Quote:
|
Originally Posted by VanderL
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dgruss23
And that's what this board is supposed to be about - learning and testing what we think we know. People can be mainstream in one topic and ATM in another. And people can be undecided. It is counterproductive to demand that a person defend a certain position or remain quiet when the person might be genuinely undecided about the controversial idea.
That's why IMO the best approach is just to let the discussion unfold. Someone ought to be able to say: "This paper looks interesting. It seems to support alternative X. Any comments." Then someone who sees flaws in the paper can simply say: "The problems with this paper are A,B,and C."
|
This sums up my thoughts on the forum exactly.
Cheers. |
May I suggest that you start a thread, in the
About BAUT section, recommending that the rules regarding the ATM section be changed?
I would be happy to present my ideas on any proposals that you wish to make, concerning changing the special rules for this ATM section.
There are some questions directed to
Nereid, the BAUT member (not the mod). If feel they are inappropriate in this thread (if anyone wishes to ask such questions, I suggest that a PM is a more suitable method).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by VanderL
I'm not sure why Nereid can get away with not answering direct questions; two reasons I can think of and both are not pretty. Do we have double standards here?
|
The requirement concerning the answering of direct, pertinent questions concerns ATM ideas, and those who have posted them.
AFAIK,
Nereid has not started any threads with the presentation of a case for one or more ATM ideas, nor written posts in defence of any such ideas.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dgruss23
Well one of my points when this new rule was brought up about ATMers answering direct questions in a timely fashion is that while it is not unreasonable to expect ATM proponents to anwer direct questions, it is also not unreasonable for an ATM proponent to say, "I'm going to need some time to look into that ... Give me X days/weeks and I'll get back to you."
[...]
But I do not think it is a rules violation to choose to disengage from a discussion. Some may justifiably view such an action as a concession to the opponent of the points of debate. Without an explanation as to why the person disengages, that is a reasonable interpretation. However, I do think that it would be a rules violation (or at least very bad form) to disengage from a discussion after being asked direct "pertinent" questions and then return at some later time and start posting to the thread as if nothing had been left unanswered.
|
There are many, many examples here in the ATM section of someone presenting an ATM idea, and then 'disengaging from a discussion after being asked direct questions'. Sometimes a mod notices this, or another BAUT member calls attention to it, and the 'disengager' is sent a PM, reminding them of the rules. Sometimes the 'disengager' leaves BAUT completely, sometimes their account gets suspended, sometimes they do return to answer (in one case I can think of, after several months), and so on.
The "
I'm going to need some time to look into that ... Give me X days/weeks and I'll get back to you." is a good approach, which mods have suggested, many times (either in thread or in PMs).
(to be continued)