Quote:
Originally Posted by dgruss23
You've supported an ATM policy that modifies the old BABB approach - now only the ATM proponents must defend their statements on the threads in ATM. Mainstream defenders are under no obligation to admit mistaken statements or defend their statements when an ATM proponent shows potential flaws.
|
The BABB approach was basically a free-for-all until and unless the BA got fed up with the ATMer. That was primarily because the BA had limited time to cover the forum. Here, if an ATMer has questions about the mainstream, they can ask in Q&A. If a "mainstream defender" makes a mistake, the ATM proponent can show the reason, per the mainstream. The problems with requiring mainstream folks to defend all their arguments in ATM are that (1) answering a question with a question is a common tactic to avoid answering questions about an ATM topic and (2) most of the questions are best answered with "read a basic physics or astronomy text." That is, the ATMer should already have known the answer before he started the thread, and it isn't the place to waste time answering such questions. To be sure, there are exceptions to this, but I do see this over and over.
Quote:
But that wasn't good enough. There were still perceived "problems" so now we have a 30 day rule for ATM threads.
Apparently the 30 day rule for ATM isn't fixing all the problems either because now people complain about ATM spillover into other forums.
|
It seems obvious to me that there is no perfect solution to infinite loop ATM threads. It also seems obvious that spillover is because ATMers aren't happy with the 30 day limit and keep trying to promote their ideas after the limit.