Rules discussion

[Sey-Verse]

Originally Posted by The Bad Astronomer

I personally frown on changing names, as that can make it hard to keep track of people. I allowed it on BA only grudgingly, and here on BAUT I think people should get one name and stick with it.

I have changed my name because my password and or name no longer worked once The Bad Astronomer and Universe Today Forum merged. I have also sent email in which I never recieved a response and so was left with no other choice but to change my name from Eyajwhynsos 3 to Sey-Verse.

Sey-Verse

[umop ap!sdn]

Originally Posted by Tog_

The rule of thumb that was in place when I got bumped was anything that one could reasonably expect to see on The Simpsons was okay.

Wow, that's not real strict at all. Kudos to them for that (although I say that not knowing for sure the official word on whether that also applies here).

A master list might be a good idea, but how to post it without it being a violation?

Like mickal did, by only giving enough information to identify the word.

Speaking of which...

Originally Posted by mickal555

B

I take it that's the 5 letter one, as opposed to the 7 letters?

Damn, bloody, jeeez and hell arn't really swear words these days

Which is a good thing IMO. And of course, AFAIK "bloody" was never a swear word in America so we have cultural differences to account for too.

[Nereid]

Originally Posted by umop ap!sdn

[snip]

I ain't even gonna touch the ATM section. Sure, I can understand how when faced with a deluge of uninformed folks with less than rigorously tested hypotheses, one would be tempted to hand out perma bans to the worst offenders - and of course it's your board to run as you (Admins) see fit. I'd like to try to educate people, having once been in their shoes myself, but the rules there are so what-beavers-do strict that I'm afraid I'm going to get my mule handed to me for either A.) being busy at work thus unable to stay on top of the threads in a timely manner, or 2.) not being able to produce a cite.

The ATM section isn't that bad! Or maybe there's an urban myth about it?

Anyway, in this About BAUT thread, I checked - for ATM-related stuff you get banned principally for being a sock-puppet (that's a guess) or screaming and yelling (aka civility and decorum).

Anyway, this post illustrates the problem well - and is one reason why are ATM policy is about challenge and attack (rather than, say, 'we're here to hold your hand').

[mickal555]

Originally Posted by umop ap!sdn

Wow, that's not real strict at all. Kudos to them for that (although I say that not knowing for sure the official word on whether that also applies here).


Like mickal did, by only giving enough information to identify the word.

Speaking of which...


I take it that's the 5 letter one, as opposed to the 7 letters?

Yeah... I dunnno what the 7 letter one is? :s

Which is a good thing IMO. And of course, AFAIK "bloody" was never a swear word in America so we have cultural differences to account for too.

Since I've been around none of the others in that group have been either... I definitly didn't consider them swear words... the others were super bad no-no's though. (Including crap)

[Tog_]

Originally Posted by umop ap!sdn

Wow, that's not real strict at all. Kudos to them for that (although I say that not knowing for sure the official word on whether that also applies here).

Which is a good thing IMO. And of course, AFAIK "bloody" was never a swear word in America so we have cultural differences to account for too.

Actually, The B word used above if it contains 5 letters is perfectly acceptable on TV now, and actually has been for decades. It's also a term used in a non-vulgar way in dog shows. The 7 letter variation was the title of a movie I saw the first few minutes of on broadcast TV. It was a British horror movie made in the early 70's I think. A cheap knock off of Rosemary's Baby from the look of it.

We did have a list of gray area words, and since two of the officers (Moderators) were from England, we had to ask them about a few of them. One in particular is one I had always assumed was pretty bad when it started out then became more widely used until it was shown in the previews for the Pirates of the Carribean sequel. What's interesting to me about this word is that depending on the age group of the people around you when you say it, you can et several different reactions. Sort of like the difference between dropping the F bomb, is S equivalent (think fastening device, or simple machine), or dangit. For the 50 to 60 crowd, it's F bomb grade. For the 15 and under, it's dangit grade.*

The rules on the other forum for language are a bit more lax than here, but there ae very few posts there that ever need to be edited. Like three in the last year. A few more would have had to be changed to conform to the standards here, but still probably under a dozen, and that's over a span of 2 years (on the 17th). Most of our players are in the 16 to 30 age group, so the potential for violations is there. This is especially true when a new patch comes out and things get changed. Some people get very irate about it.

My personal rule of thumb is to try not to use any word that the overprotective mother of a 3 year old would object to hearing the little tyke repeat in the car on the way home. This is not to say I'm uncomfortable using phrases that would make a trucker blush, just that it's a time and place issue.

*The word in question is 6 letters, starts with B. First syllable means insect, and original meaning has to do with the back seat of a Volkswagon, though you need to see Mall Rats for the reference.

[mickal555]

6 letters?

It's not bugger is it?

[weather1man]

I feel this board is insanely strict...I am a bit scared to post here as I feel like a mod will be on my case as soon as I post. It is like walking on egg shells, and some of the members are warned and banned, for reasons at least IMHO do not warrant such action. Given it is your board, and this board is obviously insanely large, so it would not matter quite so much to ban members, as there are always members posting, but it is sort of a turn off to me personally. You guys asked for feedback.

[antoniseb]

Originally Posted by weather1man

You guys asked for feedback.

Thanks for the feedback. Sorry you feel that you need to be so cautious.

[hhEb09'1]

Originally Posted by weather1man

I feel this board is insanely strict...I am a bit scared to post here as I feel like a mod will be on my case as soon as I post. It is like walking on egg shells, and some of the members are warned and banned, for reasons at least IMHO do not warrant such action. Given it is your board, and this board is obviously insanely large, so it would not matter quite so much to ban members, as there are always members posting, but it is sort of a turn off to me personally. You guys asked for feedback.

Can you give specifics?

What rules do you disagree with?

[umop ap!sdn]

Originally Posted by mickal555

Yeah... I dunnno what the 7 letter one is? :s

It rhymes with "plastered".

Okay, were my parents just being weird when they raised me?

[mickal555]

Probobly :s

It's not the one that goes Bar...

[SAMU]

Since I have shown in Moderating the Conspiracy Theories section - SAMU's opinions that two moderators have illegitimately argued and locked a thread for illegitimate reasons then the "normal flow" of this forum is the occasional illegitimate action of moderators. So pointing out illegitimate arguments or actions of moderators could be considered "against the normal flow" of this forum and subject to moderator warnings, lockings and banning of members?

So far there has been no legitimate statement from The Bad Astronomer, the moderators in question or any other moderator on the issue raised in that post.

[01101001]

Originally Posted by SAMU

[...] illegitimately [...] illegitimate [...] illegitimate [...] illegitimate [...] legitimate [...]

Please define this legitimate you use.

[SAMU]

Originally Posted by 01101001

Please define this legitimate you use.

Please read the thread where I illustrate it particularly the end where I was freed to illustrate it fully rather than defend it against the charge (post hoc) that my point in the original thread was considered irrelavant to the ATM forum, it using a referance to a thread in the CT forum, even though the original thread itself began with references to threads in forums other than ATM.

[Van Rijn]

Originally Posted by SAMU

Please read the thread where I illustrate it particularly the end where I was freed to illustrate it fully rather than defend it against the charge (post hoc) that my point in the original thread was considered irrelavant to the ATM forum, it using a referance to a thread in the CT forum, even though the original thread itself began with references to threads in forums other than ATM.

Uh, right. From what I read, "illegitimate" according to SAMU refers to any comments that you didn't like.

SAMU, are you familiar with the phrase, "If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging"?

[UFO TOFU]

There is a rule in place to prevent discussions of a religious nature on the forum. I think it is a good one if applied equitibly.

I have noticed a number of user signatures that include quoted statements which mock or ridicule various religious texts or doctrines. I can't help but feel that this is a little bit of a double standard.

Can you please explain how this existing practice adheres to the rule in word and intent?

[01101001]

Originally Posted by UFO TOFU

Can you please explain how this existing practice adheres to the rule in word and in intent?

Could you show an example of the existing practice, that would contravene the rule? I'm having trouble recalling any -- not that I spend much time reading sigs. Thanks.

[antoniseb]

I have seen a few such examples. In some cases I have asked people to change their sig. In others I've changed it for them, rather than wait for them to comply, but in other cases, I leave it alone. If it isn't provocative, and it never gets mentioned in a thread, then I don't worry about it.

[dgruss23]

This exchange has left me wondering:

Originally Posted by David Zelenka

I created this graphic for you all to study. It explains how this model describes the evolution of galaxies.

Please understand that my background is not in astrophysics, so Nereid, if you wish to try to understand this model through the graphics and words I have provided and spend some time working it out the specifics, that would be greatly appreciated.

Even though, my background is not in this field, please do not discount this model, because I have studied the galaxy imagery available for years and humbly feel that this model is very close to correct.

Originally Posted by Nereid

First, the ATM section of BAUT is not, NOT, a place where you can go to get free help working out a purely speculative idea - please read the special rule about this section, in the BAUT rules.

So where should David Zelenka go with the discussion in this circumstance. He has an idea that is not quantified. But it is clearly ATM in nature. So if he goes to Q&A with his idea he is in violation of BAUT rules by promoting his idea in areas other than ATM.

OTOH he has posed his idea in ATM and stated that he does not have the mathematical background and would appreciate any additional analysis anyone else could provide.

Why is it against the BAUT ATM rules for David to ask for some help with his ATM idea? And if he's not allowed to ask in ATM, then where on BAUT is someone to go when they want to discuss a speculation that is ATM? I don't see anything in the rules that says a person is not allowed to ask for feedback/help on their ATM speculations:

Originally Posted by Rule 13

If you have some idea which goes against commonly-held astronomical theory, then you are welcome to argue it here. Before you do, though READ THIS THREAD FIRST. This is very important. Then, if you still want to post your idea, you will do so politely, you will not call people names, and you will defend your arguments. Direct questions must be answered in a timely manner.

People will attack your arguments with glee and fervor here; that's what science and scientists do. If you cannot handle that sort of attack, then maybe you need to rethink your theory, too. Remember: you came here. It's our job to attack new theories. Those that are strong will survive, and may become part of mainstream science.

Additionally, keep promotion of your theories and ideas to only those Against the Mainstream threads which discuss them. Hijacking other discussions to draw attention to your ideas will not be allowed.

If it appears that you are using circular reasoning, depending on long-debunked arguments, or breaking any of these other rules, you will receive one warning, and if that warning goes unheeded, you will be banned.

[01101001]

Originally Posted by dgruss23

Why is it against the BAUT ATM rules for David to ask for some help with his ATM idea? And if he's not allowed to ask in ATM, then where on BAUT is someone to go when they want to discuss a speculation that is ATM? I don't see anything in the rules that says a person is not allowed to ask for feedback/help on their ATM speculations:

A quandary indeed.

I'm currently having discussions with a moderator (hi!) about this, but probably not on the side you want. I'm feeling upset about a lot of the ATM I feel like I'm seeing, more and more lately, in Q&A. And, it's hard to describe the problem. I do like people to ask questions. Learning is a good thing. But, I think there are ATM proponents taking their questions to Q&A not really for the purpose of getting answers -- though I think they'll always welcome answers that support their views -- but for advocating their ideas in a less hostile place. My indication of this is the typical pattern I see: a question (sometimes carefully crafted to get supporting answers); usually appropriate mainstream answers, as expected in Q&A; and then come the ATM assertions, statements, arguments in support of the ATM position, persuasion, pleading. It's almost comical. Wish I could laugh.

Now these ATM statements, these arguments, arrive in the midst of apparent questioning, so one could view them as mere clarifications of the original question. But, the skeptical side of me is... skeptical. I really must suspect they are offered only to persuade. And such championing of ATM ideas has a place and it is called ATM.

I strongly feel Q&A should be reserved for earnest questions.

As for this particular instance, if the quoted material comes from ATM, then this topic, Examples of Barred Galaxy Research, in Q&A may have been the result. It didn't go on long (so far), like many ATM-based Q&A topics do, but it didn't take long for the proponent to stop asking questions and start stating opinions. Who needs it?

In case it's not clear, I really don't mind when an ATM proponent asks a question in Q&A. But, why, why, why do they so often then take (or ignore) the answers and just begin arguing their case? Can't they ask what's wrong without trying to tell us what they presume is right? There's a place for that. It's still ATM.

It would be sad if they had no place at all to flesh out their ideas. But, I'm happy to agree with Nereid that ATM should be for the promotion (and attack) of ATM ideas, not the research, not the brain-picking development, not the mere speculation, not the call for improvements. No problem. That makes ATM a more pleasant, productive place. However, I think I disagree with Nereid that ATM-questions should be encouraged to happen in Q&A -- simply because it so often seems to turn from questions into promotion. It shouldn't, but it does; people can't seem to help themselves; they are on a mission.

ATM speculation I think is welcome in appropriate science subfora. But, there it is similar to the Q&A problem. Speculation might not be labeled well as being speculation; tentative could-be statements are followed by must-be assertions. It shouldn't, but it does; people can't seem to help themselves; they are on a mission.

Q&A is probably where someone should be able to ask about an ATM idea, but the very moment the opportunity is turned into promotion, at the instant of advocacy, the hammer should fall, hard. I'd be OK with that. It would make Q&A a much more pleasant and useful place for people who actually do want to learn. Same with ATM speculation elsewhere. Moderators should be more skeptical of intent and enforce the rules, with vigor.

However, I'd just as soon the ATM matters be quarantined to ATM, a forum I mostly avoid, be it claims, questions or speculation. Not much interested, thanks. Meanwhile, the denizens of ATM may want the questions and speculation elsewhere. They're not much interested.

It's a big Internet. Does it have to happen in BAUT?

[Swift]

Originally Posted by 01101001

<snip>

Q&A is probably where someone should be able to ask about an ATM idea, but the very moment the opportunity is turned into promotion, at the instant of advocacy, the hammer should fall, hard. I'd be OK with that. It would make Q&A a much more pleasant and useful place for people who actually do want to learn. Same with ATM speculation elsewhere. Moderators should be more skeptical of intent and enforce the rules, with vigor.

However, I'd just as soon the ATM matters be quarantined to ATM, a forum I mostly avoid, be it claims, questions or speculation. Not much interested, thanks. Meanwhile, the denizens of ATM may want the questions and speculation elsewhere. They're not much interested.

It's a big Internet. Does it have to happen in BAUT?

Yes, a quandary indeed.

I think I lean towards 01101001's take on it. I too have noted the same thing in Q&A and had the same feeling; that people were trying to back-door their ATM ideas, and I also don't like it. Q&A should be pretty purely for true questions from people seeking the main-stream science, IMHO.

But I do feel some sympathy for someone who has a speculative idea, that they have some honest questions about, or are looking for some help on, but don't have the math or all the physics on. It still seems that ATM would be the appropriate place for it.

I have chosen to avoid the ATM threads on such things as math and falsifying qualitative idea. Chemistry is different than physics and is much more qualitative, though I feel it is no less a science. But that does give me some sympathy to those with more qualitative ideas.

Still, the danger of loosening the rules in ATM is that you might open the floodgates. I don't know how you codify the difference between someone avoiding attach and an evaluation of their idea, and someone who honestly is looking for help. It would nice if we could find a way. But if not, it may be that there is no spot for such things at BAUT; that would be too bad, but it also doesn't have to be all things to all people.

[Nereid]

[Nereid speaking as Nereid, not as a BAUT Moderator]

There's nothing in the rules which prevents BAUT members offering to help another BAUT member with the development of their ATM ideas*.

However, the ATM section is not a good place to ask for such help, nor to expect to receive it, because it has been established with an explicitly challenging agenda:
* defend your arguments;
* direct questions must be answered in a timely manner;
* people will attack your arguments with glee and fervor here (if you cannot handle that sort of attack, then maybe you need to rethink your theory, too);
* remember: you came here;
* it's our job to attack new theories;
* keep promotion of your theories and ideas to only those Against the Mainstream threads which discuss them;
* hijacking other discussions to draw attention to your ideas will not be allowed.

Originally Posted by dgruss23

where on BAUT is someone to go when they want to discuss a speculation that is ATM?

Originally Posted by 01101001

It's a big Internet. Does it have to happen in BAUT?

In this case, I agree with 01101001; I feel that BAUT would be a much more respectable, much more attractive internet discussion forum if it banned - or strongly discouraged - discussion of purely speculative ATM ideas. Challenging ATM ideas, as presented, yes; discussing them in an encouraging, supportive fashion, no.

Why? Because by far the best encouragement and support any of us can give, to those with speculative ATM ideas, is Celestial Mechanic's "get thee to a library!" - go earn your MSc or PhD in physics, or astronomy, or whatever**; develop your ideas so they are free from the trivial, simple, glaring, basic errors that the ATM section is drowning in, and then come and post it!

Some background, for those reading this who may not already know.

'Nereid' was once a 'Super Mentor' at Physics Forums (PF), back when they still had a 'Theory Development' (TD) section, which was not unlike BAUT's ATM section. After several years, and over 2,000 TD threads, PF changed its rules, and canned TD. It was replaced by an Independent Research section, which has (IMHO) some very good guidelines (extracts):

1. The opening post must contain an abstract stating the results obtained and how the new theory is at variance with currently accepted theories.

2. The opening post must contain a section that either cites experiments that have been done that decide between the new and old theories, or it must propose experiments that could be done to decide between the two. If the submission contains a theory that is empirically equivalent to an existing theory, then this section may be substituted with a section that demonstrates the empirical equivalence and that compares and contrasts the insights gained from the submitted and existing theories.

3. All references to relevant prior work must be documented in the opening post.

4. Quantitative predictions must be derived, wherever appropriate, and mathematical expressions and equations must be presented legibly, using LaTeX whenever necessary. For instructions and sample code see this thread. This should be done in the opening post.

5. New theories must not be already strongly inconsistent with the results of prior experiments.

6. If a new theory is strongly inconsistent with prior experiments, but the theorist is insisting that the experiments were either misconducted or misinterpreted by the scientific community, then the thread will be rejected. Instead the theorist should rebut the contradicting scientists in an appropriate journal.

7. Theories containing obvious mathematical or logical errors will not be accepted.

8. Threads which contain obvious misrepresentations or gross misunderstanding of basic accepted science, especially when used in attempt to compare one's personal theory to currently accepted science, will not be accepted.

After having spent some 16 months with BAUT, as a moderator - most of it in the ATM section - I am coming to the conclusion that PF's approach is far more appropriate for a forum such as BAUT, than the present, 'anything goes' rule #13.

*With the usual caveats about topics, privacy, copyright, ads and solicitation, 2nd and 3rd party posting, hotlinking, sock puppetry, editing and revisionism, politics and religion, etc.
**Or attain an approximately similar level of understanding via private study.
[/Nereid speaking as Nereid, not as a BAUT Moderator]

[hhEb09'1]

Originally Posted by Nereid

I agree with 01101001; I feel that BAUT would be a much more respectable, much more attractive internet discussion forum if it banned - or strongly discouraged - discussion of purely speculative ATM ideas. Challenging ATM ideas, as presented, yes; discussing them in an encouraging, supportive fashion, no.

Why not? oops, you sorta ask that next:

Why? Because by far the best encouragement and support any of us can give, to those with speculative ATM ideas, is Celestial Mechanic's "get thee to a library!" - go earn your MSc or PhD in physics, or astronomy, or whatever**; develop your ideas so they are free from the trivial, simple, glaring, basic errors that the ATM section is drowning in, and then come and post it!

But then, after that, wouldn't we want to discuss it in an encouraging, supportive fashion? So how can we ban it?

[Moose]

Exactly. Intrinsically, you'd be rewarding bad science and punishing good (or at least better.) That's not the BAUT I joined.

[Thomas(believer)]

Why not make an extra section? Let's say the "brainstorm" section.
If you have an idea or theory you first have to go to this section. Here you can discuss your ideas. If the idea or theory has some potential, it can be moved to "theory development", maybe by a vote from the members (with some moderator veto power). Once you're in TD you have to make a strong case or else you get voted back to the brainstorm section. This gives an element of competition which sometimes can bring people to higher levels. (Sometimes even to the moon )

[hhEb09'1]

I'd favor leaving Theory Development in the Physics Forums.

[Nereid]

Originally Posted by hhEb09'1

Why not? oops, you sorta ask that next:

But then, after that, wouldn't we want to discuss it in an encouraging, supportive fashion? So how can we ban it?

Too terse, try again.

Ban, or strongly discourage, purely speculative ATM ideas ... unless they are presented according to guidelines not dissimilar to PF's IR section.

For those ATM ideas which do meet such guidelines, challenge them vigorously (per the present rule 13); do not discuss them in an encouraging, supportive fashion.

IOW, the best thing BAUT could do, to help aspiring ATM astrophysicists, is:

a) encourage them to get their PhDs (or similar) - by ensuring that only ATM ideas which meet certain, minimum standards are acceptable; and

b) attack any such ideas which do meet those standards, with glee and fervour, once they have been presented (and, perhaps, clarified).

[Nereid]

Originally Posted by hhEb09'1

I'd favor leaving Theory Development in the Physics Forums.

Too late, it's dead (the last post was in July, 2005; all threads are now locked).

You can, of course, still go read any and all TD posts, threads, etc ...

[Nereid]

Originally Posted by Moose

Exactly. Intrinsically, you'd be rewarding bad science and punishing good (or at least better.) [snip]

How?

[Moose]

David Zelenka's post isn't a good example of what I'm responding to, because it smacks of "do my homework for me".

But:

I feel that BAUT would be a much more respectable, much more attractive internet discussion forum if it banned - or strongly discouraged - discussion of purely speculative ATM ideas. Challenging ATM ideas, as presented, yes; discussing them in an encouraging, supportive fashion, no.

Suppose someone named Ralphie comes in. He's working on a model for dark matter. While it's really out there compared to current thinking, and somewhat speculative, the point is to try and make the overall model work with what we can observe in order to try and infer what isn't currently detectable, in the hopes of shaking loose some clues.

What he's confident about is mathematically correct, but there's a hole where there's a math principle he's weak on. He needs some help understanding where he's going wrong with that part of his model, and maybe some advice on how to close the gap (if it's closable.)

Is he out of luck, Nereid? If we go by your (non-mod) interpretation, I'd guess his thread would be summarily locked for being speculative, not really being open to attack with "glee, etc", and looking for supportive discussion.

Am I misunderstanding your desire (for lack of a better word) here? If I am, where should his post go? It's really too non-mainstream for Q&A, but not flawed and/or assertive enough for ATM.

It seems to me that if we turn such a person away for being a square peg, we're doing a disservice to science as a whole. Supportive discussion isn't the same thing as rolling-over. Failing to think critically is what should be discouraged. Supportive discussion is something to be treasured. It's rare enough on the internet as it is.

If I'm understanding your desire, the only way you can post outside of the boundaries of what is accepted and not have your thread locked summarily is to rush your work and jump to conclusions. This is not something we really wish to inadvertantly reward, but a simple count of the ATM proponents suggests there is payoff to be had there.

We really should be going out of our way to reward/encourage careful and considered work, and as I'm understanding the situation, that's not really happening.