explanation.

To my eyes, there's nothing mysterious or unexplainable in that video.  All clear and explainable using no more than high school physics.

I meant that, the decision to lock that thread, was fine and legitimate.

As you suggest, leaving an opinion piece at the end, may not be a good idea, if the thread is about to be locked.

I'm happy for people to have various opinions about Tesla and the stuff they did.

But, if it gets to the point that a person, is so solidly obsessed with Tesla, that they keep on making multiple forum accounts and remaking the same (or very similar) threads, all about the same topic.  Moderator action, may be needed.

Which if anyone tries to disagree with, their beliefs in the presented video(s) and Tesla, will, instead of being listened to and thought about, then commented.

Seems to just get an indignant/obsessive, Tesla was/is right, it has to be wrong.  Type of response.

I.e.  There are forum users (the majority), that we can have useful discussions about stuff with in threads.

But there can be a minority, who are so obsessed with their beliefs (such as The Earth is flat, or free-energy machines are already a thing, as their YouTube video, shows free-energy, lighting a light bulb, via some wires, coming from a sealed, so called black-box perpetual motion generator/machine), that a thread can get to 200 pages long and the OP, is still rigidly sticking to their original ideas.