Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ari Jokimaki
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by papageno
Are you saying that the critics are allowed to be rude,
|
It depends on what you call rude. Is not answering direct questions rude? Is ignoring relevant arguments rude? "Rude" is mentioned in the rules only in the context of private messages, see rule 5. |
Rule 2 and 3 do not apply just to PMs.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ari Jokimaki
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by papageno
call ATM proponents names,
|
No, rule 2 covers that.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by papageno
and not defend their arguments when challenged?
|
Yes, there is no rule against that. |
Touche'.
Of course, in order to advocate a change of the rules, you need to show that it is a general behavior, and not just a few special occasions.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ari Jokimaki
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by papageno
And the direct questions to the mainstream have their place in the Q&A, Astronomy, and General Science fora.
|
I'm not talking about direct questions to the mainstream. I am talking about direct questions to individuals who are presenting arguments against ATM ideas in "Against the mainstream" section of BAUT forum. They are not always a same thing. |
If the critiques are not based on mainstream ideas, then the critic is either hijacking the thread to promote his own ATM idea -- in which case there are rules to deal with it--, or the critique is simply not pertinent to the ATM idea under discussion -- in which case the original ATM proponent can simply point it out and ignore it.
If the non-mainstream critic still insists, there is rule 14 for disruptive behavior.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ari Jokimaki
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by papageno
Are you saying that ideas that have not been critically examined carry the same weight as ideas that have survived a critical examination by people with the relevant expertise and knowledge?
|
I'm not saying that. Argument against an ATM idea in ATM forum is not always the same thing as mainstream idea. |
See above: there are rules against thread hijacking and disruptive behavior.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ari Jokimaki
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by papageno
Rules are normal in a social context.
|
Ahh, so you agree with me, it's better to have it as a rule than to let moderators deal with it. |
The rules already include articles that let the moderators deal with unforeseen cases.
And I see that you did not address my point about the workload of the moderators.
Unless you can show that the rules as they are now overwhelm the moderators with exceptions, then you have no case to call for a change of the rules.
From what I can see, most of the work of the moderators comes from clear violation of the existing rules, not from exceptions (just look at the "Banned posters log").
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ari Jokimaki
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by papageno
There is nothing special about the general ban of bad language, trolling, spamming, copyright violations, sock puppets and so on.
|
Then there's nothing special about general obligation to answer direct, relevant questions, and to back up arguments. |
By your own admission, you are not referring to a general behavior, but to special occasions.
And "
general obligation to answer direct, relevant questions, and to back up arguments" can easily fall under rule 14 about disruptive behavior, with the exceptions dealt with by the moderators.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ari Jokimaki
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by papageno
And since there are at least three fora, and entire libraries, with info about mainstream ideas, why would that be a problem?
|
Those mainstream proponents (i.e persons arguing against your ATM idea) might not present mainstream ideas at all. They might be completely ignorant about mainstream ideas. |
Then they can be dealt with with the rules about ATM proposals and thread hijacking.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ari Jokimaki
ATM proponent is obligated to answer direct questions and defend his/her idea, so he/she would have to deal with the arguments of those mainstream proponents even if they would be just nonsense. Now, if those mainstream proponents would be especially nasty, they might just repeat those nonsense arguments ignoring ATM proponents' counterarguments. That kind of behavior is not explicitly forbidden in the rules for people who argue against ATM idea in ATM forum. Still the ATM proponent would be obligated to respond to those arguments.
|
What you have described is disruptive behavior, which falls under rule 14 and can be dealt with by the moderators, if the posts are reported.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ari Jokimaki
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by papageno
It would be up to me, the ATM proponent, to inform myself properly about the mainstream ideas, before proposing my ATM idea. If I don't trust my critics to report accurately a mainstream idea, what is stopping me to find information on my own? I can post a thread in the Q&A forum, search the Astronomy or General Science fora.
Why should my critics have to repeat easily available information because I cannot be bothered to look it up for myself?
|
Oh, you are afraid that you would have to give education to some ATM proponent if rules would change according to my proposition. I think you wouldn't have to do that. If you don't want to give ATM proponent any extra information, you can just give reference to the ATM proponent to fulfill your obligation, and "go read basic physics" is some sort of a reference. |
And this is what usually happens, not just on special occasions.
You, on the other hand, want to change the rules based on exceptions.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ari Jokimaki
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by papageno
It tends to be pretty obvious from their behavior and their words.
|
Ahh, so you were stating your own opinion as a fact. |
I was referring to reading comprehension and experience.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ari Jokimaki
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by papageno
How is that belittling your comment? It is an observation of a behavior that occurs at least as often as the special occasions you complain about.
|
But you didn't use your comment in the context of the special occasions, you used in the context of my comments about ATM proponents willingness to be challenged (at least that was the part you quoted there), and since you especially concentrated to the word "fair", it is safe to assume that you addressed this comment of mine: "It's just that we want to be challenged fairly and honestly, without having to encounter all kinds of strange debate tactics". You might not want to call that belittling, but to me it appears to be just that. |
So, you are stating your own opinion as a fact.
You made a generalization about ATM proponents wanting a fair and honest discussion, which does not fit my experience in the ATM forum. I pointed that out and you interpreted it as belittling your argument.
I simply think that you are wrong in your generalized characterization of ATM proponents.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ari Jokimaki
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by papageno
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ari Jokimaki
Furthermore, I'm ATM proponent on some issues, so your argument seems to be targeted to me also.
|
Why? |
Because you didn't present any specifics that would allow me to conclude that you are not seeing that in me too, and "many" might mean that there is a good chance that you are seeing that in me too. |
I don't understand why you are taking my comment personally.
Exactly because I did not give any specifics, there is no reason to jump to the conclusion that I was pointing my finger at you.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ari Jokimaki
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by papageno
The specifics of my argument is that there are ATM proponents that equate fairness and agreement, and however little the number of cases, it is of the same order of the special occasions on whose basis you want to change the rules.
|
And since you are just repeating the same argument with different words, there doesn't seem to be much specifics in your argument. |
And why would you need specifics?
You are trying to blow out of proportion a comment I made on the side of the main issue, because you mistook it as a reference to your person.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ari Jokimaki
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by papageno
Besides, I don't have time to browse the ATM threads to find specific examples.
|
Shouldn't be that difficult and time consuming if there are "many" of them. |
My remark was not made with specific examples in mind.
And I already have withdrawn "
many" and substituted it with "
however little the number of cases, it is of the same order of the special occasions".
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ari Jokimaki
But I didn't ask for specific examples, I only asked how you determine it, and how many there are.
|
How about the ATM proponents that compare themselves to Galileo? Or those equating rebuttals to personal attacks?
But this is just a distraction from the main issue.
Why don't you shows us that the moderators are overwhelmed by the exceptions due to a loophole in the rules?