Rules discussion

[HenrikOlsen]

Originally Posted by Whirlpool

Ummm...

How about commenting on a Mods act of banning which I think is not appropriate and somewhat very strict?

If there's a moderator action you disagree with, PM another moderator, or one of the administrators. This is already covered by rule 17.

[Nereid]

Originally Posted by Whirlpool

Ummm...

How about commenting on a Mods act of banning which I think is not appropriate and somewhat very strict?

From the rules (bold added):

17. Moderator Actions

If there is a rule violation, then a moderator will take action. This may include: the deletion of a word or phrase (if it breaks the rules), the removal of an entire post (if it is beyond redemption, or if it's a spam, etc.), the merging of a new thread with an existing one on the same topic, the closing of a thread if it wanders too far off-topic or gets too heated, a gentle warning to a user or users, a not-so-gentle-warning, and as a last resort, the banning of a user. This banning may be temporary or permanent, as outlined above. If a moderator gives you advice, we advise you to take it.

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.

I for one would welcome inputs, as PMs, on mod actions I have taken. And, again speaking personally, I recommend that you send any such PM to at least one other mod.

[Whirlpool]

Ok.

Very well said.

Thank you Henrik and Nereid.

[Serenitude]

I also welcome critique of my moderating from anyone in the community - it can only help me get better. We're as prone to human error as anyone. For me, personally, to echo Nereid, please feel free to either PM another mod (like N., I would recommend at least 2), or Phil or Fraser if you feel I'm ever in error. Although it may be hard to believe, grudges aren't held, and I can only become a better mod because of it. You can also request anonimity from the mods you PM, if you prefer

[SpitfireIX]

I don't have a problem with people remarking that someone seems to be violating the rules and should be more careful, particularly if that someone is new here. It's remarks along the lines of "Looking forward to seeing your name on the Banned Posters List" that are inappropriate.

I take it that countdowns, "goodbye," etc., are inappropriate, even in the case of blatant trolling?

Also, is it appropriate to state in the forum thread that one has reported a post? If so, is it appropriate to state one's reasons for so doing?

[ToSeek]

Originally Posted by SpitfireIX

I don't have a problem with people remarking that someone seems to be violating the rules and should be more careful, particularly if that someone is new here. It's remarks along the lines of "Looking forward to seeing your name on the Banned Posters List" that are inappropriate.

I take it that countdowns, "goodbye," etc., are inappropriate, even in the case of blatant trolling?

Also, is it appropriate to state in the forum thread that one has reported a post? If so, is it appropriate to state one's reasons for so doing?

No countdowns or goodbyes, please, no matter how justified.

I don't have a problem with saying you've reported a post and referring to the rule or rules you think it's violated so long as you're matter-of-fact about it.

[Whirlpool]

Originally Posted by Serenitude

I also welcome critique of my moderating from anyone in the community - it can only help me get better. We're as prone to human error as anyone. For me, personally, to echo Nereid, please feel free to either PM another mod (like N., I would recommend at least 2), or Phil or Fraser if you feel I'm ever in error. Although it may be hard to believe, grudges aren't held, and I can only become a better mod because of it. You can also request anonimity from the mods you PM, if you prefer

Its part of learning Serenitude, like me , I'm still NEW in this forum and I still have a lot to learn as a member as for you as a Moderator.

My example is not meant only for you but in general. Although I admit that you have contributed in that post of mine.

If I encounter or think of any incident again.. I would'nt request for anonimity, but I will have to inform a couple of Mods if ever.

[Pinemarten]

I usually PM the alleged suspect.
It has always worked quickly, and I have even received thanx for it. Most of the time they just edit the post, and write spelling or grammar as a reason.
It also doesn't disrupt the flow of the thread.

[Whirlpool]

Originally Posted by Pinemarten

I usually PM the alleged suspect.
It has always worked quickly, and I have even received thanx for it. Most of the time they just edit the post, and write spelling or grammar as a reason.
It also doesn't disrupt the flow of the thread.

I fully agree.
This will also prevent the alleged suspect from being embarassed publicly and will refrain and be more careful the next time he post.

[mugaliens]

Having been a board member here for quite some time, a member of various message forums for more than twenty years, of which I've been a moderator on some since the mid-1980s, I thought I'd take a stab at the rules. Not my first time, as I've been either writing or rewriting forum rules for more than two decades.

However, the following is merely a suggestion from the point of view of a former long-term moderator/admin and technical writer:

RULES FOR POSTING TO THIS BOARD

The rules for posting to the Bad Astronomy/Universe Today Bulletin Board are given below. Most of these are common courtesy, but some address concerns particular to this board.

In general, the first violation will result in a warning issued via Private Message (PM). If you have PMs turned off, the warning will be sent to you via your registered e-mail address, or will be issued in the thread itself.

Depending on it's severity, the second violation will result in either a more severe warning or a temporary ban. In severe cases, a permanent ban may be given. This may sound harsh, but the rules exist to ensure the safe and effective ongoing operation of this message forum and to protect its members, particularly those who're underage, from unnecessary or unwelcome content.

These rules are pretty easy to follow. This board is based upon mutual respect for and by all posters. This is a community. Whether we agree on specifics or not, we’re all here because we’re interested in the Universe around us. When you follow the rules, everyone benefits.

1. Posting Topics

The primary focus of this forum is space and astronomy. If you wish to post anything not dealing with space or astronomy, use the Off-Topic Babbling section. Do remember, however, that the forum rules apply there as well. If you wish to post scientific topics outside of space and astronomy, please post them in the General Science section.

2. Civility and Decorum

While spirited debates are expected, civility is the ultimate, overriding rule. Personal or ad hominem attacks will never be tolerated. We expect everyone to foster an atmosphere of polite respect towards others, regardless of whether you happen to agree with their opinions. If you disagree with their posts, address the content of their posts. Do not resort to personal (ad hominem) attacks against the poster.

If you feel you've been wronged on this board, contact one of the moderators via private message or e-mail. Do no resort to flame wars or public humiliation.

Any violations of these guidelines will be met with swift and appropriate action.

3. Language

Any form of cursing or vulgarity is prohibited. This is a PG website, and is often read by young school children who want to learn about astronomy, space, and space exploration. If you refuse to keep things clean, you'll receive a warning, or if it's flagrant enough, a ban.

Along these lines, please tidy up your grammar. Deliberately misspelled bad words, or replacing key letters with different characters or numbers will not be tolerated. This issues applies to any adult topic - talk about them somewhere else. If you do need to post something risqué, stick with arcane scientific terminology.

These guidelines include avatars, since you can upload an image to be your avatar. Use care in choosing that image. If you have any doubts, contact a moderator or an administrator.

4. Copyright

Copyright violates will not be tolerated here. Do not post copyrighted material. You may post small, relevant quotes, but not whole passages from newspapers, magazines, books, etc. If you do, the post will be deleted, and you will be warned. Do it twice and you will be banned. If you want to reference material somewhere else on the web, give a brief summary and link to the rest. People can go take a look at what you're talking about and then return to discuss it further.

***
Break
***

The rest appears to be very well written, so I'll stop here.

[enior11]

what is the baut?

[hhEb09'1]

Originally Posted by enior11

what is the baut?

Welcome to BAUT!

It's the forum for the Bad Astronomy and Universe Today websites. Just follow the links above.

[OneHotJupiter]

and what a forum!

I spend nearly four hours a day in this place and still have barely scratched the surface of the wealth of ideas on here , I do love BAUT!

[Paracelsus]

Here's a question:

When posting about a personal experience one has had in the 'Off-topic Babbling' forum, is 'substantiation' required for that experience, if the experience under discussion is unrelated to space and astronomy, doesn't debunk any scientific theories, and isn't part of a conspiracy theory?

For example, if one is posting about experiencing tardy service in a restaurant, should one have to post 'substantiating evidence' for said 'claim' if asked for it by a BAUT member posting on your thread?

I'm only asking for my own clarification. I'll go with whatever the moderators say is correct.

[Jim]

You're required to provide substantiation for claims made in CT and ATM, not BABBling. That doesn't mean that someone won't (or can't) ask for evidence to support your anecdote, but basically anecdotal stories are meant to stand alone. They provide personal information and experience, nothing more or less.

[Paracelsus]

Thanks! That's what I thought.

[Paracelsus]

RE Rule 4: when posting a snippet of an article, news item, etc, what is the maximum length of quote allowable under Rule 4? I often post threads based on articles from Science, many of which are subscription only and thus unavailable to users who don't subscribe. I've tried linking to the full articles several different ways to give non-subscribers full access without success. The quote I give in the initial post is often all people have to go on.

Is there any way I can download the pdf for any article into a post? If I did, would that be a violation of Rule 4 (I have a feeling it might be, which is why I haven't tried it)?

I'd hate to have to stop posting new threads based on anything out of Science, as they have a lot of good articles..

[01101001]

Originally Posted by Paracelsus

RE Rule 4: when posting a snippet of an article, news item, etc, what is the maximum length of quote allowable under Rule 4?

I doubt you'll get someone to provide an exact number of characters, or a percentage of the original. You're asking what is fair use of another's copyrighted intellectual property. That is ultimately decided by a court at trial, something we don't want BAUT to endure, nor you probably. Before that, only guidelines exist. See Wikipedia: Fair use.

I don't expect there is a good way for you to give access to Science articles to non-subscribers. Give them a small taste of the original. Make them want to subscribe. Summarize material in your own words if they need more.

[Paracelsus]

Originally Posted by 01101001

I doubt you'll get someone to provide an exact number of characters, or a percentage of the original. You're asking what is fair use of another's copyrighted intellectual property. That is ultimately decided by a court at trial, something we don't want BAUT to endure, nor you probably. Before that, only guidelines exist. See Wikipedia: Fair use.

I don't expect there is a good way for you to give access to Science articles to non-subscribers. Give them a small taste of the original. Make them want to subscribe. Summarize material in your own words if they need more.

I read the Wiki link you gave; yikes, it's complicated.

Looks like I'll have to summarize 'Science' articles in my own words then.

[Neverfly]

Originally Posted by Paracelsus

I read the Wiki link you gave; yikes, it's complicated.

Looks like I'll have to summarize 'Science' articles in my own words then.

Think of a book.

The book has a synopsis on the back right?

Give your post a taste to entice somone to go for the main course (clicking the link)

[Paracelsus]

That only works if clicking the link enables the reader to read the 'book'. Unfortunately, it doesn't for non-subscribers to Science. I don't have that issue with New Scientist or Scientific American, but sometimes the accuracy of some of their articles is, ah, questionable. Sometimes a free link to the full paper is provided, which is a bonus, but not always. I've noticed that full papers in Phys. Rev. are available for free, but most journals require a subscription. I'm dealing with that problem RE a special 'climate' issue I want to get from Proc. Royal Soc. A; the issue costs $250!!

Edit: BTW, I want it understood that I do understand the need for Rule 4 and respect it. I am just trying to get the maximum info I can to non-subscribers to Science while staying within the bounds of Rule 4.

[Neverfly]

You know... now that you mention it.
I have noticed that some members here post a link to someplace like The New York Times.
But to read the article they are talking about- I would have to subscribe.

That is annoying.

Now I have no desire to subscribe and it certainly isn't the member who posteds fault, so I just google the related information and find articles that way rather than subscribe to something I don't want.

However a particular article written a particular way, I may not be able google and find elsewhere- if they are commenting on something particular.

So Im left out by my own choice to not subscribe.


Can't say my life is ruined by it though

[Paracelsus]

I've just had this same issue come up on two different threads now.

I feel bad about it, but I don't know what I can do about it, other than to never start any threads about articles I've read in Science magazine.

[hhEb09'1]

Originally Posted by Paracelsus

I'm dealing with that problem RE a special 'climate' issue I want to get from Proc. Royal Soc. A; the issue costs $250!!

Two words: Lie bury

[Paracelsus]

Originally Posted by hhEb09'1

Two words: Lie bury

My momma worked in a hi skool lie bury.

[NEOWatcher]

Originally Posted by Neverfly

...But to read the article they are talking about- I would have to subscribe.
That is annoying.

I agree that it is annoying, but I don't hold anything against them.
I would say that most of the time they probably don't even know or remember that this is a subscription thing when most of the time with the cookies and other technologies that it is transparent to them.
Plus; there are some sites where only some articles are subscription, so you never know which one it is if you are automatically granted through your subscription.

[Nereid]

In astrophysics (and ...), most papers are now on arXiv, as preprints, before they get published. Sure there may be differences between the preprint and the published paper - and sometimes very important differences! - but most times a link to the arXiv preprint (abstract) is OK ... and all that stuff is freely available.

[Neverfly]

Originally Posted by NEOWatcher

I agree that it is annoying, but I don't hold anything against them.
I would say that most of the time they probably don't even know or remember that this is a subscription thing when most of the time with the cookies and other technologies that it is transparent to them.
Plus; there are some sites where only some articles are subscription, so you never know which one it is if you are automatically granted through your subscription.

yeah- I said it wasn't their fault but didnt clarify it as well as you just did.

[Paracelsus]

Originally Posted by Nereid

In astrophysics (and ...), most papers are now on arXiv, as preprints, before they get published. Sure there may be differences between the preprint and the published paper - and sometimes very important differences! - but most times a link to the arXiv preprint (abstract) is OK ... and all that stuff is freely available.

I'll try looking at arXiv. Do they store mainly particle physics or astrophysics-related articles, or are there also climatology/geophysics articles there?

Edit: Never mind. Went and looked at the website and found a gold mine!!

[Doodler]

Originally Posted by Paracelsus

RE Rule 4: when posting a snippet of an article, news item, etc, what is the maximum length of quote allowable under Rule 4?

Enough to cover the topic. In an average article, probably the first one or two paragraphs. Maybe a key paragraph from the body of the article, provided you give enough explanation to avoid the appearance of salad picking.

That's only a rule of thumb I follow, and so far it hasn't gotten me in any issues about infringement.

I've seen some debates in ATM eventually cover quite a bit of a document in contention over the course of 40 pages plus as people perform some impressive ginsu work on a paper to aim the discussion in their direction.