Quote:
Originally Posted by 01101001
Well, I just took a look at the recent couple of pages of ATM topics and I don't see it. Maybe I didn't read them carefully enough, but I think I saw topics where someone was just asking about something ATM and they were allowed. I'll list some below.
It seems possible to me that in the cases where you might see the range getting narrowed, it is similar to the problem I pointed out above of many of the ATM-based threads in Q&A. After the comments are received, or the questions answered, then it doesn't stop there. The presenter then becomes the proponent. The defense of the idea commences, the arguments for, the attempts to persuade.
And, because the idea is too fresh, not well understood, or the curious-turned-advocate hasn't even convinced himself, because it's half-baked, the discussion quickly devolves to pointlessness.
Again, I don't spend much time in ATM. I much more see the ATM bits that slop out of it. Perhaps you could lead me to a few existing examples of an ATM topic where someone was just-asking, expressing an interest, curious, and -- without the interesting idea treatment moving from discussion to advocacy -- the topic was shut down.
Is that what's happening? Is that the problem you see? Topics just inquiring into ATM ideas are not allowed?
|
It has little to do with what is actually locked or not locked in ATM. It has to do with what is being
advocated as acceptable or not acceptable. I explained in my post yesterday the problem. Why can't David Zelenka ask for help with his ATM idea. Nereid stated that is inappropriate and not the purpose of BAUT's ATM section? In the old BABB days nobody would have questioned the appropriateness of such a query in the ATM section.
Nereid's own statement above clearly shows that the 6 meanings I listed are not all part of her definition of appropriate discussion for BAUT - but every one of those six used to be allowed in the ATM forum. People could come on to BABB and advocate ... or they could just ask questions about ATM ideas.
My point is that if all discussion of ATM ideas must involve a "defender" and an "attacker", then a lot of opportunity for interesting discussion and learning is lost.
As I noted with
this post , there are instances where people might like to discuss and understand the strength's and weaknesses of a paper without taking on the role of a papers defender. One might argue that such discussions should be in Q&A, but the ATM nature of the paper in question immediately puts it into ATM. But then we come to ATM and find out that you can't discuss an ATM idea unless you're prepared to defend it.
This doesn't leave any room for undecided opinions or people trying to learn more about a topic.
Here's another example from
December 28 . Specifically this:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nereid
More generally, if that's so, and you are not prepared to defend any such claims galacsi, may I conclude that you have no interest in participating in threads which cover cosmology?
|
What is the point of that question? If galacsi is unprepared to defend the statment that he/she doesn't believe in cosmology (whatever that means), then he/she is not allowed to participate in cosmology threads? Nereid didn't actually say that, but if that is not the implication then why even ask the question? Perhaps galacsi doesn't want to defend statements on cosmology, but may find that he/she would once in a while pipe in with a comment or question. Is galacsi not allowed to do so?
See, there's a position being advocated by direct statement and by the way posters are questioned in ATM. That position is that
the only appropriate discussion involves taking a position to defend followed by subsequent expectations for mathematical defense against the gleeful attack. Now I'm not against that type of discussion by any means. I've certainly engaged and attacked/defended in that mode over the years.
But advocating that such discussion is the
only acceptable format for discussion is a break from the old BABB ATM. And I only see Nereid driving this break from what was. So I'm looking for clarification as to which of the six meanings of "discuss" I listed above are still acceptable in the ATM section.
IMO anything less than all 6 is an overly restrictive narrowing of potentially valuable discourse. But if there is a change that is universally accepted by the mods, I'm hoping to get that change defined.
All I'm asking is whether or not Nereid's narrow definition of what constitutes appropriate discussion on BAUT is the definition under which the BAUT ATM section operates.
Speaking historically here, there have been problems ... and I remember them in the BABB days ... in which an ATM advocate would come on the board, take a position and then repeat disproven statements and ignore questions. Such discussions became chaotic and difficult to manage because of the poor behavior of the ATM advocate.
So a rule was needed that
if you were going to propose an ATM idea, you must be prepared to defend it. But what is happening here is that the rule about defending your claims and responding to questions is now subtly (or perhaps not subtly)
being shifted to mean that you cannot even discuss ATM ideas unless there is a defender of the idea. Nereid's own words to David Zelenka were that it was inappropriate to ask for help developing his ATM idea. Someone links to a paper about the Wolfe effect and the first question is "I hope someone will defend it so that we can attack it." I don't understand why the paper can't just be discussed!!!!
I don't know if this new approach has always been the intent of the rule of that is just Nereid's interpretation.