Welcome! Log In Create A New Profile

Advanced

A little personal commentary

Posted by CliffStamp 
This forum is currently read only. You can not log in or make any changes. This is a temporary situation.
Re: A little personal commentary
November 28, 2013 08:46PM
Yes, I am from Newfoundland, and yes, I have driven there from time to time.
Re: A little personal commentary
November 28, 2013 10:56PM
Kylie, if you ever do, I need a pair. I've been called a fantasy/dream crusher a couple of times with my rude and unwelcome inclusions of reality in some conversations.

"Fantasy Crusher" sounds slightly better than "Jerk", which I've also been called, lol. Hey I'm working on it.
Re: A little personal commentary
December 15, 2013 04:57PM
Cliff, do you think you got the boot because you didn't buy a platinum membership? They don't ban paying members?!?
Re: A little personal commentary
December 15, 2013 07:10PM
The last post I made is still on BF I was banned for noting how the form had degraded seriously since it was sold and Spark took over and that it was now populated by ridiculous discussions were people "debated" known and obvious properties of steel as if they were actually of contention. In specific this was in reference to the fact that a well known maker was disputing that D2 was of low toughness in regards to making large blades. You might as well dispute that 440C has a higher corrosion resistance than 1095.
Re: A little personal commentary
December 16, 2013 04:34PM
You know, I'm not sure I agree with this. As a moderator of another forum, Bladeforums has become an excellent resource for me. I study what the mods do, how they behave (spark in particular), and then in most cases decide that doing precisely the opposite is the correct course of action.

Like this recent thread:
[www.bladeforums.com]


This reinforced a variety of important lessons, but the one I really took home is that if you lock a thread you probably shouldn't make a final counter argument. If the thread is really out of hand, by all means lock it if thats the only way to control it, but either lock it or comment on it. Using thread locking as a means to simply have the last word......

Here is background:
[www.bladeforums.com]


And perhaps my favorite Spark quote of all time:
Quote
Spark
Bunch of people need to lighten up and realize what's actually important. BTW, anyone who complains about arrogance produces an instant visceral reaction in me that causes me to put them in the "troublemaker" camp.

Sorry, you don't have a right not to be offended. That goes for everyone. The mods tend to be very polite but they aren't here to coddle or kiss ass. While I personally don't agree with the "no foul language" trend, it's not a huge deal to me either.

If some of you can't swallow some humble pie and realize that this site is about information and not ego, I don't know what to tell you. That goes for everyone.
ref. [www.bladeforums.com]


Of course, as a mod myself, I'm sure if someone who disagrees with an warning I gave them (or that they think I gave them) would have a f*cking field day reading this thread and accusing me of hypocrisy. tongue sticking out smiley

Anyway I'm getting off topic. My point is that you can, and probably should, go find Cliff's Bladeforum's profile. His directness is often perceived as insulting when its not, but the people arguing against him are pretty laughable. It all in all takes maybe 20 minutes or so to see the bladeforums career of Cliff completely ended from the various perspectives. My third person impression is that the moderators, ironically, failed to act. Users were allowed to basically savage Cliff over all sorts of inane bullshit, and nobody stepped in to say enough is enough your opinions don't get to go up against data. To this day you can still get yourself raked over the coals on BF just by mentioning Cliff.
Re: A little personal commentary
December 16, 2013 04:39PM
But do you think that if Cliff was a paying GOLD member, they may not have booted him?

If I paid for a GOLD membership and got canned I would ax for my cashmonet back. Do they ever boot cash-paying members?

Btw, I would never pay for a forum membership for any forum. The internet, it's all about FREEDOM, baby...yeah!

Thanx Cliffie



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 12/16/2013 05:37PM by Lord_Helpus.
Re: A little personal commentary
December 16, 2013 05:18PM
Understand I'm not a BF mod, so I can't really say definitively what the mods were told to do or what not to do, so the following is speculation:

Accusations of theft, scamming, etc often result in shockingly quick bans of even paying members with very little evidence presented. In the threads of this sort I've seen, if you have one dissatisfied customer and one person who doesn't like you very much, showing up in the thread gets you harassed but failing to defend yourself in the thread or doing so poorly will probably lead to you being banned.

As far as the opinion/discussion forums go, I see members who aren't paying hammered far often than ones who are. There is a question of causality here though, because you don't need bladeforums to sell knives (the reason you'd pay for a membership) so presumably in order to pay you have to kind of buy into the whole system thus would be less likely to buck it and debate and in turn less likely to be banned.

Kohai999 is an unusual exception to this, someone who disagrees with BF mods, and you'll notice another member who did far less "stirring of the pot" got the hammer (he wasn't a paid member) whereas Kohai999 just got all his threads closed.

"Stirring the pot" is considered a sin on bladeforums. Ironically though, being a drive by ass dropping an insult or two and leaving, is considered just fine by the mods. Its if you actually try to get into a serious debate you're considered "stirring the pot" and the result tends to be infractions and subsequently banning. Jason Morrow (the one with a classy avatar of a girl delivering a blowjob tongue out) hammered me recently in that S30v toughness "debate." The guy who was debating me was ragging me for two reasons: 1) I mentioned the name Cliff Stamp (which is like saying Voldemort on bladeforums) and 2) I was making him feel bad. He never offered any real counter-argument to any of my technical points. Morrow hammered me, and via private email I trolled the hell out of him for it because he was clearly spanking me to shut me up for manufacturer interests, ego, or whatever. I was not amused. I could also slate him for eagerly rising to my bait (privately) which is pretty unprofessional for a mod IMHO.

Another problem with Bladeforums is many of the mods are participating members. My personal perspective on moderation is that, unless its excruciatingly clear cut that someone is maliciously breaking a rule, if you participated in the debate you should hand the moderation over to someone else who didn't. BF doesn't have any such guidelines. Mods will show up, debate, and happily mod hammer you if they can't offer a logic argument adequate to contradict you.

Bladeforums is an ultimate failure, as a technical forum that is, because of the sort of moderation that goes on there. Punishments are hands off until the extreme. Users who are just "drive bys" get to say whatever they want. And most critically there is no moderation to favor factual, logical, or otherwise scientific arguments over emotion, marketing, hearsay, or opinion. How could they bring it back from the brink? I don't know if its possible to so change a forum's culture at this point, particularly one that large. I'd start with a better forum leader (ultimately forums are rather top-down in regards to their culture, so Spark would either need an education, choose to step aside, or would have to go). From there people would need to be scrutinizing the existing mods more. Some are obviously bigger problems than others, but clear moderation guidelines would need to be established (and published), and some moderator training on professionalism might not hurt. And finally drivel would have to be banished to all but sections like Whine and Cheese. No longer could users just happily drop by and say "Fuck Cliff, he has a small penis and his mother was a hamster and his father smelled of elderberries."

There is a big problem with this hypothesis of cleaning BF up though, and its part of why Spark is so strongly motivated both to keep people from "stirring the pot" and making critical/technical arguments, and thats profitability. Technically minded people are, as a population percentage, relatively rare. Relatively few people want to show up and have serious debates. They want to schmooze with friends, look at knife porn, and make each other feel great about their purchases/the things they like. To make Bladeforums technical would alienate both a majority of members and a majority of manufacturers on there. Just think, if the world's largest knife forum held maker's feet to the fire regarding their technical bullshitisms, how many of them would stick around versus taking their money elsewhere?

So this brings me around to your ultimately question of whether Cliff would have been banned if he had a paid membership. Its purely speculation obviously, but I would say Cliff is a special issue. Why? Because he almost exclusively "stirs the pot" by insistently making factual arguments and this costs manufacturers money. You have to realize, sales today (in almost everything, not just knives) are based primarily on marketing rather than substance. If suddenly you have someone very publicly calling out a manufacturer for not creating products which are quality and/or fit the marketing, it'll cost them money. They'll in turn pressure Spark (or outright pay him) to get rid of that. Cliff then, to be desirable, would have to bring in more revenue than he cost to really stick around. Ultimately then, if Cliff's membership were 30K a year in a personal cheque made out to Kevin Jon Schlossberg then maybe he'd have lasted a few more years. At the typical paid membership (which IIRC was still highway robbery but was significantly less than that) it wouldn't have been enough and he'd still have been booted.
Re: A little personal commentary
December 16, 2013 05:49PM
Thanks for your enlightening post HunterS.

Kevin Jon Schlongberg???

Then I guess he will never ban E.Salve. I'm guessing having a crucifix as your avatar would be frowned upon..? If only Robert Young Pelton was named Robert Young Glick?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/16/2013 06:01PM by Lord_Helpus.
Re: A little personal commentary
December 17, 2013 04:01PM
Quote
Hunterseeker5

Another problem with Bladeforums is many of the mods are participating members. My personal perspective on moderation is that, unless its excruciatingly clear cut that someone is maliciously breaking a rule, if you participated in the debate you should hand the moderation over to someone else who didn't.

This is just an example of what happens when people with no training/experience try to do something which requires it, you seem the same basic mistakes in customer service when manufacturer reps respond to clients who clearly have no background in customer service. One of the most basic rules of moderation is that you can not participate in and moderate a discussion because of the potential for bias.

In regards to the baiting/trolling, there was open discussion by several makers/manufacturers that they would intentionally do this as they wanted to get me to respond so I could be banned, this wasn't a secret, it was openly stated. The same thing continues now, there are a number of people who troll openly and use ad hominem consistently on the Spyderco forums. As just one example, look at the latter part of this thread : [www.spyderco.com]! .

Chuck insinuates Kyley is biased, he claims I am sock puppeting, he makes multiple personal rants with no information content - and again the entire purpose of this is to degrade the thread into a personal flame war. The outcome of this would have two consequences :

-at a minimum it would hide the real issues raised

-at a maximum the other party would be foolish enough to respond in kind and get banned

Yes there is a clear example of hypocrisy, how come those people are not banned. But you have to realize that he who build the house writes the rules. There is no difference at a fundamental level between Kevin restricting what can be posted on Bladeforums and me restricting what can be posted here. What we restrict is different but the claim of right to restrict is the same in both cases, the only difference is we have a different set of goals for what the forum should be and the content is restricted along those lines.

It is up to the user to then decide what forum they want to participate on based on the mission of that forum, but it is difficult to argue that someone should not be allowed to restrict discussion on a form they create/maintain. Of course you can accuse them of being inconsistent or out right violating the mission statement of being "the leading edge of knife discussion" or that the number one rule is the golden rule. How many moderators actually are "nice".
Re: A little personal commentary
December 17, 2013 05:36PM
Quote
CliffStamp
Yes there is a clear example of hypocrisy, how come those people are not banned. But you have to realize that he who build the house writes the rules. There is no difference at a fundamental level between Kevin restricting what can be posted on Bladeforums and me restricting what can be posted here. What we restrict is different but the claim of right to restrict is the same in both cases, the only difference is we have a different set of goals for what the forum should be and the content is restricted along those lines.


Bullshit. Don't pretend to elevate political/economic shilling and ad hominem attacks, or degrade science, until they're on the same level. There are two reasons for this.

1) Science enjoys a measure of divinity, for lack of a better word, in that it is what built the forums on which we debate, the knives which are the topic, and so on. Its not reasonable to compare science on a level footing as sentiment/emotion because the former is what builds societies and the latter is what ultimately leads to their failures. (Collapse by Jared Diamond might be a fascinating read for you Cliff) They are not equally valid.

2) A scientific forum being moderated for science has a clear goal. A scientific (granted at least Turber started it that way) forum being used as a front for shilling, censorship, marketing, and drivel is on the back foot if, for no other reason, than because it is claiming to be something it is not.

I realize we've had this debate before, and you disagree with me that science/truth is inherently valuable regardless, but I stand by my position that it is not all so gray and muddled as you portray.


In the case of that Filipino Chuck, he is rather popular on the Spyder forums. This is part of the issue of having a manufacturer forum: nobody else is going to moderate it for you, and any moderation you do can have immediate blowback on your brand. It is my experience though that on Filipino forums, people are remarkably polite to each other, but when moving to public forums they have a different sort of social perspective which can cause them to appear far more coarse than they may have intended. Call it racist, call it whatever you want, its just my experience for what little (nothing) its worth; societal norms will often govern the nature of interactions. I don't excuse him per se, its just something I've noticed over the years.
Re: A little personal commentary
December 17, 2013 05:54PM
Again,

What I noted was they are both the same on the fundamental level that both Kevin and myself are claiming that we should be allowed / have the right to restrict what is posted on our forums. The implementation of that (what we choose to restrict) is entirely apart from that fundamental claim.

(if you want to be very specific I would claim I have the right not to be forced to change what I restrict against my will, Kevin claims he has the right to restrict what he wants - these are similar but not identical claims)

You can of course exercise your right to participate and in so doing express your position that you do not feel the restrictions are fair/just but this again is very different than saying that the fundamental claim can not be made.

This is no different than you could argue for example that someone doing research into cancer is a more worthwhile/"better" activity than shilling for big tobacco. However this does not mean you would force people to not be allowed to choose which one they would do.

I don't agree with the choices Kevin has made and I clearly said so (which is why I was banned) and I believe it harms the industry directly and indirectly - but I still believe he should be allowed to do it.

I do not believe I should be allowed to force him to run his forum as I would any more than he should be allowed to force me to support open shilling on mine.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/17/2013 06:04PM by CliffStamp.
Re: A little personal commentary
December 17, 2013 06:03PM
Re: A little personal commentary
December 17, 2013 06:18PM
Quote
Hunterseeker5

... you disagree with me that science/truth is inherently valuable

I don't think that is even a proposition as you have to define what you are trying to create/achieve and thus you can determine what has worth or essentially the ability to achieve said goal.

It would be a very strong claim to say if someone lived their left without science that they would have no worth so it is likely not a necessary worth, or even the more minor claim that people who are "more scientific" have more inherent worth to society so it can not even claim to be a dominant worth.

Truth is much the same way, it is very rare that individuals want to live in a state of frank/raw truth. For most people their life is a state of balance of functional fantasy.

Now you could make the claim on a fundamental level that science has inherent worth (similar to people have inherent value) but few people take such a radical position and those who do rarely understand what they are actually saying.
Re: A little personal commentary
December 17, 2013 07:58PM
Cliffie, what's your take on "Global Warming," now called "Climate Change?" I used to believe it until I read Crichton's book.
Re: A little personal commentary
December 17, 2013 10:58PM
I have not looked at the research seriously, that is a major undertaking to have the ability to make a significant decision.
Re: A little personal commentary
December 17, 2013 11:00PM
Science is a methodology, a mindset, sort of collective verisimilitude. I define science as a methodology to be inherently valuable because what specifically will lead to a breakthrough.

I would argue that someone who made a lifelong conscientious effort to live without scientific methodology would produce either negative or zero benefit to society. Political process is one of my favorite examples of this. But really, to reject science, is to say you effectively reject behavioral modification based on experience.

Of course, as I said, you disagree with me on all these points and I simply don't feel like having this debate again since neither of us are likely to shift positions.


Quote
Lord_Helpus
Cliffie, what's your take on "Global Warming," now called "Climate Change?" I used to believe it until I read Crichton's book.

If you define "climate change" to be a very narrow set of predictions set forth by some individual, that may or may not come to pass. If you define climate change broadly, as humans having a measurable and statistically significant effect on the climate of this biosphere, we already indisputably have. Really then your question has more to do with the political implications of the question, regarding specific predictions made, and while there is a surprisingly strong scientific consensus regarding some of these predictions we don't fully understand how these things will come to play out. That is why they are hypotheses.

Realize also the political motivations and financial incentives behind skepticism in this instance. We have been and still are definitively changing the biosphere, whether its reversible, undesirable, and what specific effectrs it will have depends on where you live, who is signing your cheques, and how much of a coward you are.
Re: A little personal commentary
December 17, 2013 11:59PM
Of course the greenist commies have NO ulterior political motives for their argument? Did you just call me a coward? Is name calling allowed here Cliff?

Of course the climate changes. In the winter it gets chillier. Global warming is communist claptrap. Man's affect to the environment is insignificant. Polar bears have been around for 60 million years. They can weather a changing climate. Greenies think it should always be 72 degrees F. Green is the new red. Global Warming harpies just want some place unspoilt to drive their Volvos to. Hey, spread the wealth buddy. I can't afford a Boker Leo Damast. Can you open your green purse strings wide so's I can please get some guns, germs & damasteel?hot smiley



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 12/18/2013 12:05AM by Lord_Helpus.
Re: A little personal commentary
December 18, 2013 03:46AM
Nether bias for or agaisnt climate change is going to actually help people understand whats going on better. No matter which side the ball falls on someone is going to make a lot of money off climate change.

The major ecological concern is a rise in ocean temps because it alters the oceans enviroment a lot more than just being a little hotter or colder.
Re: A little personal commentary
December 18, 2013 05:49AM
Quote
Lord_Helpus
...guns, germs & damasteel?hot smiley

I enjoyed that book. The article about Diamond using pseudoscience made my eyes roll involuntarily.

Climate change keeps me up some nights, until I get tired enough to be convinced by myself that the free market will make alternative energy sources, scrubbers, desalinators and other currently prohibitively expensive equipment cheap enough to hold us over. Doesn't really make a lot of sense, but hey, at that point I just want to sleep.

Quote
Old Spice
someone is going to make a lot of money off climate change.

Definitely true, but that's the trouble as well: whenever someone makes a lot of money, someone is (or more likely some people are) losing a lot of money, or relative wealth, or health, or their lives. Climate change = societal change, good luck kids!
Re: A little personal commentary
December 18, 2013 02:32PM
Re: A little personal commentary
December 18, 2013 03:35PM
Quote
Lord_Helpus
Of course the greenist commies have NO ulterior political motives for their argument?
I doubt greenist commies ulterior political motives are litterally gold-plated

In other words, "some people" already make a lot of money.
Re: A little personal commentary
December 18, 2013 09:01PM
Quote
Lord_Helpus
Of course the greenist commies have NO ulterior political motives for their argument? Did you just call me a coward? Is name calling allowed here Cliff?

No, actually, if you had read what I had said you would have been placed in precisely the opposite camp because you do not baselessly fear global climate change and act irrationally as such. () Cowardice would be defined as irrational actions due to fear in the face of a threat. I would ask that, in future, you at least attempt read my replies before responding to them. Unless of course you're saying that you, secretly, do believe in global climate change and that your overwhelming fear of it is causing you to irrationally deny its existence, but I was not implying such.


Just as an indisputable example of how we are changing our climate, I will refer you to atmospheric average CO2 levels. We have a remarkably good record of this, and while some people debate the accuracy of ice cores, we are actually increasing atmospheric CO2 levels at such a rate that we have modern records showing a significant increase. I'll refer you to this little wikimedia commons table:
[en.wikipedia.org]

You can also look at levels of global deforestation, indisputably caused by human action, or the reduction in amount of light reaching the earth from commercial aircraft alone (reference post 9/11 flight grounding).

So we are changing the biosphere, its not subject to debate. The part that is subject to debate is what the results of all this might be. Presumably that puts you, Mr. Lord_Helpus, in the firm category of "don't care, don't think it will change." I personally fall into the category of believing the increased surface energy will cause inclement weather to become more extreme, some areas will become drier while others moister, and as the general rule of anything the wealthy will adapt and the poor will be the hardest hit.

Just a little light reading for you:
[www.realclimate.org]


@FortyTwoBlades I'm afraid the video won't play, but I did some digging on its author. smiling smiley Thank you.

As an aside, I quite frankly can't believe we're having a "debate" over global climate change on a technical forum.
Re: A little personal commentary
December 18, 2013 11:58PM
What's also worth noting is that throne of gold, marble and glass is not sitting heavily in an opulent palace (he probably has one there too) but a couple thousand meters in the air, on a ridiculous private jet.

He was also supposedly suing Forbes for underestimating his wealth by 9 Billion (apparently a libellous mistake), and placing him 26th instead of 10th on their rich list. Stay classy, Prince Whatever-Who-Cares.
Re: A little personal commentary
January 18, 2014 06:39PM
Re: A little personal commentary
January 18, 2014 07:05PM
Re: A little personal commentary
January 24, 2014 11:37PM
Climate changed is a strange issue because of the huge amounts of misinformation on both sides of the debate. Things like ocean temperatures rising are trivilized because they only rise or fall by a few degrees. The issue with that arguement is that it takes a lot of energy to raise waters temperature due to its unique structure, the amount of energy it takes can be calculated with this. heat = mass × specific heat × temperature change, and thats using calories are your unit of energy, the specific heat of water is 1 calorie per gram, and its measured in celsuis.

Now think amount the sheer size of something like the atlantic ocean. Around 77 million cubic miles according to the internet. So the amount of energy to raise that by even a degree celsius is massive. And thats calculating with the entire mass of the ocean, most sunlight doesnt go much farther than the surface so most of the energy is in the surface.

I won't talk about the effects of this amount of energy on the environment, since I simply don't know what it could do. Also note how much less energy there is when it drops by a few degrees.
Re: A little personal commentary
February 28, 2014 10:02PM
What's humourous is Canada lets "climate change" communists carry knives. Knives are dangerous. Mind you don't nick, cut, stab or slash yourself.
Re: A little personal commentary
March 02, 2014 09:12PM
Re: A little personal commentary
March 02, 2014 09:19PM
Quote
Lord_Helpus
Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore tells US Senate there is "no proof" humans cause climate changel

He will be ridiculed unmerciful, basically like Cliff, and he's a Canadian to boot. Get it? Canadian to boot spinning smiley sticking its tongue out


Chumgeyser on Youtube
E-nep throwing Brotherhood. Charter Member
Re: A little personal commentary
March 02, 2014 10:28PM
Quote
Lord_Helpus
Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore tells US Senate there is "no proof" humans cause climate changel

I have a simple exercise for you. Take the number of cubic miles of gasoline, just gasoline now not all the other fossil fuels we use, we consume every year. Convert that into tons of CO2. Now ask yourself if that, multiplied by time, "changes" anything. Food for thought.