Whoa I am up -8 –ve snacks! Arkon beware! (See below.)
This is an open discussion about –ve snacks and yes my posts are provocative because the giving of -ve mole snacks in my opinion a major flaw in the system that should be corrected. I am Canadian where we’re allowed free speech, but I can understand it if you are posting from Syria or North Korea. If Borek did not "award" me my first –ve snack then I apologize, but this is why the system should be changed. The evidence I have strongly suggested it was him; here is the question
http://www.chemicalforums.com/index.php?topic=50718.0I joined Chem forums Aug 18 2011, my answer to this question was posted Aug 21. As you can see Borek’s reply and my rebuttal were posted on the same day. The -ve snack appeared at this time. It should relatively easy for Borek to check his history for Aug 21 and determine if he gave the snack.
Don’t forget I was testing Chem Forums to ascertain whether the ethics are any better than Yahoo! Answers.
Consider: Arkcon, Global Moderator, Sr. Member, Mole Snacks: +185/-90. To be a global moderator you must have the respect of your peers but he (I assume Arkon is a he, apologies if I am wrong) has 90 –ve mole snacks! [I am going to have to get a wiggle on to match that total!] Did Borek penalize Arkon for breaking forum rules? Did Arkon advertise red sneakers for sale? Of course not, Arkon probably received most (all?) of his –ve snacks from people that he as an administrator had to disappoint. The donors hid behind the anonymity of –ve snacks rather than having the courage to register an open complaint against him. This strikes me as an electronic version of slander. As I have stated before, what message are we sending to next generation of scientists to allow this? And those rules should apply to all forms of discourse in chemistry including the internet.
So if you wish to keep with –ve snacks might I suggest a few changes. Maintain the anonymity of the person giving the snack, but please give which post it refers to (how am going to correct my mistakes if I’ve posted five answers and received a single –ve snack?). Restrict the awarding of –ve snacks to regular members or higher. That should reduce the number of trolls abusing the system. Have some guidelines for awarding –ve snacks. Obscene answers, homophobic, racist, ad hominem attacks are best reported directly to the administrator. I don’t think a –ve snack should be given to someone that has made an honest mistake in his/her answer. Cases where a –ve snack might be warranted (taken from my Y!A experience): (1) A regular or higher member who consistently gives wrong answers (see earlier post). On Y!A I would try and step in with the correct answer but at times I either could not keep up with his posts or they were questions I do not answer (I only answer the most difficult questions in my area of expertise).
(2) People that belittle a person who asks a supposedly "dumb" question. There are people on this forum that come close to being in this category. There is no such thing as a dumb question; it is how we learn. To be told your question is dumb when you’re just starting out can be devastating. When I ask a dumb question I admit it and move on. There is a retired teacher on Y!A that is notorious for denigrating students whose questions he deems dumb. I would wait (usually not for long!) for our retired teacher to give a "dumb" answer and then ship him up his own medicine. Coincidentally, I was usually then attacked by trolls and had to go underground for a few days and emerge with a new ID and icon.
(3) People that BS. Discussed in a previous post. Ask them to back up their statement.
As you can see I have no reason to give –ve snacks. No one learns by giving them.
@ DrCMS "
Did you get a PhD? I did, does that mean everything I say is right and automatically of more value than someone just with a BSc or heaven forbid not even that?" I see DrCMS has backed off that line of attack now that he know I also have a PhD.
If you don’t back up your answer with references then yes I believe I can question your background. I tell students to ignore my credentials and to just judge my answer on its merits that invariably include references. (Incidentally, as of 22/5/12 I have 2565 Best Answers on Y!A so some students think my answers are OK.)
@408 "
dude, it is the internet, who cares."
omg: I care! As should anyone else who wants a forum of the highest ethical standards. Now what was I saying about setting standards for the next generation..
@ DrCMS "
so if you carry on bitching about getting -ve snacks I will take one each and every day until you shut up about it or leave the site"
But I appear to be the only one able to answer the advanced questions on inorganic chemistry! You wouldn’t want to banish me would you? So do you control whether or not I can contribute to Chem Forums?
I see someone else has picked up on your arrogance in a recent post:
http://www.chemicalforums.com/index.php?topic=59191.0 but Borek has censored further discussion on that topic. And now it has been completely removed!
@ DrCMS "
Having looked back through all your posts you have mentioned the -ve snacks given quite a few times in other threads."
Would you care to back up this statement? The only time I recall having complained about a –ve snack was the first one I received. I have made sarcastic remarks about my other –ve snacks (see above) but surely DrCMS can distinguish the two types of comments? It appears to me you’re on a witch-hunt going over my previous posts.
@DrCMS "
It could be someone is taking them away just to wind you up as you seem to take it too much to heart."
Beware of who is doing the winding up! I am renown for adopting controversial positions on subjects I believe in. I tell people my heritage is Churchill not Chamberlain. I am enjoying this storm in a tea cup! My hope is that changes will be made to what I see as a flaw in Chem Forums. You will note that I have proposed measures whereby the system can be improved. You can’t wind me up for the simple reason that I won’t let you.
Questions currently on forum.
Caesium absorbance at 340 nm: Run a blank. Cs2O is orange
Ligand field stabilization energies: Your LFSEs are wrong; Pairing energies do indeed need to be considered; exchange energies are ignored.
Hapticity in arenes: I am an acknowledged expert on TM cmplxs with η^6-arene (hexahapto) ligands
Methyl Lithium Bonding: MeLi is a tetramer (Me4Li4) with 4c-2e bonds
Question for DRCMS an organosilicon chemist: Why is Si2(Mes)4 yellow?