Moderating the Conspiracy Theories section - SAMU's opinions

SAMU · #1 (**permalink**) 27-September-2006, 09:40 AM

[Moderator Note]This thread has been created by splitting posts from the 'Debating tactics' vs 'challenging an ATM idea' thread, as the posts SAMU wrote with two exceptions, are about the moderation of the Conspiracy Theories section (not debating tactics and how to challenge ATM ideas, in the ATM section).
[/Moderator Note]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Van Rijn

That's why the EU/PU threads (among others) went on nearly endlessly, right?

I have seen some threads go on a long time. The proponent usually has a weak argument and the moderators seem to be ok with the bashing of them as long as the proponent will take it. But a proponent with strong supportive evidence does get his thread locked quickly. An example would be my most recently locked thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Van Rijn

From what I've seen, threads usually get closed quickly when the ATMer starts ad hom arguments, gets into religion or politics, or starts multiple threads, shotgunning many assertions, and doesn't bother to answer any pertinent questions.

Which there was none of on my part in that thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Van Rijn

The author of a paper is expected to understand the subject, and to have done careful research to arrive at his conclusion. It is expected that he would have abundant evidence and references. He should be able to answer obvious questions about his argument.

But should not be required to repeatedly answer ad infinitem questions that have already been answered and questions that a peer should not ask. A peer has a certain responsability to seek answers that satisfy himself. For example; in my "levee" thread I mentioned that many people heard explosions. I was requested to provide "proof of this. I provided links to some testimony of such but the links Iprovided could have been fabricated by me. The the peer would know that by having a computer with internet access and searching the words "heard explosions" could find stated evidence as much as exists to satisfy himself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Van Rijn

If the author plans to fundamentally change physics, or has interpretations of evidence that are at odds with what known physics would indicate, he will have to do a great deal of research and provide a great deal of material (with math, obviously) in support of his position. He certainly shouldn't expect his arguments to remain unchallenged.

"A great deal" is too general and subjective. The difference between the Ptolemaic universe and the Copernican is the power of the telescope. The peer understands the difference. The ignorant opposing questioner merely demands "proof" that that makes a difference. By understanding the difference the proposer recognises the ignorance of the question. Badastronomy is no more immune to critical analysis than any other group. It can lock threads that expose this and ban posters. But it will have its weaknesses pointed out.

What the moderators should consider is that if a proposal of ATM with strong evideciary support sparks intrest in readers of this site and gets locked then this site will get boring with only the weak argument bashing that goes on and on. I personally don't even read threads that have a long list of pages as that is a tipoff that that is what is happening. I may read the first post if the topic intrests me.

Nereid · #2 (**permalink**) 27-September-2006, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SAMU

I have seen some threads go on a long time. The proponent usually has a weak argument and the moderators seem to be ok with the bashing of them as long as the proponent will take it. But a proponent with strong supportive evidence does get his thread locked quickly. An example would be my most recently locked thread.

Which there was none of on my part in that thread.

But should not be required to repeatedly answer ad infinitem questions that have already been answered and questions that a peer should not ask. A peer has a certain responsability to seek answers that satisfy himself. For example; in my "levee" thread I mentioned that many people heard explosions. I was requested to provide "proof of this. I provided links to some testimony of such but the links Iprovided could have been fabricated by me. The the peer would know that by having a computer with internet access and searching the words "heard explosions" could find stated evidence as much as exists to satisfy himself.

"A great deal" is too general and subjective. The difference between the Ptolemaic universe and the Copernican is the power of the telescope. The peer understands the difference. The ignorant opposing questioner merely demands "proof" that that makes a difference. By understanding the difference the proposer recognises the ignorance of the question. Badastronomy is no more immune to critical analysis than any other group. It can lock threads that expose this and ban posters. But it will have its weaknesses pointed out.

What the moderators should consider is that if a proposal of ATM with strong evideciary support sparks intrest in readers of this site and gets locked then this site will get boring with only the weak argument bashing that goes on and on. I personally don't even read threads that have a long list of pages as that is a tipoff that that is what is happening. I may read the first post if the topic intrests me.

Er, SAMU, the title of this thread is 'Debating tactics' vs 'challenging an ATM idea' (my bold).

However, "my most recently locked thread", is* They blew up the levee, which is in the Conspiracy Theories (CT) section of BAUT, not the Against the Mainstream (ATM) one.

Now it's OK to have a discussion of 'debating tactics', etc in the CT section of BAUT, and the extent to which there are similarities (and differences) between this and the ATM section, but this particular thread is about the ATM section.

If you have examples to support your assertions, from ATM threads, by all means please present them. If you want to talk about the CT section instead, then please do so in a thread other than this one.

*presumably; if I got it wrong, please set me straight.

Moose · #3 (**permalink**) 27-September-2006, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SAMU

Peer Review firstly requires that the reviewer is a peer. A peer is an equal. Not an equal in the sense of the American Constitution of "All Men Are Created Equal" but in the sense that he is equal in the ordinary inteligence and instrumentality required of a peer to the task of reviewing the evidence as published.

*Moose's hubris-meter[tm] squeals as it briefly pegs.*

Quote:

Of course badastronomy is not a legitimate peer review. It is a private site run by your slightly above average ignorant internet population. The best you can hope for here and in any true scientific publication is that the reader is interested and understands what you have written by the time a moderator locks your thread because you do not comply with the illigitimate demands of this site.

*Moose's hubris-meter[tm] explodes, peppering his cubicle with plastic and silicone shrapnel.*

Nereid · #4 (**permalink**) 27-September-2006, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SAMU

I very much agree. But further, the rule "Direct questions must be answered in a timely manner." has been interpreted by moderators here to mean that all questions; repeat questions that have already been answered, lazy questions that legitimately require the questioner to perform some task to his own satisfaction, and fallacious questions. Threads are locked by moderators because of the refusal to comply with these illegitimate demands.
Also the statement
"People will attack your arguments with glee and fervor here; that's what science and scientists do."
Is factually untrue.
Peer Review firstly requires that the reviewer is a peer. A peer is an equal. Not an equal in the sense of the American Constitution of "All Men Are Created Equal" but in the sense that he is equal in the ordinary inteligence and instrumentality required of a peer to the task of reviewing the evidence as published.

A publisher of a paper for peer review need only publish information that a peer interested in reviewing can repeat. He need not perform any extraordinary efforts for a reviewer.

If a publisher states that by pointing a telescope of a certain magnification in a certain direction he saw a comet then it is the responsability of a peer to read the information with the ordinary thouroughness expected of a peer, understand the information as a peer and have the equipment of a peer to repeat the task as published. The publisher isn't required to provide a telescope for all and sundry who question his claim nor does he have to provide an education for same who do not nor brain transplants for nitwits who will not understand what was written. He doesn't have to repeat ad infinitum the information in the paper or point out the errors or misunderstandings in replies for all who do not read it with the ordinary thouroughness of a peer. He isn't required to dance on the head of a pin or perform any extraordinary efforts on demand of a reviewer.
The reviewer must have the resources both intellectual and technical to repeat the instructions of the publisher and the same to explain where by following the instructions he got a different result to make his challange valid as a peer review.

That is not to say that the publisher is not often requested to make a demonstration. For example surgeons often perform demonstrations of new surgical tecniques for interested parties. But the interested parties are often required to pay for the service and expence of the demonstration. Some surgeons make a living mearly performing demonstrations for other surgeons.

Of course badastronomy is not a legitimate peer review. It is a private site run by your slightly above average ignorant internet population. The best you can hope for here and in any true scientific publication is that the reader is interested and understands what you have written by the time a moderator locks your thread because you do not comply with the illigitimate demands of this site.

The only thing I'd like to add to Van Rijn's excellent response to this post of yours, SAMU, is a request for some specific examples.

In particular, can you please give at least one example of each of the following (from the ATM section, not any other section; my bold in all cases):

"the rule "Direct questions must be answered in a timely manner." has been interpreted by moderators here to mean that all questions; repeat questions that have already been answered, lazy questions that legitimately require the questioner to perform some task to his own satisfaction, and fallacious questions."

"Threads are locked by moderators because of the refusal to comply with these illegitimate demands" (you my use my recent analysis of locked ATM threads, or perform your own analysis).

Oh, one more thing: "the illigitimate demands of this site". There is a sticky thread, in this About BAUT section, called Rules discussion. If you would like to discuss any of the rules, please contribute to that thread.

SAMU · #5 (**permalink**) 28-September-2006, 05:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nereid

...the title of this thread is 'Debating tactics' vs 'challenging an ATM idea....

Now it's OK to have a discussion of 'debating tactics', etc in the CT section of BAUT, and the extent to which there are similarities (and differences) between this and the ATM section, but this particular thread is about the ATM section.

Then why is this thread itself not in the ATM section? Your point is a dodge of my point. The fallacy of changing the subject. My bad but by your own principal you posted in the wrong forum. It should have been in the ATM section yes? The rest of your questions relate to the ATM section which is not of much intrest to me. My replies were intended to be relavant to BAUT generally which is where you posted this thread. I suspect that you posted in this forum rather than the ATM because you wanted more readers than those who are interested in ATM.

I did read your analysis of ATM locked threads but I am not the peer to evaluate them as I am not interested in that section. However I have read the thread of "rules discussion". Besides the the fact that the "signal to noise ratio" in that thread is rather high there does not seem to be any conclusion amoung the moderators or BA to many of the arguments applicable to this thread or that one.

Yet again, my strong argument relavant to the topic as a BAUT topic met with requests by a moderator to leave the thread regardless of the applicability of the argument to the this topic as a BAUT topic.

But since you are a moderator can I request that you and any other moderators and BA himself answer these direct questions. The first two can be answered by yes or no and the second three by true or false.

Rule 13 states "you will defend your arguments. Direct questions must be answered in a timely manner".

Do you intend to enforce an interpretation of this rule as;

"Repeated questions must be answered by the proposer ad infinitum"?

"Errors of a questioner must be pointed out by the proposer ad infinitum"?

"Refusal of a poster to comply with the above will be grounds for locking of the thread"?

"Moderators have no responsability to discuss the above issues when locking a thread"?

"Moderators (or others) who have participated in a thread can get other moderators who may have no interest in reading the thread in question to lock the thread so as to have plausable deniability that a strong argument pointing out their above mentioned errors is why they want a thread locked"?

Answer at your own risk as I do intend to compare your answers here to your actions throughout BAUT.
There are many other illigitimate policies here but these are the ones on my mind for the present.

Mind you, it is my intention here to point out areas where the policies here could stand for improvement to make this site more enjoyable to legitimate discussion not just to engage in bashing or debate for its own sake. Not to say that others here musn't do that but the moderators should hold themselves to a higher standard.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moose

Quote:

Originally Posted by SAMU

*Peer Review firstly requires that the reviewer is a peer. A peer is an equal. Not an equal in the sense of the American Constitution of "All Men Are Created Equal" but in the sense that he is equal in the ordinary inteligence and instrumentality required of a peer to the task of reviewing the evidence as published..*

Moose's hubris-meter[tm] squeals as it briefly pegs.
Moose's hubris-meter[tm] explodes, peppering his cubicle with plastic and silicone shrapnel.*

Not very specific but I take it you disagree? If so how would you define a more humble but still legitimate scientific or intellectual peer?

01101001 · #6 (**permalink**) 28-September-2006, 07:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SAMU

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nereid

...the title of this thread is 'Debating tactics' vs 'challenging an ATM idea....

Now it's OK to have a discussion of 'debating tactics', etc in the CT section of BAUT, and the extent to which there are similarities (and differences) between this and the ATM section, but this particular thread is about the ATM section.

Then why is this thread itself not in the ATM section? Your point is a dodge of my point. The fallacy of changing the subject. My bad but by your own principal you posted in the wrong forum. It should have been in the ATM section yes? The rest of your questions relate to the ATM section which is not of much intrest to me. My replies were intended to be relavant to BAUT generally which is where you posted this thread. I suspect that you posted in this forum rather than the ATM because you wanted more readers than those who are interested in ATM.

Wow. You've really got Nereid pinned down now. There's no escape. Pour it on.

Unless, of course, instead of meaning: you could have a discussion of <<debating tactics in the CT Section of BAUT>> (in the CT Section), Nereid actually meant: you could have a discussion of <<debating tactics in the CT Section of BAUT>> (here in this forum, just like this ATM version already under way).

Ever consider reading Nereid's words that way? What do you think? Could it be?

Van Rijn · #7 (**permalink**) 28-September-2006, 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 01101001

Wow. You've really got Nereid pinned down now. There's no escape. Pour it on.

Unless, of course, instead of meaning: you could have a discussion of <<debating tactics in the CT Section of BAUT>> (in the CT Section), Nereid actually meant: you could have a discussion of <<debating tactics in the CT Section of BAUT>> (here in this forum, just like this ATM version already under way).

Ever consider reading Nereid's words that way? What do you think? Could it be?

That sounds plausible, especially considering that according to the description of the "About Baut" section this section is for things, well, about Baut. That is, announcements, comments or questions about Baut, which includes Baut rules and policy, and discussions about how things are or should be done. This is unlike the ATM section which (according to the description) is for discussion of ATM ideas, or the CT section which is for the discussion of CTs. Also, the threads found in each section would also seem to be consistent with the descriptions.

SAMU, it seemed quite clear to me that this thread was for the discussion of ATM debate and challenges, and I answered your previous post with that in mind. From your later posts it appears that you have something else in mind, though I'm not sure what exactly. Perhaps you should start another thread here, in this section, about it?

Moose · #8 (**permalink**) 28-September-2006, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SAMU

Not very specific but I take it you disagree?

You take it right.

Quote:

If so how would you define a more humble but still legitimate scientific or intellectual peer?

"Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while."

Pinning a person's legitimacy to respond strictly on their qualifications is a logical fallacy. If a person's right, they're right. Regardless, the onus still must remain on you to support your assertions.

And Nereid asked you an especially pertinent question so please stop changing the subject. I'd like to see an answer as well: could you please provide examples (preferably by links) of where a thread was locked where you were asked repeat, fallacious and/or impertinent questions?

But my response is more personal than that. I think you may be overestimating your acumen somewhat and grossly underestimating the quality of the folks who choose to examine your proposals. You're not surrounded by cretins, by any means, but if you're unable (or unwilling) to recognize that, I would suggest you need to reevaluate your appraisal of your surroundings.

Next, if journal-based peer review is so much better and easier than posting in ATM, and your material is worthy of it, why on Earth aren't you submitting your material to peer review? Isn't that irresponsible of you?

And last, Nereid suggested your CT complaints should go in its own thread. Nobody suggested you're in the wrong forum. CT != ATM, and the rules are different, so it's almost certainly best handled by two different discussions to avoid potential confusion.

Tensor · #9 (**permalink**) 28-September-2006, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SAMU

Rule 13 states "you will defend your arguments. Direct questions must be answered in a timely manner".

Do you intend to enforce an interpretation of this rule as;

"Repeated questions must be answered by the proposer ad infinitum"?

If it's repeated and has already been answered, a link would suffice. If it hasn't been answered, the repeat is pertinent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SAMU

"Errors of a questioner must be pointed out by the proposer ad infinitum"?

If the error has already been corrected, a link would suffice. Of course, you may have a disagreement on whether or not the correction is valid.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SAMU

"Refusal of a poster to comply with the above will be grounds for locking of the thread"?

Not necessarily locking of the thread, the banning of the poster is a possibility.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SAMU

"Moderators have no responsability to discuss the above issues when locking a thread"?

Nope, but they generally do. You have a particular thread where it wasn't discussed or mentioned?

Quote:

Originally Posted by SAMU

"Moderators (or others) who have participated in a thread can get other moderators who may have no interest in reading the thread in question to lock the thread so as to have plausable deniability that a strong argument pointing out their above mentioned errors is why they want a thread locked"?

That's an assumption on your part. Could you point to a thread where the above has happened? Plus the point to where you can show that that moderator called in didn't read the thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SAMU

Answer at your own risk as I do intend to compare your answers here to your actions throughout BAUT.

I'm sure all the moderators are shaking in their boots. Just for the record, I happen to like the job the moderators are doing. I've seen one or two instances where I didn't agree, it was discussed and changed or discussed and not changed. It's their rules, live by them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SAMU

There are many other illigitimate policies here but these are the ones on my mind for the present.

As the BA has said before, if you don't like the policies, get your own webspace, set up a forum, and set the rules to how you like it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SAMU

Mind you, it is my intention here to point out areas where the policies here could stand for improvement to make this site more enjoyable to legitimate discussion not just to engage in bashing or debate for its own sake.

Not everyone will agree with you on what policies need improvement. I happen to think the policies are quite good, just the way they are. But that discussion is for another thread. As for this thread, I would also like to see an answer to the question Moose repeated from Neried: "Could you please provide examples (preferably by links) of where a thread was locked where you were asked repeat, fallacious and/or impertinent questions?"

SAMU · #10 (**permalink**) 29-September-2006, 05:27 AM

01101001, Van Rijn, Moose, Tensor,

None of you are moderators or are you Nereid. Since I addressed my post to them your posts are irrelavant and against rule

Quote:

Originally Posted by Badastronmer

7. Second & Third Party Posting

Do not post on behalf of other people. In other words, if someone you know has something to say relevant to the discussion in a thread, have them register and post it. Think of them as a copyrighted source: you can quote them in short amounts, but if there is something substantial they want to add, they must do it themselves.

Thus your responses are a violation of rule 7.
Possibly Nereid is researching the issue further before popping off with (to quote Moose) "cretinous" replies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 01101001

Unless, of course, instead of meaning: you could have a discussion of <<debating tactics in the CT Section of BAUT>> (in the CT Section), Nereid actually meant: you could have a discussion of <<debating tactics in the CT Section of BAUT>> (here in this forum, just like this ATM version already under way).

Your post is gramatically and logically incomprehensable. What does <<--->> mean anyhow? I must have been asleep when thay tought that in grammer school.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moose

Pinning a person's legitimacy to respond strictly on their qualifications is a logical fallacy. If a person's right, they're right. Regardless, the onus still must remain on you to support your assertions.

Legitimacy is based not on their qualifications but on the qualification of their question. If the question is obviously based on a misreading or ignoring of previous statements then the question is cretinously illegitamate. To use the telescope example: If a publisher writes that by pointing a telescope of power 10x in a certain direction you will see a comet and a responder says that he pointed his telescope of power 8x exactly as the publisher said and saw nothing then the responder is obviously not a peer either in equipment or in intelect. Even if the responder claims to have better than normal eyesight or claimes to have his 8x telescope hooked to a computer that he claimes gives him an effective magnification of 10x. A responder could be the head of the Royal Astronomical Society but if he doesn't follow the instructions of the publisher his response is illegitimate and any peer would recognise it as such.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tensor

If it's repeated and has already been answered, a link would suffice. If it hasn't been answered, the repeat is pertinent.

Again, you are not a moderator so your response is irrelevant. I would like to think that it will be interpreted that way but it was not in my example of my "Levee" thread. A moderator three times repeted erroneous questions second party that were based on erroneous missreading of the material or had already been answered and a second moderator locked the thread based on those erroneous assersions with no disscussion possible except to start a second thread about it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tensor

Quote:

Originally Posted by SAMU

"Errors of a questioner must be pointed out by the proposer ad infinitum"?.

If the error has already been corrected, a link would suffice. Of course, you may have a disagreement on whether or not the correction is valid.

This reply is incomprehensable. But if you mean that the publisher must provide links ad infinitum to point out the errors of questioners who refuse to view them then I'm glad you are not a moderator.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tensor

Quote:

Originally Posted by SAMU

"Refusal of a poster to comply with the above (refusing to respond to erroneous and illegitimate questions) will be grounds for locking of the thread"?

Not necessarily locking of the thread, the banning of the poster is a possibility.

Even worse.

All of this is why I addressed my post to moderators and BA rather than you hoi poli.

Gillianren · #11 (**permalink**) 29-September-2006, 06:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SAMU

01101001, Van Rijn, Moose, Tensor,

None of you are moderators or are you Nereid. Since I addressed my post to them your posts are irrelavant and against rule Thus your responses are a violation of rule 7.

Yeah, that's exactly what they were doing. They weren't responding to it on their own behalf, they were finding out what Nereid had to say and posting in on their own. You're so right!

Quote:

Your post is gramatically and logically incomprehensable. What does <<--->> mean anyhow? I must have been asleep when thay tought that in grammer school.

Also when they explained the proper spelling of "tought" and "grammer"? Before you criticize others--and I found that post perfectly clear--you might want to take a minute to run spellcheck on your own posts.

SAMU · #12 (**permalink**) 29-September-2006, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gillianren

Quote:

Originally Posted by samu

01101001, Van Rijn, Moose, Tensor,

None of you are moderators or are you Nereid. Since I addressed my post to them your posts are irrelavant and against rule Thus your responses are a violation of rule 7.

Yeah, that's exactly what they were doing. They weren't responding to it on their own behalf, they were finding out what Nereid had to say and posting in on their own. You're so right!.

If Nereid had something to say then he should have posted it himself. That's what the rule says.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Badastronomer

Do not post on behalf of other people. In other words, if someone you know has something to say relevant to the discussion in a thread, have them register and post it.

(And are you sure "they were finding out what Nereid had to say"? If they had then they should have posted saying so not you. Now you are violating rule 7.) And your point is?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gillianren

Also when they explained the proper spelling of "tought" and "grammer"? Before you criticize others--and I found that post perfectly clear--you might want to take a minute to run spellcheck on your own posts.

I have no doubt that you do understand it. Many people believe they understand things that do not stand up to logical review. I notice you do not publish your understanding of it for logical review. You just point out some spelling errors. Is that the best you can do? Fortunately there is no rule against spelling errors.