Rules discussion

[hhEb09'1]

Originally Posted by Nereid

Too terse, try again.

Try what again?

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

But these are not the physics forums. I think this is a case of, if you got a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

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

What we do

Originally Posted by Nereid

Too late, it's dead

Exactly.

[Nereid]

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

Originally Posted by hhEb09'1

Try what again?

Nereid, you were too terse; Nereid, you should try again.

But these are not the physics forums. I think this is a case of, if you got a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

[snip]

(my bold)

Too bad we are, as yet, unable to continue that discussion in the ATM section ...

I think this is a case of astronomy (astrophysics, cosmology) today being essentially a branch of physics (except for those parts which are more like geology, chemistry, or biology) ... but there is some strange reluctance to acknowledge it.

[Nereid]

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

To Swift and Moose: What you write, at one level, is how I got into PF's TD in the first place (before I discovered either UT or BABB).

However, the objective evidence* is hard to ignore - the kind of ideal example you cite is rare to almost non-existent.

And, the evidence of PF's IR section is a good counter-example: the quality of the threads there is high, and where there are holes, the 'ATMer' seems to have no difficulty writing focussed, non-ATM questions, in the appropriate (non-IR) part of PF, to get advice, support, and good suggestions.

Also, you'll see that the IR guidelines are actually quite generous to ATM ideas ... those that are filtered out are only those 'which contain obvious misrepresentations or gross misunderstanding of basic accepted science', which are 'already strongly inconsistent with the results of prior experiments' (observations, in BAUT's astronomy case), which do not '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', and so on.

*i.e. those hundreds and hundreds of TD threads, and, dare I say it, almost all BAUT ATM threads. I did a rough estimate once; even being quite generous, no more than ~1-2% of threads are close to your ideal example.

[hhEb09'1]

Originally Posted by Nereid

I think this is a case of astronomy (astrophysics, cosmology) today being essentially a branch of physics (except for those parts which are more like geology, chemistry, or biology) ... but there is some strange reluctance to acknowledge it.

some people are strangely reluctant to acknowledge the exceptions

[Moose]

Originally Posted by Nereid

However, the objective evidence* is hard to ignore - the kind of ideal example you cite is rare to almost non-existent.

I don't disagree. I have to say that I'm actually pleasantly surprised: 1%-2% seems a little high to me.

What I'm failing to understand, however, is why we are proposing to explicitly throw out the rare "baby" while going out of our way to keep the "bathwater", metaphorically speaking? Don't we like "babies"?

[dgruss23]

The description of the ATM forum says this:

Post here if you want to discuss a theory that goes against the astronomical mainstream. Have a beef with relativity, heliocentrism, the Big Bang? This is the place.

I'm trying to understand what the scope of acceptable topics in the ATM section is. It seems pretty clear that any mention of an ATM idea belongs in ATM. However, the description of ATM says "Post here if you want to discuss ...". That was a very good description of how it was in the old days of BABB.

Yet it seems that now Nereid has altered the rules of this forum. I say Nereid because I don't see any other moderators attempting to define such a narrow range of what is considered acceptable discourse in ATM.

If a person has an ATM idea they wish to discuss, then that might mean:

(1) The person has read about* the idea and wants to know what others think about it.
(2) The person has read about the idea, thinks it is interesting, and wants to know if anybody else knows strengths or weaknesses about it.
(3) The person has read the idea, likes the idea and wants to know if anybody else knows the strengths or weaknesses of the idea.
(4) The person has read the idea, likes the idea and wants to know if anybody can help him/her develop the idea further.
(5) The person has read about the idea, and thinks the idea may be correct, and wants to discuss it as an advocate ... but lacks the math background to defend calculation work.
(6) The person has read about the idea, and thinks the idea may be correct, and wants to discuss it as an advocate ... and has the math background and familiarity with the research literature needed to discuss some quantitative aspects of the idea.

Of course we could probably add other shades to this list of meanings but I hope that captures the range of possibilities we're talking about when the word "discuss" is used.

*Or developed the idea his/herself.

In the old BABB days any of the above was acceptable discourse as long as you were polite and answered direct questions. Yet since the merger into BAUT it seems that this range has been increasingly narrowed with Nereid as a driving force. This is not meant to be an attack on Nereid. I was active in ATM on BABB long before Nereid was involved, so I'm simply describing what I see.

It seems to me that Nereid is advocating that ATM discussion should be limited to item #6 and all other discussion options are forbidden. Isn't that what Nereid suggested with this:

Originally Posted by Nereid

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.

Discussion options 1-3 listed above have nothing to do with "defending" - simply learning. Discussion options 4&5 certainly involve "defending" the idea, but Nereid has argued that such non-quantitative discussions are not science.

Do not misunderstand, I'm fully aware that many ATM proponents have difficulty following the rules, but I'd like to know just what the scope of acceptable discussion in BAUT' ATM section is. At the minimum there is heavy pressure in the ATM section to limit all ATM discussion to item #6. But I fail to see why the first 5 discussion options should be off limits. They were always acceptable in the old BABB days. For example, I fail to see why something like this cannot simply result in discussion. Why can't someone link to an ATM paper seeking to know if someone else has knowledge that would allow them to understand if the ATM idea in the paper is viable?

[Argos]

I think there´s nothing wrong about wanting someone´s help in developing an idea, as in #4, and it should be allowed [Nereid warned a poster about that in the "Barred Spiral" thread]. Many ATM ideas may have a merit. The revolution of the Earth around the Sun used to be ATM back in the day...

[VanderL]

Originally Posted by dgruss23

The description of the ATM forum says this:



I'm trying to understand what the scope of acceptable topics in the ATM section is. It seems pretty clear that any mention of an ATM idea belongs in ATM. However, the description of ATM says "Post here if you want to discuss ...". That was a very good description of how it was in the old days of BABB.

Yet it seems that now Nereid has altered the rules of this forum. I say Nereid because I don't see any other moderators attempting to define such a narrow range of what is considered acceptable discourse in ATM.

If a person has an ATM idea they wish to discuss, then that might mean:

(1) The person has read about* the idea and wants to know what others think about it.
(2) The person has read about the idea, thinks it is interesting, and wants to know if anybody else knows strengths or weaknesses about it.
(3) The person has read the idea, likes the idea and wants to know if anybody else knows the strengths or weaknesses of the idea.
(4) The person has read the idea, likes the idea and wants to know if anybody can help him/her develop the idea further.
(5) The person has read about the idea, and thinks the idea may be correct, and wants to discuss it as an advocate ... but lacks the math background to defend calculation work.
(6) The person has read about the idea, and thinks the idea may be correct, and wants to discuss it as an advocate ... and has the math background and familiarity with the research literature needed to discuss some quantitative aspects of the idea.

Of course we could probably add other shades to this list of meanings but I hope that captures the range of possibilities we're talking about when the word "discuss" is used.

*Or developed the idea his/herself.

In the old BABB days any of the above was acceptable discourse as long as you were polite and answered direct questions. Yet since the merger into BAUT it seems that this range has been increasingly narrowed with Nereid as a driving force. This is not meant to be an attack on Nereid. I was active in ATM on BABB long before Nereid was involved, so I'm simply describing what I see.

It seems to me that Nereid is advocating that ATM discussion should be limited to item #6 and all other discussion options are forbidden. Isn't that what Nereid suggested with this:



Discussion options 1-3 listed above have nothing to do with "defending" - simply learning. Discussion options 4&5 certainly involve "defending" the idea, but Nereid has argued that such non-quantitative discussions are not science.

Do not misunderstand, I'm fully aware that many ATM proponents have difficulty following the rules, but I'd like to know just what the scope of acceptable discussion in BAUT' ATM section is. At the minimum there is heavy pressure in the ATM section to limit all ATM discussion to item #6. But I fail to see why the first 5 discussion options should be off limits. They were always acceptable in the old BABB days. For example, I fail to see why something like this cannot simply result in discussion. Why can't someone link to an ATM paper seeking to know if someone else has knowledge that would allow them to understand if the ATM idea in the paper is viable?

It seems Nereid is singlehandedly trying to get her beloved PF back through moderating BAUT into the same mold. I've suggested before that restricting ATM to exclude any discussions of ATM ideas or papers would make the ATM section obsolete (or only for a very small "elite"), plus it leads to unnecessary antagonism. Why have an ATM section at all?

Cheers.

[Janie Axtell]

"Since this rule is perforce general, we will attempt to correct the problem by warning the violator (via PM, email, or posting in the thread), giving a chance to explain. We will take further action only if proven necessary."

The above construction suggests that the offending pronoun may not be needed for clarity.

(By the way, I can't find either the "introductions" area or the list of the other 13 rules, so I pretended I had read them, hoping they were typical.)

[Tensor]

Originally Posted by Janie Axtell

(By the way, I can't find either the "introductions" area or the list of the other 13 rules, so I pretended I had read them, hoping they were typical.)

There is no formal introductions area. You could use the Off-Topic Babbling or About BAUT to introduce yourself as others have.

The other rules (and a bunch of other good stuff) can be found under by clicking on FAQ (next to teh User CP heading) on the header of each page on BAUT.

Welcome to BAUT and enjoy your stay.

[Serenitude]

I would like to put in a vote of confidence to the moderator team for their integrity. While not every single thing I've asked for has been granted, I must say that it has all, nonetheless, been fair. In specific, two personal examples in the past give me confidence that a flexible, situationally specific rule can be enforced with integrity and restraint:

I can vouch for the moderators giving you the benefit of the doubt. Once, in the Off-Topic Babbling forum, I posted a remark that, while innocent on my side, could have been read rather badly from a certain point of view. Once it was pointed out, and I explained the innocent origin of the remark, ToSeek retracted the warning but encouraged me to think about unintended interpretations. I can only describe this as completely fair.

Also, on another occasion, in the CT forum, I was posting about an incident that had happened in the Army, and as any former serviceman or woman can tell you, once you start reminiscing, certain terminology can spontaneously re-enter your vocabulary that you would normally not use. Tinaa spotted this, realized it was out of character and probably not intentional, and graciously PM'd me, pointing this out. Horrified, I immediately changed the word in question. The situation was taken care of without a beating. Again, I can only describe this as completely fair. It was handled in private, the mod tried to give me the benefit of the doubt, and all was well.

As a mod on another board (video game related), I know what a task moderating can be, and have to give a big thumbs-up to the mod team here.

SAMU, your continued persual of that issue, where you were indeed in the wrong and had ample opportunity to correct it, verges on slander and is also very inappropriate to the discussion. The rules charge you to take this matter up, in private, with a mod or admin should you feel justice has yet to be served. This thread is simply the wrong place to do so.

[01101001]

Originally Posted by dgruss23

I'm trying to understand what the scope of acceptable topics in the ATM section is. It seems pretty clear that any mention of an ATM idea belongs in ATM. However, the description of ATM says "Post here if you want to discuss ...". That was a very good description of how it was in the old days of BABB.

Yet it seems that now Nereid has altered the rules of this forum. I say Nereid because I don't see any other moderators attempting to define such a narrow range of what is considered acceptable discourse in ATM.

Well, I just took a look at the recent couple of pages of ATM topics and I don't see it. Maybe I didn't read them carefully enough, but I think I saw topics where someone was just asking about something ATM and they were allowed. I'll list some below.

It seems possible to me that in the cases where you might see the range getting narrowed, it is similar to the problem I pointed out above of many of the ATM-based threads in Q&A. After the comments are received, or the questions answered, then it doesn't stop there. The presenter then becomes the proponent. The defense of the idea commences, the arguments for, the attempts to persuade.

And, because the idea is too fresh, not well understood, or the curious-turned-advocate hasn't even convinced himself, because it's half-baked, the discussion quickly devolves to pointlessness.

Again, I don't spend much time in ATM. I much more see the ATM bits that slop out of it. Perhaps you could lead me to a few existing examples of an ATM topic where someone was just-asking, expressing an interest, curious, and -- without the interesting idea treatment moving from discussion to advocacy -- the topic was shut down.

Is that what's happening? Is that the problem you see? Topics just inquiring into ATM ideas are not allowed?

===

From the second page of topics, the second 30 most recent topics, ones that have had a few days to get sorted out if they didn't fit, these seem to just be inquiries into ATM ideas, that were (so far) accepted, not prevented:
On Rindler horizon, black holes, and singularities
Universal Accelerating Expansion
Science vs. Psuedoscience (drawing the line)
Robert Sungenis Challenges Stephen M. Barr to Debate Geocentrism
Paul LaViolette and Pulsars as ETI Beacons -- a question
What is a gravitational field ?

I'm stopping halfway though. There are more.

[Moose]

Originally Posted by Janie Axtell

(By the way, I can't find either the "introductions" area or the list of the other 13 rules, so I pretended I had read them, hoping they were typical.)

Hi Janie. There's no introductions forum, but there is a stickied thread specifically for introductions in Off-Topic Babbling. That would be the best place to go for this.

You also need to be aware that the rules are most definitely not typical. Although they are all based on the rules of politeness and common sense, they're much stricter than you'll find on other message boards. You very much need to become familiar with them.

You can find the full listing of rules by following the well marked links in the FAQ (which you'll find on the blue toolbar immediately above the thread.)

If you have trouble finding them, let me know and I'll provide links to either page, but I've always felt the journey is as important as the destination. Following the directions I gave you above should make it easy for you (or anyone else within the sound of my net-voice to find your way back to them should you ever need to.

Welcome, and I'll see you around.

[Serenitude]

I must say that I support Neried's attempts to put a strict onus on the OP's in the ATM section, and applaud the direction it's taking. As a section meant for the presentation of ATM ideas, I think the "narrowing" is a step in the right direction. I think the concept of attack and defense of ideas is crucial, and I think the ATM section needs to keep it's focus in precisely the direction Neried is taking it.

I agree, though, that there can be a problem with posts/inquiries that don't conveniently fit into that pattern, but I think, then, it's more a problem of posting to the right forum section than Neried's strict (and just) insistence of "backing it up".

[Nereid]

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

Originally Posted by hhEb09'1

some people are strangely reluctant to acknowledge the exceptions

FWIW, if we restrict the scope to detection and analysis of photons from the sky (i.e. no in situ measurements or testing) and cosmic rays, from beyond the solar system, then what else is there but physics (and some chemistry, e.g. ISM molecular species, reactions on the surface of cold dust)?

Within the solar system, studies of the IPM (whther in situ or not) are just plasma physics, there's no chemistry on the Sun (much less geology), ...

[Nereid]

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

Originally Posted by Moose

I don't disagree. I have to say that I'm actually pleasantly surprised: 1%-2% seems a little high to me.

It uses a fairly liberal criterion ... but it's not inconsistent with BAUT's ATM section.

Assume ~1000 ATM threads, then can we say there are ~10 that seem to be free of obvious mathematical or logical errors? not already strongly inconsistent with good observational results? free of obvious misrepresentations or gross misunderstanding of basic accepted science? (and so on)

I think we can. Not wishing to pick favourites, there's some good stuff in the Arp thread, POAMS seems it might show promise, perhaps some of grav's or john hunter's material?

What I'm failing to understand, however, is why we are proposing to explicitly throw out the rare "baby" while going out of our way to keep the "bathwater", metaphorically speaking? Don't we like "babies"?

What I'd like to do is throw out the bathwater, and keep these ~1-2% babies.

My impression is that they (the babies) would greatly benefit from more focussed attention ... including fervid and gleeful attacks, as well as support and encouragement (should any BAUT member wish to offer it).

[dgruss23]

Originally Posted by 01101001

Well, I just took a look at the recent couple of pages of ATM topics and I don't see it. Maybe I didn't read them carefully enough, but I think I saw topics where someone was just asking about something ATM and they were allowed. I'll list some below.

It seems possible to me that in the cases where you might see the range getting narrowed, it is similar to the problem I pointed out above of many of the ATM-based threads in Q&A. After the comments are received, or the questions answered, then it doesn't stop there. The presenter then becomes the proponent. The defense of the idea commences, the arguments for, the attempts to persuade.

And, because the idea is too fresh, not well understood, or the curious-turned-advocate hasn't even convinced himself, because it's half-baked, the discussion quickly devolves to pointlessness.

Again, I don't spend much time in ATM. I much more see the ATM bits that slop out of it. Perhaps you could lead me to a few existing examples of an ATM topic where someone was just-asking, expressing an interest, curious, and -- without the interesting idea treatment moving from discussion to advocacy -- the topic was shut down.

Is that what's happening? Is that the problem you see? Topics just inquiring into ATM ideas are not allowed?

It has little to do with what is actually locked or not locked in ATM. It has to do with what is being advocated as acceptable or not acceptable. I explained in my post yesterday the problem. Why can't David Zelenka ask for help with his ATM idea. Nereid stated that is inappropriate and not the purpose of BAUT's ATM section? In the old BABB days nobody would have questioned the appropriateness of such a query in the ATM section.

Nereid's own statement above clearly shows that the 6 meanings I listed are not all part of her definition of appropriate discussion for BAUT - but every one of those six used to be allowed in the ATM forum. People could come on to BABB and advocate ... or they could just ask questions about ATM ideas.

My point is that if all discussion of ATM ideas must involve a "defender" and an "attacker", then a lot of opportunity for interesting discussion and learning is lost.

As I noted with this post , there are instances where people might like to discuss and understand the strength's and weaknesses of a paper without taking on the role of a papers defender. One might argue that such discussions should be in Q&A, but the ATM nature of the paper in question immediately puts it into ATM. But then we come to ATM and find out that you can't discuss an ATM idea unless you're prepared to defend it.

This doesn't leave any room for undecided opinions or people trying to learn more about a topic.

Here's another example from December 28 . Specifically this:

Originally Posted by Nereid

More generally, if that's so, and you are not prepared to defend any such claims galacsi, may I conclude that you have no interest in participating in threads which cover cosmology?

What is the point of that question? If galacsi is unprepared to defend the statment that he/she doesn't believe in cosmology (whatever that means), then he/she is not allowed to participate in cosmology threads? Nereid didn't actually say that, but if that is not the implication then why even ask the question? Perhaps galacsi doesn't want to defend statements on cosmology, but may find that he/she would once in a while pipe in with a comment or question. Is galacsi not allowed to do so?

See, there's a position being advocated by direct statement and by the way posters are questioned in ATM. That position is that the only appropriate discussion involves taking a position to defend followed by subsequent expectations for mathematical defense against the gleeful attack. Now I'm not against that type of discussion by any means. I've certainly engaged and attacked/defended in that mode over the years.

But advocating that such discussion is the only acceptable format for discussion is a break from the old BABB ATM. And I only see Nereid driving this break from what was. So I'm looking for clarification as to which of the six meanings of "discuss" I listed above are still acceptable in the ATM section.

IMO anything less than all 6 is an overly restrictive narrowing of potentially valuable discourse. But if there is a change that is universally accepted by the mods, I'm hoping to get that change defined.

All I'm asking is whether or not Nereid's narrow definition of what constitutes appropriate discussion on BAUT is the definition under which the BAUT ATM section operates.

Speaking historically here, there have been problems ... and I remember them in the BABB days ... in which an ATM advocate would come on the board, take a position and then repeat disproven statements and ignore questions. Such discussions became chaotic and difficult to manage because of the poor behavior of the ATM advocate.

So a rule was needed that if you were going to propose an ATM idea, you must be prepared to defend it. But what is happening here is that the rule about defending your claims and responding to questions is now subtly (or perhaps not subtly) being shifted to mean that you cannot even discuss ATM ideas unless there is a defender of the idea. Nereid's own words to David Zelenka were that it was inappropriate to ask for help developing his ATM idea. Someone links to a paper about the Wolfe effect and the first question is "I hope someone will defend it so that we can attack it." I don't understand why the paper can't just be discussed!!!!

I don't know if this new approach has always been the intent of the rule of that is just Nereid's interpretation.

[01101001]

Originally Posted by dgruss23

It has little to do with what is actually locked or not locked in ATM. It has to do with what is being advocated as acceptable or not acceptable.

You mean Nereid speaking as Nereid? OK. I thought you had witnessed an actual problem, not merely had a difference of opinion with a peer.

I'm having trouble persuading myself that we need to worry about that.

[Moose]

Originally Posted by dgruss23

So a rule was needed that propose an ATM idea, you must be prepared to defend it. But what is happening here is that the rule about defending your claims and responding to questions is now subtly (or perhaps not subtly) if you were going tobeing shifted to mean that you cannot even discuss ATM ideas unless there is a defender of the idea. Nereid's own words to David Zelenka were that it was inappropriate to ask for help developing his ATM idea. Someone links to a paper about the Wolfe effect and the first question is "I hope someone will defend it so that we can attack it." I don't understand why the paper can't just be discussed!!!!

Quoted and emphasis altered for truth. This is what I'm trying to get at, Nereid.

If you can only discuss an ATM thread if someone has jumped (or will jump) to a conclusion, it's reinforcing what would normally be considered bad or outright non-science. If a thread where someone is attempting to get assistance to carefully consider an ATM idea before committing to it is to be locked, then critical thinking is being actively discouraged.

If there is any narrowing of the discussion to be had, it should be against ATM ideas that are full of obvious holes where a proponent has actually committed to a position without sufficient evidence to do so reasonably.

But if you narrow the scope of ATM at all, you'll need to spend considerably more time policing the Q&A forum. Pie-in-the-sky enthusiasts are going to post their ideas somewhere. I (and I'm sure others) have learned the hard way that it's always more effective to redirect undesired behavior to more appropriate outlets than to try to restrict it outright.

And in any case, the only cure for bad speech is better speech. And by your admission, good speech (at least among thread starters) is not exactly abundant in ATM.

My advice is to take the good stuff where you can get it, and not get too caught up enforcing the finest details of an over-complicated and inflexible rule.

[Nereid]

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

Originally Posted by Argos

I think there´s nothing wrong about wanting someone´s help in developing an idea, as in #4, and it should be allowed [Nereid warned a poster about that in the "Barred Spiral" thread]. Many ATM ideas may have a merit. The revolution of the Earth around the Sun used to be ATM back in the day...

If you don't mind me asking, what's your take on ATM ideas that:

* are already strongly inconsistent with good, independently verified observational results?

* contain obvious mathematical or logical errors?

* contain obvious misrepresentations or gross misunderstanding of basic accepted science?

Originally Posted by dgruss23

If a person has an ATM idea they wish to discuss, then that might mean:

(1) The person has read about* the idea and wants to know what others think about it.
(2) The person has read about the idea, thinks it is interesting, and wants to know if anybody else knows strengths or weaknesses about it.
(3) The person has read the idea, likes the idea and wants to know if anybody else knows the strengths or weaknesses of the idea.

As 01101001 has already said, these kinds of threads can be found in the ATM section, both today and as far back as you wish to examine.

AFAIK, they are mostly (nearly all?) very short threads.

(4) The person has read the idea, likes the idea and wants to know if anybody can help him/her develop the idea further.

I am uncomfortable with this, if only because I feel BAUT is not, and should not be, an online collaboration forum.

(5) The person has read about the idea, and thinks the idea may be correct, and wants to discuss it as an advocate ... but lacks the math background to defend calculation work.

In these cases, I feel the best thing we in BAUT could do is say (in effect): "go acquire the relevant maths skills; here are some suggestions for how you could do that: {list, including both traditional - colleges, universities - and non-traditional, e.g. online learning, 'homework help' fora}".

(6) The person has read about the idea, and thinks the idea may be correct, and wants to discuss it as an advocate ... and has the math background and familiarity with the research literature needed to discuss some quantitative aspects of the idea.

This is where challenges are the most helpful, IMHO (just as it says in the ATM rule).

If you look at the responses/challenges in ATM threads where a BAUT member is advocating an ATM idea, and has the math (etc) capabilities to be comfortable with it, I think you'll see just how helpful they are, in terms of getting the ATM advocate to either abandon their idea or improve it.

And we should not ignore the objective evidence in cases where help was offered, very much in the manner of 'discussion' (many of Grey's posts, in the ATM section, spring to mind, and he's just one of several regulars who engages in 'discussion mode') - the outcomes were, IMHO, much the same as if no such discussion had taken place and the ideas challenged outright.

The description of the ATM forum says this:

[snip]

It seems to me that Nereid is advocating that ATM discussion should be limited to item #6 and all other discussion options are forbidden. Isn't that what Nereid suggested with this:

The subtitle of the ATM section is indeed as dgruss23 has quoted it ... and the rules re the ATM section are indeed as I paraphrased them (it's not what Nereid is suggesting, it's what the current ATM rules are).

[Moose]

Originally Posted by 01101001

I'm having trouble persuading myself that we need to worry about that.

Unfortunately, it's historically clear that it's not possible to completely seperate the person from the duty, no matter how much care you take in doing so. If user-Nereid would prefer to interpret the rule that way, it can't help but (however slowly) seep out in her mod actions.

From a personal sense, the idea of restrictions on speech of any kind, good speech or bad, even in a private forum like this one, invariably makes me a little... wary for lack of a more accurate word.

We can't really stop the lower-quality ATM posting without becomming draconic about it and/or keeping the mods really REALLY busy. We similarly shouldn't restrict pure-discussion ATM for the reasons pointed out above. If you restrict the pie-in-the-sky, you're either trapped into restricting the stuff with potential under the same rule, or being arbitrary. Any sort of restricting of non-disruptive speech leads to undesired outcomes. In a general sense, speech restriction usually works out that way.

[Nereid]

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

Originally Posted by Moose

Quoted and emphasis altered for truth. This is what I'm trying to get at, Nereid.

If you can only discuss an ATM thread if someone has jumped (or will jump) to a conclusion, it's reinforcing what would normally be considered bad or outright non-science. If a thread where someone is attempting to get assistance to carefully consider an ATM idea before committing to it is to be locked, then critical thinking is being actively discouraged.

If there is any narrowing of the discussion to be had, it should be against ATM ideas that are full of obvious holes where a proponent has actually committed to a position without sufficient evidence to do so reasonably.

But if you narrow the scope of ATM at all, you'll need to spend considerably more time policing the Q&A forum. Pie-in-the-sky enthusiasts are going to post their ideas somewhere. I (and I'm sure others) have learned the hard way that it's always more effective to redirect undesired behavior to more appropriate outlets than to try to restrict it outright.

And in any case, the only cure for bad speech is better speech. And by your admission, good speech (at least among thread starters) is not exactly abundant in ATM.

My advice is to take the good stuff where you can get it, and not get too caught up enforcing the finest details of an over-complicated and inflexible rule.

If you don't mind me asking, what's your take on ATM ideas that:

* are already strongly inconsistent with good, independently verified observational results?

* contain obvious mathematical or logical errors?

* contain obvious misrepresentations or gross misunderstanding of basic accepted science?

Whether they are 'for discussion' under any of the six categories in dgruss23's taxonomy, or as black-and-white claims, or as confused ambiguity, or simply with no stated or easily discerned intent?

BTW, I am sensitive to the [Nereid speaking as Nereid, not as a BAUT Moderator] vs [Moderator Note][/Moderator Note] distinction (at least somewhat pertinent in several of the ATM threads), and I very much appreciate that there are circumstances where lack of clarity on this can be confusing (and, possibly, intimidating). Should I simply stop posting my own ideas? Or resign as a mod? What's you take, Moose?

[Moose]

Originally Posted by Nereid

I am uncomfortable with this, if only because I feel BAUT is not, and should not be, an online collaboration forum.

I understand. I'm uncomfortable with threads where the math is way above my head (which isn't all that far, in all candor.)

My solution, as a user, is to not participate in these particular discussions. It's different when one's a mod, but keeping an eye on things is a different skillset than participating up to one's eyebrows.

You may not like collaboration-type threads, and you're not incorrect (as far as a value opinion goes) for disliking them. However, others may wish to participate in such threads, and what is published as a forum charter would seem to indicate that such threads are more desirable than the more typical misunderstood-math brawls.

In terms of altering the forum's published charter and/or intend (for lack of a more accurate term), your recourse is exactly the same as anyone else's. You can appeal to Phil and/or Fraser. Otherwise, you're as bound by the published intent of the rules as we are. Arguably more so. (With great power comes...)

Of course, you already know all of this, but coming right out and saying it may be of benefit in advancing the discussion.

[Moose]

Originally Posted by Nereid

* are already strongly inconsistent with good, independently verified observational results?

* contain obvious mathematical or logical errors?

* contain obvious misrepresentations or gross misunderstanding of basic accepted science?

Status quo. Good speech to correct bad speech. ATM's charter doesn't explicitly encourage such discussions (and it shouldn't), but the reality is that such discussions are going to appear somewhere no matter our feelings on the subject. Better redirect the behavior to ATM than have to police it in Q&A.

If the proponent is clearly acting in bad faith or in a disruptive manner, well we already have established rules for dealing with that. We don't need to alter ATM's charter to deal with this.

There are nuances, but I can't think of any that alters my view of these sorts of threads.

BTW, I am sensitive to the [Nereid speaking as Nereid, not as a BAUT Moderator] vs [Moderator Note][/Moderator Note] distinction (at least somewhat pertinent in several of the ATM threads)

Good mods are, and so long as you are sensitive to it, I've every confidence in your ability to do a good job.

and I very much appreciate that there are circumstances where lack of clarity on this can be confusing (and, possibly, intimidating). Should I simply stop posting my own ideas? Or resign as a mod? What's you take, Moose?

Forgive the language, but Hell. No. Status quo. You're doing just fine the way you are Nereid.

In an ATM discussion or a shoot-the-breeze topic, your modship will rarely, if ever, come into contact with your participation. Most warning offenses are clear-cut. For where they aren't so clear-cut, there's that policy that says if a serious dispute comes up where your participation is a direct factor in that dispute, you get another mod to handle the rulings in that specific dispute. This goes a very long way towards keeping your participation well separated from your modding.

As for a discussion like this one, your participation is utterly valuable, both for your perspective as a user and as a mod. There's a contrast to be drawn there, and recognizing that contrast is valuable.

In this situation, however, I feel it's important to be absolutely sure that you (the mod) recognize that your personal preference for where ATM should be going doesn't match ATM's posted charter, and thus what you're enforcing.

On a more personal level, I would argue that what you, the poster, would like to see enforced in ATM is likely to be counterproductive. I also would argue that it would have the effect of stifling what little high-quality discussion there is to be had in ATM. That, IMO, isn't a desirable outcome.

I have no serious concerns at this time. I just want to point you to a facet of this that I feel you should consider (or reconsider).

[Nereid]

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

Originally Posted by VanderL

It seems Nereid is singlehandedly trying to get her beloved PF back through moderating BAUT into the same mold.

If, by "same mold" you mean insisting on a certain, minimal amount of work done on an ATM idea before it's presented, and finding ways to ridding BAUT of (or being very hard on) ideas that are strongly inconsistent with good, independently verified observational results, of ideas which contain obvious mathematical or logical errors, of ideas which contain obvious misrepresentations or gross misunderstanding of basic accepted science, then I'm guilty as charged.

There are, no doubt, thousands of internet discussion fora where such stuff is tolerated and maybe even encouraged and welcome.

I feel that BAUT is unique, in astronomy discussion fora, for its refusal to be soft of such stuff, whether religiously inspired or not.

I've suggested before that restricting ATM to exclude any discussions of ATM ideas or papers would make the ATM section obsolete (or only for a very small "elite"), plus it leads to unnecessary antagonism. Why have an ATM section at all?

Cheers.

And, as I hope I've made clear, I disagree.

Going down the path you seem to be advocating will only lead to BAUT becoming yet another 'anything goes' forum, completely drowned in thousands of threads devoted to word salad speculation and gross misrepresentations of the field I love - astronomy.

[Nereid]

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

Originally Posted by dgruss23

It has little to do with what is actually locked or not locked in ATM. It has to do with what is being advocated as acceptable or not acceptable. I explained in my post yesterday the problem. Why can't David Zelenka ask for help with his ATM idea. Nereid stated that is inappropriate and not the purpose of BAUT's ATM section? In the old BABB days nobody would have questioned the appropriateness of such a query in the ATM section.

Just for the record, BAUT is the merger of BABB and UT.

Nereid's own statement above clearly shows that the 6 meanings I listed are not all part of her definition of appropriate discussion for BAUT - but every one of those six used to be allowed in the ATM forum. People could come on to BABB and advocate ... or they could just ask questions about ATM ideas.

I have responded to each of the six classes of discussion.

As you know, many (most?) ATM threads do not start with the OP making it clear what their position is, wrt discussion/advocacy/reportage/whatever. Perhaps a direct question, immediately after the OP, asking about preparedness to defend ATM ideas may be a way of determining that? If someone other than Nereid asked such a question, would that be unacceptable, in the dgruss23 view of how the ATM section should work?

If you don't mind me asking, what's your take on ATM ideas that:

* are already strongly inconsistent with good, independently verified observational results?

* contain obvious mathematical or logical errors?

* contain obvious misrepresentations or gross misunderstanding of basic accepted science?

My point is that if all discussion of ATM ideas must involve a "defender" and an "attacker", then a lot of opportunity for interesting discussion and learning is lost.

As I noted with this post , there are instances where people might like to discuss and understand the strength's and weaknesses of a paper without taking on the role of a papers defender. One might argue that such discussions should be in Q&A, but the ATM nature of the paper in question immediately puts it into ATM. But then we come to ATM and find out that you can't discuss an ATM idea unless you're prepared to defend it.

Here is one problem I have with this approach: it doesn't work.

Why?

Because, in my experience, it results in strongly held ATM ideas being presented as innocent-looking questions (01101001 has, I think, a good list of just this sort of thing happening in the Q&A section), and burden shifting ("I can't see why {ATM idea, presented for discussion, not advocacy} shouldn't work, the same thing works in GR after all!" - the burden then shifts onto someone who is familiar with GR to patiently explain, often over many, many pages, why "the same thing" doesn't happen in GR at all. Far better - "here's a standard GR text; this is explained in section {X}. If you need help with this GR text, please ask a question in the Q&A section.") The ATM rule is spot on: "if you still want to post your idea, [...] and you will defend your arguments. Direct questions must be answered in a timely manner. "

This doesn't leave any room for undecided opinions or people trying to learn more about a topic.

Here's another example from December 28 . Specifically this:

What is the point of that question? If galacsi is unprepared to defend the statment that he/she doesn't believe in cosmology (whatever that means), then he/she is not allowed to participate in cosmology threads? Nereid didn't actually say that, but if that is not the implication then why even ask the question? Perhaps galacsi doesn't want to defend statements on cosmology, but may find that he/she would once in a while pipe in with a comment or question. Is galacsi not allowed to do so?

Perhaps not the best of examples (I urge all readers to read the whole context, not just the except quoted here) ... what's the point of participating in a discussion on cosmology if you "dont believe in Cosmology"? Why even post, on cosmology, in a thread where the OP specifically declares its scope to be cosmology? May others ask similar questions, on what BAUT members post in ATM threads, but not Nereid?

See, there's a position being advocated by direct statement and by the way posters are questioned in ATM. That position is that the only appropriate discussion involves taking a position to defend followed by subsequent expectations for mathematical defense against the gleeful attack. Now I'm not against that type of discussion by any means. I've certainly engaged and attacked/defended in that mode over the years.

But advocating that such discussion is the only acceptable format for discussion is a break from the old BABB ATM. And I only see Nereid driving this break from what was. So I'm looking for clarification as to which of the six meanings of "discuss" I listed above are still acceptable in the ATM section.

Then perhaps the 'galacsi example' is not the most appropriate - did the OP state what the intended scope of the thread was? was that scope clarified in light of posts made in the thread?

IMO anything less than all 6 is an overly restrictive narrowing of potentially valuable discourse. But if there is a change that is universally accepted by the mods, I'm hoping to get that change defined.

All I'm asking is whether or not Nereid's narrow definition of what constitutes appropriate discussion on BAUT is the definition under which the BAUT ATM section operates.

Speaking historically here, there have been problems ... and I remember them in the BABB days ... in which an ATM advocate would come on the board, take a position and then repeat disproven statements and ignore questions. Such discussions became chaotic and difficult to manage because of the poor behavior of the ATM advocate.

So a rule was needed that if you were going to propose an ATM idea, you must be prepared to defend it. But what is happening here is that the rule about defending your claims and responding to questions is now subtly (or perhaps not subtly) being shifted to mean that you cannot even discuss ATM ideas unless there is a defender of the idea. Nereid's own words to David Zelenka were that it was inappropriate to ask for help developing his ATM idea. Someone links to a paper about the Wolfe effect and the first question is "I hope someone will defend it so that we can attack it." I don't understand why the paper can't just be discussed!!!!

I don't know if this new approach has always been the intent of the rule of that is just Nereid's interpretation.

I think, at this point, I need to bow out of any further discussion here (#17, #203)

[dgruss23]

Originally Posted by Nereid

As you know, many (most?) ATM threads do not start with the OP making it clear what their position is, wrt discussion/advocacy/reportage/whatever. Perhaps a direct question, immediately after the OP, asking about preparedness to defend ATM ideas may be a way of determining that? If someone other than Nereid asked such a question, would that be unacceptable, in the dgruss23 view of how the ATM section should work?

I don't care if you ask that. Go ahead. But the impression you give is that the only option is to take a position and defend it. Sometimes if you just let a thread go a few posts you may get a better sense of what the OP had in mind.

But are you of the opinion that a paper can be linked to and discussed without someone choosing to defend it (committed to the view that the paper is correct)? Or do you think that any discussion of an ATM paper requires a person that will defend it?

This is one of the issues I'm seeking clarity on. I ask because I get the impression that your view is the latter. I also get the impression that you feel that way as moderator, not just as poster, but I'm not sure about that.

If you don't mind me asking, what's your take on ATM ideas that:

* are already strongly inconsistent with good, independently verified observational results?

* contain obvious mathematical or logical errors?

* contain obvious misrepresentations or gross misunderstanding of basic accepted science?

I don't have any take on such ATM ideas. I have a take on the discussion of such ATM ideas. My take is that any of the 6 meanings of discussion I described should be considered viable modes of discussion on BAUT as they were on BABB. There are opportunities to learn from discussing these ATM ideas outside of the defend/attack venue.

Here is one problem I have with this approach: it doesn't work.

Why?

Because, in my experience, it results in strongly held ATM ideas being presented as innocent-looking questions (01101001 has, I think, a good list of just this sort of thing happening in the Q&A section), and burden shifting ("I can't see why {ATM idea, presented for discussion, not advocacy} shouldn't work, the same thing works in GR after all!" - the burden then shifts onto someone who is familiar with GR to patiently explain, often over many, many pages, why "the same thing" doesn't happen in GR at all.

Nobody is obligated to take up that charge of explaining it to the ATM proponent. And nothing is wrong with saying ... "Check out a text on GR."

But why have a blanket rule that the only form of discussion allowed is attack/defend?

Far better - "here's a standard GR text; this is explained in section {X}. If you need help with this GR text, please ask a question in the Q&A section.") The ATM rule is spot on: "if you still want to post your idea, [...] and you will defend your arguments. Direct questions must be answered in a timely manner. "

By some anyway.

Perhaps not the best of examples (I urge all readers to read the whole context, not just the except quoted here) ... what's the point of participating in a discussion on cosmology if you "dont believe in Cosmology"? Why even post, on cosmology, in a thread where the OP specifically declares its scope to be cosmology?

Why? The person might still have a question or a comment! So you have to believe in a cosmological theory to post on it? Why do you care who chooses to post on a thread about cosmology? What matters is "what" is posted, not the "views" of the person posting it.

May others ask similar questions, on what BAUT members post in ATM threads, but not Nereid?Then perhaps the 'galacsi example' is not the most appropriate - did the OP state what the intended scope of the thread was? was that scope clarified in light of posts made in the thread?I think, at this point, I need to bow out of any further discussion here (#17, #203)

Why? Your opinion is the subject being discussed.

[Fraser]

I've just modified Rule 13 to include the Conspiracy Theory section as well. Only posts about space and astronomy from here on out.

[hhEb09'1]

Originally Posted by Fraser

I've just modified Rule 13 to include the Conspiracy Theory section as well. Only posts about space and astronomy from here on out.

Rule 13:"As with the other sections of the forum, we ask you to keep your topics about space and astronomy. We will close down any thread which doesn't have anything to do with space and astronomy immediately."

BABBling still fair game?

[Maksutov]

Originally Posted by hhEb09'1

Rule 13:"As with the other sections of the forum, we ask you to keep your topics about space and astronomy. We will close down any thread which doesn't have anything to do with space and astronomy immediately."

BABBling still fair game?

As well as Fun-n-Games?

Those games darn well better be fair!