Forum Rules

[StarLab]

I cannot find a link to the forum rules (for either and/or both). I started a string on the UN which so far has remained uninflammatory. However, if there is a rule about ANY kind of politics, even neutral ones about the UN, I cannot find it.

[Fraser]

We haven't finalized the rules yet. This isn't the UT board any more, it's BAUT. New place different rules.

Right now we're just operating on one rule... "Be Nice".

[StarLab]

LOL that's a good start...

[Fram]

I replied in that thread to say basically 'what are you doing, that's politics?!', but I am glad to say I added that no rules are laid out yet here and I wasn't to certain of the current status. Still, it's perhaps better safe than sorry, as I thought the thread to have a very flammable potential (not anything you posted, but the topic in general). But I'll refrain from such comments until the new rules are around, as it was premature.

[Jorge]

Originally Posted by Fraser

We haven't finalized the rules yet. This isn't the UT board any more, it's BAUT. New place different rules.

Right now we're just operating on one rule... "Be Nice".

Its sad that 'Be Nice' has to be a rules...
You should always be nice, even if it wasn't a rule.

[PhantomWolf]

Well even the BABB didn't have a strict no politics rule, it was more a strong suggestion since threads on politics and religion often would get heated and lead to someone saying something they would regret and getting banned. As long as everyone kept their heads and were polite even while disagreeing, those threads were fine.

[Chuck]

No rules yet? ALL RIGHT!!!

George W, The Pope, and Paris Hilton walk into a bar....

Oops, Jay Leno is starting. Someone finish this for me.

[Maksutov]

Originally Posted by Chuck

No rules yet? ALL RIGHT!!!

George W, The Pope, and Paris Hilton walk into a bar....

Oops, Jay Leno is starting. Someone finish this for me.

Tony Blair, The Dali Lama, and Pamela Anderson, who are already sitting at the bar, all turn at once toward the entering trio and, in unison, say, "Is this another bar joke?"


No rules. Just right. And polite.

[Wayne Smith]

So BA is banned?

[Donnie B.]

[Thick Hollywood Mexican accent] Rules? We don' need no steenkin' rules! [/Thick Hollywood Mexican accent]

[Zanket]

Originally Posted by Fraser

Right now we're just operating on one rule... "Be Nice".

I think that’s a great way to operate. But it’s not the case. In a thread I started the moderator said today that the thread will be closed “based on the appearance of no new information and an increase in circular repetitive discussion.” Funny, numerous other threads are left open with no new information being added. And while discussion may stagnate in a thread for a while, it often happens that something new eventually comes out of it to kick it into a new fruitful direction. The discussion was still lively and polite. I would not have participated in this forum had I known beforehand that threads could be closed for such a whimsical reason—I abhor micro-moderation that smells like censorship. It should be clearly stated somewhere that threads may be closed for this reason, so that people like me will know in advance to stay away.

[Fram]

If you have new, interesting information or arguments, you can always start a new thread.
Furthermore, it seems that the rules of banning, locking, moderating, ... are still under construction, and things will settle down (or azt least get clearer) pretty soon, I suppose.
But I think the word 'censorship' should be used sparingly and only for serious reasons, not for locking a thread.

[Zanket]

Starting a new thread is inappropriate when it was the mod who thought the discussion had run its course, not me. When most threads are left open under the same conditions that some threads are closed, I think “censorship” is an appropriate word. My take is that the mod is expressing an opinion by way of closing the thread. Why else would only some threads be closed for such a silly reason? Why should the mod be determining whether the discussion has run its course? If people are still posting, they must want to keep the discussion going. Isn’t that what the forum is about, discussion? I will not participate in a forum with such a silly rule that smacks of censorship. My point here is that this rule should be clearly stated, because I know that a lot of people feel as I do about this.

[The Supreme Canuck]

Can you give me a link to the thread in question?

[antoniseb]

Originally Posted by Zanket

I will not participate in a forum with such a silly rule that smacks of censorship.

For the record, I was the mod who made that post. We have been trying to maintain a different standard in the "Against The Mainstream" section, and it is true that some other ATM threads are starting to get circular, and only a few have been closed so far.

Personally I do not regard this effort as "silly". Our goal in ATM is to allow people who have alternative ideas to air them out, and expose them to criticism which they are expected to answer. I think you will find that this is more exposure than most serious science forums will give such ideas.

Now, you Zanket may well be someone who's idea can hold some water, but we need a mechanism to be able to move the subject along, and we need a mechanism to shut down people that tenaciously spout some undefensible idea, just because they want to be remembered as smarter than Einstein. Yet we must be polite to all.

If you have an Alternative Theory, and there is a thread about it which gets shut down because the thread stops making progress, and you discover that you have something new to add to the thread, all you have to do is contact a moderator (email or PM will work) and ask for it to be reopened.

I appreciate that you feel you were misused. For my part, I was responding to feedback from other posters in the thread, who felt that you had stopped trying to answer important questions. That is the measure we went by here.

So let me open this up for you to contribute to (while our rules are in their formative stages). What mechanism do you propose we use to keep Alternative Theorists living up to their obligation to use this forum to explain their position. What mechanism should we use to weed out discussion from people who are passionate about some gut instinct they have that is just wrong? BTW, I'd like to avoid ideological discussions of censorship here, we are dealing with some very practical matters.

[Zanket]

Originally Posted by The Supreme Canuck

Can you give me a link to the thread in question?

The thread is here. The posts by the mod are here and here. The thread is still open. The mod says “We'll probably be closing this thread soon.” and “This thread closure was based on the appearance of no new information and an increase in circular repetitive discussion. With the promise of something new, we can keep it open.” That isn’t good enough for me. It should be kept open in the same way that most other threads are kept open even when there have been no posts in them for weeks. There were 5 posts on the same day the mod posted these comments, prior to the mod’s posting. Had I know that mods here would be randomly micro-judging the quality of posts and closing threads as a result, I would not have joined this forum.

[ToSeek]

Originally Posted by Zanket

The thread is here. The posts by the mod are here and here. The thread is still open. The mod says “We'll probably be closing this thread soon.” and “This thread closure was based on the appearance of no new information and an increase in circular repetitive discussion. With the promise of something new, we can keep it open.” That isn’t good enough for me. It should be kept open in the same way that most other threads are kept open even when there have been no posts in them for weeks.

If a thread is inactive, then there's no point in closing it. The threads to consider closing are the ones who have deteriorated into "'Is so!' Is not!' Is so!' Is not!'" and are eating up storage space without going anywhere at all.

[The Supreme Canuck]

ToSeek: Sounds reasonable to me. Besides, the BA always used to do this to keep things from degenerating into shouting matches.

[Zanket]

Originally Posted by antoniseb

Now, you Zanket may well be someone who's idea can hold some water, but we need a mechanism to be able to move the subject along, and we need a mechanism to shut down people that tenaciously spout some undefensible idea, just because they want to be remembered as smarter than Einstein.

Here you show that your stated reasons were disingenuous. Your real reasons, revealed here, are that you disagree with my idea and you think I’m seeking glory. (If your point here was not directed at me despite your “Zanket may well be someone who's idea can hold some water”, there’d have been no reason to mention it related to the thread in question.) It is a good thing for people to tenaciously support their ideas (I did not just spout mine). It is okay if the mod disagrees with those ideas or thinks a poster seeks glory. It is not okay for the mod to close a thread for those reasons. And it is shameful to lie about the reasons. You are unworthy of being a mod, IMO. If the administrator of this forum lets you do this, then that tells me that the forum is not worthy either.

If you have an Alternative Theory, and there is a thread about it which gets shut down because the thread stops making progress, and you discover that you have something new to add to the thread, all you have to do is contact a moderator (email or PM will work) and ask for it to be reopened.

We just learned that the thread is not under threat of being closed because it stopped making progress (which is a joke anyway, since the thread was in good swing when you made your comments), but rather for the reasons above.

For my part, I was responding to feedback from other posters in the thread, who felt that you had stopped trying to answer important questions. That is the measure we went by here.

Until you threatened to close the thread, I gave reasoned responses to every point put to me there. You should not be judging the quality of my posts based on what others say. Suppose someone gives me a detailed mathematical synopsis of why they think I’m wrong. If I spot a flaw in their overall logic that can be expressed without going through their math in detail, I will point that out instead of going through their math in detail; such is a more efficient response. That person may well feel like I have ignored their individual points, when I have actually addressed them all in a single counter point. That has often been the case in the thread in question, and it is my answers that are being ignored. That is typical, and if the discussion is allowed to continue it usually works itself out.

So let me open this up for you to contribute to (while our rules are in their formative stages). What mechanism do you propose we use to keep Alternative Theorists living up to their obligation to use this forum to explain their position. What mechanism should we use to weed out discussion from people who are passionate about some gut instinct they have that is just wrong? BTW, I'd like to avoid ideological discussions of censorship here, we are dealing with some very practical matters.

That’s easy. Keep threads open and deal with individual posters who become rude or make posts well off the topic, like this one, where the poster is basically saying that if I disagree about the rules, I’m just whining. Avoid the urge to overstep your bounds when you disagree with ideas or think a poster is seeking glory. As a mod, don’t ever say that some idea is wrong. Do you really think that you are a perfect judge of that? (I’m not even convinced that my own paper is right—I’m here to discuss its validity with others.) If you think the idea is wrong, challenge it in a post as a normal user, not as a mod. If others complain that a thread-starter is ignoring important questions, look for yourself instead of summarily believing them, and if you agree with them, challenge the thread-starter in a post, without threatening to close the thread, and give that person a chance to explain themselves. If threads started by a normal user must be closable, the conditions for that should be clearly stated so that people can choose whether to participate to begin with.