An appeal to undo censorship levied against my five year thread here

[brandon429]

A thread tracking pure skip cycle instant reefs, no bottle bac

This is a testless cycling thread, we don't want ammonia testing here for any job if possible, because we are teaching reefers/readers that moving live rocks system to system does not restart the cycle: many in our community don't understand that rule and feel that any tank being setup simply...

www.reef2reef.com

That thread was not locked for five years


Non fighting people ran it just fine, for sixty months about

But five people who were carrying vengeance from other posts piled on, and you regulated the tool AND the misbehaving people, who no longer pounce in my threads


So please unlock my skip cycle thread, I have ten more happy people we built instant tanks for wanting to join. I give them that link, they learn from it, but we can’t update it?

Now that arguing was stopped, behavior regulated vs the inanimate media tool I use to discuss skip cycling the last several years (my web thread) can it be unlocked so that I can proceed please


All friends in that thread were enjoying discussing the unique aspect of skip cycling without testing and without bottle bac. Heavy handed as default stopped us from moving forward

look at the sheer positivity for years there before my science was wrecked

If I started a new thread, it would be the same content and with regulated behaviors there’s no need for thread defense, as I did there in the final five pages that somehow triggered the choice to stop my science from progressing


Requesting fairness if at all possible

Vs an instant thread deletion/lifespan of six seconds/ can a fair handed individual among the group lay eyes, and speak on my science I worked so hard to produce for you and me and my friends


The behavior of literally unchecked pile on attacks coming into me does not warrant thread closure anymore so that misuse of an automobile warrants you to revoke good driver’s privilege. You ceased the science part unnecessarily, the behaviors are now months fixed.


May we continue discussing skip cycling / or is taboo?

 

[brandon429]

@Randy Holmes-Farley

When I saw your article mention skip cycling and non use of bottle bac it made me miss being able to discuss such things

You always gave me the impression you wouldn’t condone blocking someone’s science focus

If you truly believe my science work should be closed there on merit of the jobs I did, not the way I defend myself from raw pile on meanness, then I rest the thread. Am asking because I think no other mod will be fair they’ll just delete it all with no regard for the science (hence, it’s closure status)

I honestly have no right to be conducting skip cycle logs, for that long, not using bottle bac or testing?

I’d never elbow out someone who wanted to work, has been working a dang long time on similar matters. That’s just my take, and I don’t know who can evaluate the claim fairly


I want it’s science to be the decider

Did we make any useful patterns to draw confidences, actions, predictions from?

If not, I have no use for the thread. But I think we did, and you are the only fair judge of skip cycling I’m thinking.

 

[brandon429]

Mods who may see this before Randy


I picked the best thread I could for the appeal, it’s a site management call, I picked honorably to file the request and minor jab at having to ask for my thread to be uncensored. If this is the wrong forum, please don’t instantly delete the thread

It would be so nice if you’d just move it, nicely, go where it should be since I couldn’t find a better place

and let it exist in a way that could allow fair evaluation by the science board.


I think large sources of source material shouldn’t be squelched and unmentioned, I think they should be allowed to live on with by the minute skip cycle updates, it’s former status quo.

This feels like me appealing to my college professor/group board of those who decide which science is ok to promote/ to not delete my term paper since I was judged to have defended myself out in the parking lot too assertively. Is that not the very last five pages of that thread?

That Im having to appeal for this I find very, very 2025. I don’t mind asking though


Must that science die, or just in its prior form where I logged helpful patterns, predictions and useful copyable outcomes

 

[brandon429]

Let’s say that thread above dies/disappears/never continues for some reason and our pics are lost
The outcomes, lost, the new updates and outcomes, blocked



Where was the discussion about reef tank skip cycling, before there? Can I see the set of works labeled as skip cycling predating that rascal in post one?

I’m assuming there’s more than one source for skip cycle work with logged patterns: may I see it please, anything related to skip cycle reefing that isn’t from a reef2reef post?

It’s becoming a hip term nowadays, what’s its origins?

 

[VintageReefer]

Let him have his thread back
He’s helped lots of people with it

 

[brandon429]

I was sending about ten messages a second asking Daniel not to close it, I knew their pile on had one goal

Then it was locked and we're all still allowed to post, but just that one sole only source of skip cycle work for reef2reef must stay closed. That's heavy handed. That’s amazing timing.


When I look at the next to the last page and see Randy in the fray, not exactly squelching the pile behavior but still present, maybe tossing just a kernel to the crows, and then my thread is closed quickly- and we were talking for five years about skip cycling- that hit deep.

nowadays, thinking outside of bottle bac and common fears about ammonia is worth discussing, so please restore my ability to keep discussing it where we were originally.

I don’t want to make a new, exact copy of that thread down to the title and copy paste of page one material, with the closed thread link as the first read, so the keen can grasp the humor in the redundancy.

I’m appealing to scientists and reasonable managers
We don't manage pile on mentality by closing the thread they migrated into, we manage the person, that was done. We're all besties now.



The reef thread is an object, it's not a person, it doesn't bear consequences, it's science and pattern and is written to remove all fears about ammonia and ties to bottle bac use in reef cycling.

I feel it's opening paragraph made our direction, and confidence, perfectly clear in those two regards. being independent from bottle bac was in the title by design, it was every job we did.


That thread deserves its life ability back because it's so similar in content to new perspectives on cycling gaining in the hobby.

To have the only thread on this entire site that is skip cycle science closed, while skip cycle science grows in the hobby, is so just what I'm talking about.

 

[BeanAnimal]

Let him have his thread back
He’s helped lots of people with it

Except for the fact that he is not being censored (as he claims) and this post, and several others this week all have the same underlying pejorative tone toward everyone who disagrees with his "old cycling science" and other constant screeds against the established knowledge of the hobby. Certainly his right, but he is not a victim of censorship and invites the ridicule by constantly attempting to insult the rest of us. See above, he just can't help himself.

So -- if I remember correctly, that thread was closed because he became combative with the community, and directly with Randy and other staff, at one point demanding the mods give the ability to block numerous members from reading his threads, so that they could not respond or disagree with him. At the same time he demanded his threads become stickies -- disparaged those who had stickied threads, the staff for supporting stickied threads from "old science" and Randy for not bending to his will. He may have even earned a time-out for it. So for him to publicly put Randy and the staff back on the spot over the very thread, and claim censorship, and blame everyone else as trouble makers, is (to me) insanity, let alone asking again to have this mess turned into a "sticky" thread. Especially considering his recent posts in other threads.

As he posted this publicly for comment, I feel obliged to answer...

Given his posts in recent threads, fully ignoring the actual content in favor of posting screeds about "new cycling science" and starting to fall back into those old patterns... is he really helping lots of people?

My two cents -- maybe worth what you paid for it.

Staff and moderators: He appears to want to appeal to the public to pressure your decision, so I have offered my thoughts in response. While I am not at all in favor of silencing Brandon, that thread was a train wreck mostly of his doing and to allow him to pick up where he left off would invite the same behavior, as the the same disagreement between him and the other parties is still the same -- I fully understand if you feel the need to remove this post.

 

[Tahoe61]

Brandon I have been reading and appreciating your contributions for over a decade. Your passion for the hobby and science is inspiring.
In life when I feel frustrated interacting with my peers I take a moment and reflect could I be playing a part in this? Perhaps it's not my peers but my misinterpretation of their intentions and actions.
As a fellow hobbyist I hope to continue to see your contributions, and I hope you're not building walls by inferring your are being unfairly restricted. I sincerely believe that's an inaccurate interpretation.

 

[areefer01]

Except for the fact that he is not being censored (as he claims) and this post, and several others this week all have the same underlying pejorative tone toward everyone who disagrees with his "old cycling science" and other constant screeds against the established knowledge of the hobby. Certainly his right, but he is not a victim of censorship and invites the ridicule by constantly attempting to insult the rest of us. See above, he just can't help himself.

So -- if I remember correctly, that thread was closed because he became combative with the community, and directly with Randy and other staff, at one point demanding the mods give the ability to block numerous members from reading his threads, so that they could not respond or disagree with him. At the same time he demanded his threads become stickies -- disparaged those who had stickied threads, the staff for supporting stickied threads from "old science" and Randy for not bending to his will. He may have even earned a time-out for it. So for him to publicly put Randy and the staff back on the spot over the very thread, and claim censorship, and blame everyone else as trouble makers, is (to me) insanity, let alone asking again to have this mess turned into a "sticky" thread. Especially considering his recent posts in other threads.

As he posted this publicly for comment, I feel obliged to answer...

Given his posts in recent threads, fully ignoring the actual content in favor of posting screeds about "new cycling science" and starting to fall back into those old patterns... is he really helping lots of people?

My two cents -- maybe worth what you paid for it.

Staff and moderators: He appears to want to appeal to the public to pressure your decision, so I have offered my thoughts in response. While I am not at all in favor of silencing Brandon, that thread was a train wreck mostly of his doing and to allow him to pick up where he left off would invite the same behavior, as the the same disagreement between him and the other parties is still the same -- I fully understand if you feel the need to remove this post.

I'll take the $0.02 cents if you don't mind I always pick up pennies when I see them on the ground

In any case was it any worse for wear than the Bolus thread?

With regards to appeal, thread open, closed, it seems like that is a dialog between the moderators and thread starter. Hobbyist are not forced to participate in a thread and it sounds like maybe there was some help to others in it. The issue with social media is some can't ignore the urge or itch to give their opinion which tends to change the tone of the thread.

I'm sure the moderators will figure something out. @brandon429 it may go in your favor if you just shorten your post, make it to the point, and leave it at one. No need for back to back posts on the subject. The dialog which you seek is between you and the admins and not us.

Hope your day is well.

 

[Nano_Man]

See if you respected other peoples advice as well as your own r2r would have no need to intervene
Just contact Daniel or Rev about your concern instead of publicly saying on the forum
We all know the history of you my friend

 

[brandon429]

I think the similarity of my closed thread to concepts starting to gain traction is not ok

I had the right to run that thread and log my examples before the harshers self- appointed.

I never went into any of those guys' threads to wreck them. Failure to follow golden rule was a big driver for me there in defense mode. Click their names, see their find all threads search tool
I'm not found driving any of their threads to full closure.

 

[brandon429]

I feel that way 100%

Tahoe

Thank you for writing the way you did. Bean was the chief engineer of that threads closure, he writes differently we can see.

 

[revhtree]

Please Pm me and we will discuss it on Monday. But for now this thread is closed as it’s in violation of our TOS. Thank you.