BAUT's ATM section is not a place for collaborative development

BaDboD · #1 (**permalink**) 29-November-2007, 05:31 PM

Quote:

For avoidance of doubt, BAUT's ATM section is not the place to engage in collaborative development of your ATM idea.

I dont like this statement. Please rephrase or clarify to remove doubt about possible suppression of ATM ideas on this board.

If not here, where is the proper place on this board for

Quote:

collaborative development

for ATM ideas? damn ill get shot in the foot for this cos I bet there is a place but I didnt see it yet.

Still, the only development is collaborative, and to suggest this isn't so is offensive.

Noclevername · #2 (**permalink**) 29-November-2007, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BaDboD

Please rephrase or clarify to remove doubt about possible suppression of ATM ideas on this board.

The fact that there is an ATM section at all should remove any doubt. There doesn't need to be one at all.

Quote:

If not here, where is the proper place on this board for

Quote:

collaborative development

for ATM ideas?

How about a board or website about the particular ideas? Or private messages? This board isn't set up for it.

Quote:

Still, the only development is collaborative, and to suggest this isn't so is offensive.

Huh?

Gillianren · #3 (**permalink**) 29-November-2007, 06:43 PM

"Collaborative development" actually is different from just "development." The point is that the people here are not going to help you develop your idea. They'll question it. They'll tell you where it's wrong. The ideas have to come from you. You, and you alone, have to make them work. There is no place on this site for people to help you develop your idea.

Nereid · #4 (**permalink**) 29-November-2007, 06:45 PM

[Moderator Note]

This thread was started by splitting the original post (by BaDboD) from The Universe is Otherwise - part 2 - Paeps (gravity particles) thread in the ATM section.

The text quoted comes from post #34 in that thread.

Here is the sticky in the ATM section, dated 1 March, 2007, announcing BAUT's new ATM policies:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fraser

Okay folks, we're implementing a new policy for the Against the Mainstream (ATM) section of BAUT.

New ATM theories will remain open for 30 days, and then they'll be closed by the moderation staff. In other words, if you've got an interesting new theory about the Universe, you've got 30 days to deal with objections, and then we'll seal it up - preserved for all eternity. Any new topics started up by the ATM theorist will be shut down immediately, and/or deleted.

Okay, so why did we make this decision?

There are two kinds of people who post threads in the ATM section:

1.People who have an interesting idea to explain some aspect of the Universe. They post their idea, community members generously donate their time to help think it through and provide ways to test the theory. It happens quickly and we all move on.

2. People who are looking to use BAUT as a marketing platform for their alternative theories. Tell us your idea, that's fine. But we're not going to allow the forum to turn into a marketing vehicle for them. 30 days should be plenty of time to present your concept, deal with objections, answer anything else.

The problem is that the people in group 2 were stretching the patience of the community and using up moderator resources. So we've decided to take this direction.

We'll start this new policy a week from today - March 6, 2007. We'll close up every ATM thread older than 30-days, no exceptions. They'll all still be accessible by the search engine, and if you want to put in a hard link.

There are several threads, in this About BAUT section, discussing the policy announced on 1 March this year, and the place of the ATM section in general.

Note for BaDboD: the post you are apparently in disagreement with is clearly marked as a Moderator Note. Per BAUT's rules (#17):

Quote:

If you disagree with a moderator action, then PM or email the moderator, a different moderator, or an administrator. We will review the case and take action as needed.

[/Moderator Note]

ExpErdMann · #5 (**permalink**) 29-November-2007, 07:36 PM

I found your complaint of "collaborative development" a bit odd in the thread in question. The OP poster paul schroeder had proposed a number of ideas which were seemingly based on Le Sage's theory of gravity. Trouble was, his ideas seemed to fall in between the particle- and wave-based Le Sage models. Several posters put in some ideas of their own about these different variants. There wasn't a collaboration in progress, just posters trying to be helpful and adding comments to the discussion. What you seem to be implying is, don't come to ATM unless your thesis is finished and ready to defend, all on your own. That seems like a pretty tall order. I think the worse situation is the ATMer who is so sure he's right that he doesn't want any help from anyone.

Moose · #6 (**permalink**) 29-November-2007, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ExpErdMann

What you seem to be implying is, don't come to ATM unless your thesis is finished and ready to defend, all on your own.

I don't think anybody has implied anything of the sort. It's been spelled out quite explicitly by the admin more than once. BAUT isn't for promoting your ATM, and it isn't as a development scratch pad or blog.

The admin have been very clear that they're not willing to accept the expenses for these activities. If you want to promote, you'll have to do it on your own dime and time. If you want to collaborate, you are free to make your own forum or use email.

When you're ready to defend your thesis, presumably immediately prior to submitting it to publication, the ATM forum will be there for you. For 30 days.

Nereid · #7 (**permalink**) 29-November-2007, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ExpErdMann

I found your complaint of "collaborative development" a bit odd in the thread in question. The OP poster paul schroeder had proposed a number of ideas which were seemingly based on Le Sage's theory of gravity. Trouble was, his ideas seemed to fall in between the particle- and wave-based Le Sage models. Several posters put in some ideas of their own about these different variants. There wasn't a collaboration in progress, just posters trying to be helpful and adding comments to the discussion. What you seem to be implying is, don't come to ATM unless your thesis is finished and ready to defend, all on your own. That seems like a pretty tall order. I think the worse situation is the ATMer who is so sure he's right that he doesn't want any help from anyone.

(my bold)

That's worse, IMHO; I don't think Fraser could have been more clear: "In other words, if you've got an interesting new theory about the Universe, you've got 30 days to deal with objections, and then we'll seal it up - preserved for all eternity. Any new topics started up by the ATM theorist will be shut down immediately, and/or deleted."

If, as may be the case, these '[s]everal [other] posters' introduced 'some ideas of their own' that had already been presented in previous ATM threads, then perhaps the mod team failed ... by not removing those posts and deleting them?

But perhaps the ATM policy that Fraser announced on 1 March this year isn't as clearly spelled out as it should be?

Oh, and to repeat:

Quote:

If you disagree with a moderator action, then PM or email the moderator, a different moderator, or an administrator. We will review the case and take action as needed.

ETA: and to repeat what Moose said, it's not like this policy hasn't been discussed - there are quite a few threads in this very section on it - and Fraser has, many times, clarified and repeated the policy in those About BAUT threads. If you're interested, I'm sure folk will help you find the threads (if you can't find them yourself); also, IIRC, at least one is still open, so you may continue discussion of the policy there.

ExpErdMann · #8 (**permalink**) 29-November-2007, 08:36 PM

For the complicated topics we're talking about (gravity, cosmology, etc.) it makes no sense to shut other ATMers out of discussions. It's a big universe out there. Everyone can learn. I don't see the point of isolating the ATM OP poster.

John Mendenhall · #9 (**permalink**) 29-November-2007, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nereid

(snip)

I don't think Fraser could have been more clear: "In other words, if you've got an interesting new theory about the Universe, you've got 30 days to deal with objections, and then we'll seal it up - preserved for all eternity. Any new topics started up by the ATM theorist will be shut down immediately, and/or deleted."

"Any new topics started up by the ATM theorist will be shut down immediately, and/or deleted." This reads like no new threads, when I think the intent is no new threads on the same topic.

And based on experience, no sideways approaches, no hihacked threads, no slightly-different-words-that-mean-the-same-thing, and on, and on. 30 days is enough for most ATM ideas. The moderators make it clear that if you have a real need for more time, then make your case to them.

Gillianren · #10 (**permalink**) 29-November-2007, 11:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ExpErdMann

For the complicated topics we're talking about (gravity, cosmology, etc.) it makes no sense to shut other ATMers out of discussions. It's a big universe out there. Everyone can learn. I don't see the point of isolating the ATM OP poster.

I do. I'm tired of coming across ideas that haven't met with the basic standards of scientific testing when people are trying to give the mainstream solution. I'm tired of people starting new threads to post the idea they couldn't defend last time, either, even when--as is usually the case--they think they did. I'm not trying to say that an ATM idea will never be mainstream. I know too much (i.e., anything) about the history of science to claim that. I'm just saying that this is not a place designed to develop new ideas but to discuss those that have met certain criteria. When new ideas have met them, we'll discuss those, too.

Noclevername · #11 (**permalink**) 30-November-2007, 12:03 AM

Agreed. BAUT is a science board-- specifically a space science board-- not a soon-to-be-science board.

hhEb09'1 · #12 (**permalink**) 30-November-2007, 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nereid

But perhaps the ATM policy that Fraser announced on 1 March this year isn't as clearly spelled out as it should be?

I haven't read everything that's been posted about this subject, probably (maybe I have, I dunno), but I'm almost certain that you have misinterpreted Fraser's policy.

After all, Fraser expressed on more than one occassion the hope that some sort of breakthrough might result from the ATM discussions. If all we are accepting is full blown text published elsewhere, that hope is certainly dashed.

One of our posters has expressed ATM ideas repeatedly, and I (and others) have patiently aided his progress by helping him with his study of calculus. His progress has been phenomenal and I've taken some gratification from that. By your interpretation, it appears I've been in volation of the rules.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gillianren

I do. I'm tired of coming across ideas that haven't met with the basic standards of scientific testing when people are trying to give the mainstream solution.

I would think the solution to that would be to not read ATM, no?

Moose · #13 (**permalink**) 30-November-2007, 01:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hhEb09'1

I would think the solution to that would be to not read ATM, no?

No. If ATM were being used properly, there would only be ready-for-prime-time science because the proponent would have done their homework first.

If ATM were being used properly, I wouldn't frequently run into proponents trying to sneak-promote their conjecture into the other forums.

If ATM were being used properly, I wouldn't feel compelled out of necessity to track the many About BAUT ATM-whine-and-cheese threads.

I'm not against ATM research. It's very much not my thing, but it does have its place done right. Every negative test closes the gaps that much further. But I don't want the more speculative, unsupported ideas mixing with the science that was done meticulously and correctly by the real scientists who did their homework and defended their models under live-fire: peer-reviewed publications.

Moose · #14 (**permalink**) 30-November-2007, 01:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hhEb09'1

I haven't read everything that's been posted about this subject, probably (maybe I have, I dunno), but I'm almost certain that you have misinterpreted Fraser's policy.

I have read everything. I don't have time to go looking for the post more than I have (I'm ready for bed and my work day tomorrow is going to be busy), but one of the admin has explicitly said that ATM wasn't to be used as a blog for developing ATMs. I'm pretty sure it was Fraser, and I'm pretty sure it was a while back, but a quick search didn't turn it up.

Quote:

After all, Fraser expressed on more than one occassion the hope that some sort of breakthrough might result from the ATM discussions. If all we are accepting is full blown text published elsewhere, that hope is certainly dashed.

No. Nobody's ever claimed actual publication was a prerequisite. If you publish, then all you'd be doing here is free-promotion, which is absolutely explicitly forbidden, both by the letter and spirit of the ATM and spam rules.

What's required is that you ensure your 'i's are dotted, 't's crossed, and that you are prepared to defend your thesis from spirited challenge before you open the thread.

That way, you've had some fireproofing when you actually do publish.

Quote:

One of our posters has expressed ATM ideas repeatedly, and I (and others) have patiently aided his progress by helping him with his study of calculus. His progress has been phenomenal and I've taken some gratification from that. By your interpretation, it appears I've been in volation of the rules.

No, I don't think so. Challenge and correction aren't collaboration, even when gentle, even when the ATMer takes it with good grace. It's perhaps a good example of how proponents should be behaving.

Gillianren · #15 (**permalink**) 30-November-2007, 02:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hhEb09'1

I would think the solution to that would be to not read ATM, no?

Heh. Don't I wish. Certain people--and I'm very intentionally naming no names--have a tedious tendency of appearing in Q&A or General Science with their "clarifications."

Halcyon Dayz · #16 (**permalink**) 30-November-2007, 03:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gillianren

Certain people--and I'm very intentionally naming no names--have a tedious tendency of appearing in Q&A or General Science with their "clarifications."

I second that.

It's annoying, to say the least.

HenrikOlsen · #17 (**permalink**) 30-November-2007, 05:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hhEb09'1

One of our posters has expressed ATM ideas repeatedly, and I (and others) have patiently aided his progress by helping him with his study of calculus. His progress has been phenomenal and I've taken some gratification from that. By your interpretation, it appears I've been in volation of the rules.

My interpretation is that education is very definitely within the charter of this board.
Helping a person develop the skills needed to express an idea precisely, is (in my personal opinion) very much within the spirit of the board.
Helping the person develop the idea itself is not.