20-March-2007, 03:08 PM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 9,756
|
|
Consolidated suggestions on the ATM section
Being a collection of the specific, concrete, potentially implementable suggestions on the policies for BAUT's ATM section, culled from The Future of ATM and New Policies Regarding Against the Mainstream section.
Tog_:
Quote:
|
there be a provision for a thread to be reopened based on PM's to the moderators from the members actually in the discussion. Maybe even preemptively. Have the moderator watching the clock post a 1 week warning or something. Then, see how many people who are not the person that proposed the idea PM a request to extend it for one additional month. Compare them to the post count in the thread to be sure that the PM's came from active thread participants, then post the decision about whether or not it will be extended with the default being "no".
|
Jerry:
Quote:
|
Perhaps a new subsection should be created: Questions and/or controversies in astrophysics: Discussion of peer reviewed papers which challenge conventional thinking...No, just topics approved by board moderators - peer review is too much like a religious stamp of approval In such a section, the goal would not be to debunk: It would be to post and evaluate new and contraversial evidence. Astroscience is a living topic with lots of opinions. (There is a heated ongoing debate on the physics of neutron stars).
|
VanderL:
Quote:
subdivide the ATM section ( for example: 1. ATM peer-reviewed papers and theories, 2. Original theories/ideas presented by the author, 3. "Wild" ideas) and make sure everyone behaves.
[Note: VanderL expands on this here.]
|
peteshimmon:
Quote:
|
How about a 60 post limit instead with the OP having 10 posts?
|
DJ Barney:
Quote:
|
ATM were to have a documented process to ease arguments
|
jamini:
Quote:
|
adding a topic rating to all ATM topics, where all members could vote only once – say from 1-5 and rate each topic. Higher rated topics might be considered for longer duration by the Mods and Admin.
|
Coldcreation:
Quote:
|
The ATM section should be developped further, not repressed and reduced. It should be promoted the developement of new creative ideas (at least until a unified theory is found).
|
Uclock:
Quote:
|
the right of last reply. This reply could be PM’d to a moderator who could post it without reopening the thread. It may go some way to heal the wounds of the thirty day rule.
|
jamini:
Quote:
|
the last topic be a brief closing summary analysis of the topic by a moderator. I know mod resources are precious but that would provide a professional objective closing synopsis of each ATM topic.
|
Paul Beardsley:
Quote:
|
a new punishable offence. This offence is assuming victimhood without justification.
|
Tog_:
Quote:
Basically, it would be that all new ATM threads get moved to a “Poll Thread” where the voters can select multiple options. The poll would have the same questions for each thread:
Has the proper research been done?
Is it internally sound? (Not really what I want, but basically something that asks if the theory is capable of holding itself together, as opposed to having some parts that run contradictory to the rest)
Can it be tested?
Is it possible?
Should this thread be reopened after the 30 day limit has expired?
If it is renewed after 30 days, then a clean poll would be set up to reflect the changes made to the theory, with possibly a new set of questions that reflect the acceptance of the first.
|
Kelfazin:
Quote:
|
For peer review, my idea would be that a poster presents his/her theory on a peer review thread. There are certain chosen peer reviewers for that subject, and for a period of, say, 5 days only the OP and the peers can post on that particular thread. Once the idea is selected as valid or open for discussion by the peers then thread becomes public.
|
DJ Barney:
Quote:
|
the techniques used by the Wiki software (see link) you could build some of that into the forum..or even use their software ?
|
Kelfazin:
Quote:
My thinking in this area is that we could have people that have some form of credentials (whether formal or practical, I'm not sure. A lot of us know who the local experts are regarding different subjects for example) in whatever area the ATM theory is relating to. These "peers" would review a theory to see if has merit, then release it to the ATM section for public "attack."
Just thinking aloud here for a minute, there could be a new Peer Review forum where an ATM'er would post their theory. Maybe the reviewers have moderator permission on that forum, and they lock the new forum to moderator input only...not sure. Then if the theory has merit it is moved by the peers to the general ATM forum where the regulars can attack the theory with glee and fervor. Depending on the forum software, maybe the ATM forum can be locked so only mods can create a new topic. That would make it so only reviewed theories pass into general discussion.
|
Frog march:
Quote:
|
burnout threads just be closed by mod democracy
|
Nereid:
Quote:
|
more consistent in keeping the ATM threads to the stated scope of BAUT (space and astronomy), then the section would be more focussed.
|
Disinfo Agent:
Quote:
|
If the first post in a thread asks no questions and makes no directly challengeable statements, it should be simply ignored by the regular posters, which does not always happen. People should wait until the author makes a more substantive claim, or a moderator asks the author something substantive, or the thread is locked for lack of subject to discuss.
|
VivPope:
Quote:
|
dig the ATM out of its constraining FTM 'mathematical- and experimental-physics' rut. This would be to consider other well-tried tools of science, such as Philosophy of Science, Logical/Linguistic Analysis, and the like.
|
north:
Quote:
first have certain points thoughout the thread , where the thread MUST be summerized. by either the author of the thread or the respondence to the thread.
second have two ATMs .
1) has a very heavy mathematical and theoretical bases to any theory put forth ( but all members still have access, at least to view, if not respond)
2) has more leaning towards conceptual theory and some math to it. a place to spout off ideas. for the person who has an idea(s) about the Universe, there is no better site in my opinion. so please lets not shut out that quality.
for the 2nd there is no obligation for any moderator to respond. and nor is it expected , by us members. but you would apply a comment if you found the topic worth commenting on.
|
VivPope:
Quote:
quite unashamedly to forget about ‘democracy’ and ‘political correctness’ and demand some sort of 'CV' (academic or non-academic) as a condition for membership of the forum. [...] Get the applicant for posting permission to provide a short description of his or her experiences in science and of their particular leanings in the ATM direction.
[Note: VivPope expands on the CV idea here.]
|
Jim:
Quote:
As a thread approaches the 30 day limit - say, at 25 days - could a Mod ask the participants if they see any value in an extension? Alternatively, could one or more participants other than the OP request an extension? This way, if some value is seen in continuing the thread, it could be.
Along similar lines, if a thread remains inactive for, oh, 5 days, should it be locked before the 30 day limit?
If the OP is asked a question that may take time to research and answer, could the OP request that the thread be locked temporarily until an answer can be supplied? The clock could start ticking again at that time.
If after the 30 day lockdown the OP has something new to add, could this be PMed to a Mod and perhaps the old thread reopened or a new thread started?
[Note: Jim expands on this suggestion here.]
|
(to be continued)
|
Similar Threads
Linear Mode
