Rules discussion

[01101001]

Originally Posted by Robinson

So you don't know the answer either?

Originally Posted by Robinson

Wiki images are free to use, and bandwidth is not a problem there either. Or is it?

Is that the question?

[hhEb09'1]

Originally Posted by 01101001

Is that the question?

That's the only eroteme in his post, so presumably yes that was the question. And I think you did answer it--so you knew the answer.

[PetersCreek]

I knew that.

[forrest noble]

hope I'm commenting in the right place.

I think there's something seriously wrong with the ATM forum. Many if not most of the responders reply with the zeal of "defenders of the faith." This I think is the result of how the forum is moderated. Moderators try to be impartial but often do not seem to understand statements made by the OP which are sometimes plainly understood by those who know and agree with some, part, or the whole of the proposal. Of course moderators decisions can be challenged but I think the problem runs deeper than that.

In my opinion many good ATM proposals are made on this forum. In my judgment possible 5% of those proposals on the ATM forum have at least some merit. Often times it seems that the proposer does not know how to adequately explain or defend his proposal. If somebody else understands the details of the alternative theory/ hypothesis better, and chimes in to explain it better, he or she rightfully could be questioned further. After a couple of comments a moderator may jump in (usually based upon a complaint of somebody believing they are a defender of the faith) and says something like a "highjack of the thread" and "start your own thread".

I am often times in partial agreement with at least one thread being proposed on the ATM at any given time. I believe my comments and others in partial agreement with the OP could be very valuable for an improved discussion of ATM ideas or proposals. If the OP is in agreement concerning the help being offered and he or she continues to make their own comments I don't see the problem with others chiming in to help the OP with information and related links supporting the OP's proposal or the general idea of it.

I understand this process is supposed to be some sort of a preliminary peer review but those that only know mainstream theory sometimes have no more than a clue concerning the possibilities of some ATM proposals and sometimes cannot intelligently comment on the proposal without a greater in-depth understanding which such additional comments by others might provide. I find myself not commenting on many interesting ideas because I believe I will be chased away by the moderators and I believe many others feel the same way. I think many moderators also believe they are "defenders of the faith" which accordingly would be the mainstream theory on any particular subject.

I think there are many insurmountable problems with mainstream cosmology and related theory and would like to see more real discussion where those that agree to some extent with the OP can add valid comments/ information as long as any continuing discussion is done with the agreement of the OP. Most people don't have the time to argue an issue for a month even though in some cases such arguments are evidence-based and could go on intelligently for many years.

I agree with the 30 day limit but not with chasing off those agreeing with the OP who add completely valid comments directly related to the subject. It is my opinion that from such extended considerations more productive discussions can be made that will not necessarily be a joint effort to defeat the OP, instead alternative ideas will have a real voice and those that do not have time to argue for a month can add there related comments to discussions they are interested in.

Does anyone have comments or additional ideas on this matter.

respectfully, forrest

[HenrikOlsen]

Originally Posted by forrest noble

I agree with the 30 day limit but not with chasing off those agreeing with the OP who add completely valid comments directly related to the subject.

When I've chased people away it's because they've commented in a way that highlights they own, only vaguely similar, ATM idea rather than explain the one being questioned.

[Moose]

Exactly. One is not permitted to hijack someone else's thread with their own ATM. If it's a new (finished) ATM, make your own thread to present it. If you've already presented it, then you've already presented it. One gets 30 days to promote. That's it.

[forrest noble]

HenrikOlsen,

I agree that an "only vaguely similar" ATM idea would not be so good. It seems to me in my case that I am sometimes totally in agreement with the ATM proposal but have different understandings and observations to support the idea that seemingly would not distract from, or be contrary to, what the OP is saying.

Moose,

"make your own thread to present it." I have only presented one ATM idea. This was only by accident since it was separated from someone else's thread with my permission since I was not aware at the time that comments can be perceived as highjacks.

I feel certain that any proposal that I would make would be like the last one: seventeen pages long with 483 comments. Three hours a day seven days a week for me and still I was forced by moderators to keep giving sometimes unrelated answers. A one line question sometimes could take five to ten paragraphs or more to explain the general idea what on the surface may seem to the questioner that it could be answered in brief. The same person was allowed to ask 10 questions at one time and then complained to the moderators that I was also answering others' questions before all 10 of their sometimes very long unrelated answers were given.

Many of the questions on such threads are only vaguely relevant to the OP. Very few OPers have this kind of time to devote to such a proposal if they are compelled to answer questions concerning all peripheral ideas. I could probably make 20 or more such proposals, all with extensive evidentiary support involving unknown equations. I believe one of the biggest problems is that often those that reply do not read or cannot understand the answers being given and keep on asking the same questions when the answer has clearly been given several times.

Again people that believe they are "defenders of the faith" complain to the moderator. The moderator doesn't have time to read such long threads and he too may demand an answer that has already been giver maybe three prior times. It's not that any of the ideas are so complicated (equations aside), it's just that they are very foreign and therefore difficult to understand for many readers.

One suggestion I have on this matter is that any party agreeing with the OP could PM the OP and ask permission to add to the OP's support. Upon agreement it would seem to me to be no problem if at least one person is explaining/ defending the general idea of the proposal. The OP could also PM back at any time requesting no more comments. This might be a welcomed idea for some OP'ers that soon realize that they only have a vague concept of their proposal.

A recent example concerned a proposal which was that large black holes are the creators of the galaxy of stars that eventually surround them which includes the creation mechanism of the entire universe. This proposal I completely agreed with but have different ideas concerning the mechanisms involved. I was chased away when I proposed such possible mechanisms where the OP only suggested various possibilities on this matter and PMed me in thanks for my comments which included evidentiary support.

Sarcasm and disrespectful comments are often the case on this forum and few OPers enjoy having to complain to the moderators all the time. I never did, even with continuous violations and have seen others do the same. Even the most sensitive seem to rarely complain and often try to be overly polite.

Does anybody have thoughts on this general idea? or maybe there are other good ideas that might improve the ATM forum to make it something other than a joint effort to defeat the OP which it most often is -- without any real effort by most commentators to understand the concepts, possibilities, hypothesis, theory involved.

respectfully, forrest

[WayneFrancis]

Originally Posted by forrest noble

...
Sarcasm and disrespectful comments are often the case on this forum and few OPers enjoy having to complain to the moderators all the time. I never did, even with continuous violations and have seen others do the same. Even the most sensitive seem to rarely complain and often try to be overly polite.

Does anybody have thoughts on this general idea? or maybe there are other good ideas that might improve the ATM forum to make it something other than a joint effort to defeat the OP which it most often is -- without any real effort being made to understand the concepts, possibilities, hypothesis, theory involved.

While I recognise that some of my posts can have a bit of an unfriendly flavour to them I don't agree that I or most other posters ever try to defeat an idea without understanding the concepts.

In fact many people often point out to the ATM posters that they don't understand the concepts their ATM idea tries to overthrow. To actually ask pertinent questions you have to have a basic understanding of the theory being challenged and the idea being proposed.

Sure it might look like many of us are trying to poke holes in the ATM idea but in actuality it is that we are just exposing the holes that are there. This is either because the ATM idea simply in contradiction to observations or that the ATM idea doesn't sufficiently address the "hole"

An analogy would be if you where having a new house built and a few weeks into the build you go to the site and see that there are 2 exterior walls missing and that under a significant portion of the house there wasn't even a foundation poured then it is perfectly reasonable to ignore the fact that the kitchen looks ok with cabinets, running water etc already in and say "Hey 1/2 of this house is built on top of the lawn and I know that this will make for a very bad house to live on because it needs that foundation."

What an ATM idea should have is a foundation that can be built upon. Builders don't jump straight to the 4th floor of a high rise. So when an ATM poster misses something very basic you shouldn't be surprised when they get called out on that and if it is a bit sarcastic, well most of us try to curb that but honestly its a bit of human nature.

Note I agree that if collaboration between people on an ATM idea is a good idea. Just don't get upset if you haven't collaborated with the OP and your idea is similar but sufficiently different that it gets moved to its own thread. I know it can take a long time to answer 1 question some times but the better the original post is with expressing the ATM idea the less number of questions would need to be asked. The problem comes from poorly thought out ideas with out any supporting evidence like mathematical models that support them or why their idea is better then the current model beyond a bit of philosophical yapping and a bunch of hand waving.

[aastrotech]

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Sarcasm and disrespectful comments are often the case on this forum and few OPers enjoy having to complain to the moderators all the time. I never did, even with continuous violations and have seen others do the same. Even the most sensitive seem to rarely complain and often try to be overly polite.

Does anybody have thoughts on this general idea? or maybe there are other good ideas that might improve the ATM forum to make it something other than a joint effort to defeat the OP which it most often is -- without any real effort being made to understand the concepts, possibilities, hypothesis, theory involved.

respectfully, forrest

I agree. It's not just that many respondants fail to understand a concept. Many respondants make unfounded arguments, falacious arguments and don't even follow the rules here WRT misquotes misrepresentations etc. against ATM posters. The "defenders of the faith" are validated here and ATM posters are an enemy of the state. You can't even use the report function because if you post an ATM you are an enemy of the state. They don't moderate on their own against defenders of the faith but come down even if they have to fabricate charges against ATM posters. Lots of luck getting a moderator to take your side even in a blatent rule violation.

[pzkpfw]

Originally Posted by aastrotech

I agree. It's not just that many respondants fail to understand a concept. Many respondants make unfounded arguments, falacious arguments and don't even follow the rules here WRT misquotes misrepresentations etc. against ATM posters. The "defenders of the faith" are validated here and ATM posters are an enemy of the state. You can't even use the report function because if you post an ATM you are an enemy of the state. They don't moderate on their own against defenders of the faith but come down even if they have to fabricate charges against ATM posters. Lots of luck getting a moderator to take your side even in a blatent rule violation.

Is this an unfounded argument?

[Weakly Interacting MP]

In fact many people often point out to the ATM posters that they don't understand the concepts their ATM idea tries to overthrow. To actually ask pertinent questions you have to have a basic understanding of the theory being challenged and the idea being proposed.

I don't think this point can be stressed enough. Too often, ATMers seem to lack even the basics of the theory they propose to counter, such that their arguments are so flawed from the outset that they make no sense. Furthermore, when tasked to set out their hypothesis using well understood and accepted physics, they demonstrate their scientific knowledge as "well it seems/looks or (my favorite!) should be like...".

It is hard to take an argument from someone seriously when they can't even deal with simple algebra.

[korjik]

Originally Posted by aastrotech

I agree. It's not just that many respondants fail to understand a concept. Many respondants make unfounded arguments, falacious arguments and don't even follow the rules here WRT misquotes misrepresentations etc. against ATM posters. The "defenders of the faith" are validated here and ATM posters are an enemy of the state. You can't even use the report function because if you post an ATM you are an enemy of the state. They don't moderate on their own against defenders of the faith but come down even if they have to fabricate charges against ATM posters. Lots of luck getting a moderator to take your side even in a blatent rule violation.

The only warning I have recieved was due to getting a little irate at an ATM poster.

If we dont get moderated against, how did that happen?

[geonuc]

Originally Posted by Weakly Interacting MP

I don't think this point can be stressed enough. Too often, ATMers seem to lack even the basics of the theory they propose to counter, such that their arguments are so flawed from the outset that they make no sense. Furthermore, when tasked to set out their hypothesis using well understood and accepted physics, they demonstrate their scientific knowledge as "well it seems/looks or (my favorite!) should be like...".

It is hard to take an argument from someone seriously when they can't even deal with simple algebra.

Well, I might differ with you. I think it has been stressed enough. In fact, I think we have three threads currently running discussing ATM issues. At this point, I think that may be three too many.

[forrest noble]

I seem to have a difference of opinion concerning the rules with some moderators concerning the ATM section. In a posting, Sept. 15, 09, I received the following comment:

Forrest Noble. Please everyone stick to the OP. It's not the purpose of this thread to air everyone's fave 'Steady State' ATM, theory or link.

This is certainly a fair enough comment -- the problem with his comment was that I (but maybe others) was not proposing or "airing" my favorite or any ATM proposal, simply discussion of the OP proposal -- the pros and cons, with the OP and those asking related questions.

Captain Swoop's next post said:

Starfury and Forrest Noble. Take your discussion to another thread. One more post that isn't in response to the OP will see a suspension. I am not going to warn anyone again.

Forrest Noble if you have a problem with Moderation then report the post don't discuss it in the thread, also last warning

On a previous discussion of the rules the following discussion took place:

forrest noble,

A couple of thoughts I have on this matter would be that another member could also answer questions on the OP topic without carrying the burden of proof beyond his own statements.

hhEb09'1 Moderator,

So far as I know, this is already allowed. I've even done it a few times myself.

The question concerning the rules I think is this: In Captain Swoop's posting he said this: "One more post that isn't in response to the OP" will see a suspension. I think that Captain Swoop is interpreting the rules to mean that members cannot talk to each other concerning the pros and cons of the ATM proposal of the OP. I'm interpreting the rules to mean that discussion with other members concerning relevant points of the OP is acceptable. Another problem may be that one may think a certain point is very relevant concerning the OP and a single moderator might think that it is not and stop further discussion on that and other related matters.

I would like additional clarification since apparently Captain Swoop did not accept the opinion of another moderator, hhEb09'1 -- as seen above.

I reported this and another incident to moderators but I think further clarification of the rules on this matter may be needed.

[Nereid]

Originally Posted by forrest noble

I seem to have a difference of opinion concerning the rules with some moderators concerning the ATM section. In a posting, Sept. 15, 09, I received the following comment:

Forrest Noble. Please everyone stick to the OP. It's not the purpose of this thread to air everyone's fave 'Steady State' ATM, theory or link.

This is certainly a fair enough comment -- the problem with his comment was that I (but maybe others) was not proposing or "airing" my favorite or any ATM proposal, simply discussion of the OP proposal -- the pros and cons, with the OP and those asking related questions.

Captain Swoop's next post said:



On a previous discussion of the rules the following discussion took place:





The question concerning the rules I think is this: In Captain Swoop's posting he said this: "One more post that isn't in response to the OP" will see a suspension. I think that Captain Swoop is interpreting the rules to mean that members cannot talk to each other concerning the pros and cons of the ATM proposal of the OP. I'm interpreting the rules to mean that discussion with other members concerning relevant points of the OP is acceptable. Another problem may be that one may think a certain point is very relevant concerning the OP and a single moderator might think that it is not and stop further discussion on that and other related matters.

I would like additional clarification since apparently Captain Swoop did not accept the opinion of another moderator, hhEb09'1 -- as seen above.

I reported this and another incident to moderators but I think further clarification of the rules on this matter may be needed.

(bold added)

I'll add a few words which may help clarify things (note that I am not a mod, not commenting on moderation, etc).

Your posts in the ATM thread prior to #86 seem to be good examples of clarification questions etc; the ATM idea being presented was not clear at first (indeed, it still isn't).

However, in post #86 you introduced commentary concerning ATM ideas which seem quite different from those of the OP ... by this point in the thread, no one (except the OP) can claim to know anything about how the ATM idea which is the topic of that thread addresses the CMB.

More generally, one of the most frustrating things about discussions in the ATM section - well, to me anyway - is the maddening imprecision! Words which should have clear, straight-forward meanings are used in strange and idiosyncratic ways; sometimes the vagueness and strangeness is obvious, sometimes it only becomes apparent after pages of 'talking past each other'. Your post #86 seems to take for granted that the ATM idea being discussed in the thread is related to other ATM ideas ... solely because you think some key words are being used in the same way. However, I think it will become clear that the OP's meanings are quite different, possibly radically so.

Or, expressed differently, instead of trying to understand what the ATM idea actually is, you are trying to force it to be like other ATM ideas (ideas which most definitely are NOT the topic of the thread).

[Van Rijn]

Originally Posted by forrest noble

I seem to have a difference of opinion concerning the rules with some moderators concerning the ATM section. In a posting, Sept. 15, 09, I received the following comment:

Forrest Noble. Please everyone stick to the OP. It's not the purpose of this thread to air everyone's fave 'Steady State' ATM, theory or link.

This is certainly a fair enough comment -- the problem with his comment was that I (but maybe others) was not proposing or "airing" my favorite or any ATM proposal, simply discussion of the OP proposal -- the pros and cons, with the OP and those asking related questions.

I saw at least four different ATM discussions (the OP's and three others) occurring at different points in the thread in question. I had a question for the OP that I suspect he never saw because of all the other discussion, and I had trouble following what he was saying for the same reason.

In my opinion, an occasional side post isn't a big deal, but that thread was completely out of control.

[01101001]

The waters were muddied.

And the waters were mud to begin with. You weren't helping the topic or the original poster.

[Van Rijn]

Originally Posted by 01101001

The waters were muddied.

And the waters were mud to begin with. You weren't helping the topic or the original poster.

I'm guessing that comment was for forrest noble, but since it's after both Nereid's and my comments, could you clarify?

[forrest noble]

Nereid,

In posting # 86 The question was asked by Starfury -- how do you explain the microwave background? I interpreted his question to mean how does steady state theory explain the microwave background radiation. The OP stated only two ways that his model was different from the classic model and the CMBR was not one of them. Obviously the answer to this question is totally relevant to any steady state proposal. My statement was/ is the classic steady state explanation for the CMWB and was based on the link provided -- not a personal theory.

Van Rijn,

I agree that there was a lot of unnecessary banter in that room but I did not participate in it.

01101001,

You weren't helping the topic or the original poster.

I may not have been helping or hurting the OP's position since I made two postings in favor of what he said and two postings contrary -- discussing both the pros and cons of what the Op said. But I think you are incorrect in your statement that I was not helping the topic. I provided lots of edification and relevant links for the readers which I believe made that thread a lot more interesting so far. Usually such postings are usually a pounding of the OP which practically nobody learns from.

If you look at my other postings on other threads you will see that they all involve education and some of my comments in favor of the OP are contrary to my personal theories but instead are based solely on observation and logic. Many of my generic explanations involve the standard cosmological model and other standard models that I disagree with.

[Nereid]

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Nereid,

In posting # 86 The question was asked by Starfury -- how do you explain the microwave background? I interpreted his question to mean how does steady state theory explain the microwave background radiation. The OP stated only two ways that his model was different from the classic model and the CMBR was not one of them. Obviously the answer to this question is totally relevant to any steady state proposal. My statement was/ is the classic steady state explanation for the CMWB and was based on the link provided -- not a personal theory.

Van Rijn,

I agree that there was a lot of unnecessary banter in that room but I did not participate in it.


I may not have been helping or hurting the OP's position since I made two postings in favor of what he said and two postings contrary -- discussing both the pros and cons of what the Op said. But I think you are incorrect in your statement that I was not helping the topic. I provided lots of edification and relevant links for the readers which I believe made that thread a lot more interesting so far. Usually such postings are usually a pounding of the OP which practically nobody learns from.

If you look at my other postings on other threads you will see that they all involve education and some of my comments in favor of the OP are contrary to my personal theories but instead are based solely on observation and logic. Many of my generic explanations involve the standard cosmological model and other standard models that I disagree with.

I think it is likely a mod will step in shortly, so I will make just this one comment, and then bow out.

Re: "In posting # 86 The question was asked by Starfury -- how do you explain the microwave background?" (bold added)

Starfury is not the OP, nor is Starfury presenting an ATM idea (in that thread, as far as I can see), nor did Starfury defend the ATM idea presented. So, if Starfury asked a question, and if that question was relevant to the ATM idea, as presented, surely the only acceptable answer (within an ATM thread) would have been one that was couched in a manner consistent with the OP?

ETA: OK two.

Re: "Obviously the answer to this question is totally relevant to any steady state proposal." It might be obvious to you, to me, to Starfury, to ... but perhaps it is not the least bit obvious to the OP! Nor, perhaps, is it in any way relevant to the ATM idea, as presented in that thread. IMHO, one of the worst things BAUT members can do in participating in an ATM thread is to assume, without solid evidence, what the ATM idea is (and, FWIW, this is what you did).

[Van Rijn]

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Van Rijn,

I agree that there was a lot of unnecessary banter in that room but I did not participate in it.

I did not see a distinction between your ATM side discussion and the other two ATM side discussions. In my opinion, they all distracted from the discussion of the OP's ideas.

[01101001]

Originally Posted by Van Rijn

I'm guessing that comment was for forrest noble, but since it's after both Nereid's and my comments, could you clarify?

You guessed right.

Clear as mud?

[01101001]

Originally Posted by forrest noble

But I think you are incorrect in your statement that I was not helping the topic. I provided lots of edification and relevant links for the readers which I believe made that thread a lot more interesting so far. Usually such postings are usually a pounding of the OP which practically nobody learns from.

I agree with the moderation effort. You should let the OP carry the ATM ball, pounding or no. He doesn't need your distractions. Nor does the defense, nor the breathless fans. Please don't do that.

[captain swoop]

Starfury asked a question, it should have been answered by the OP not by yourself. Starfury shouldn't have replied to you, what ensued was a quite seperate discussion related to your ideas on 'steady state' not those of the OP.
I asked you to stop.

Simple.

[forrest noble]

Threads in the ATM section are closed based upon personal reasons of the moderator with no explanations at all to the thread initiator. Many unanswered complaints are made based upon sarcasm and attempted intimidation by the commentators with no action ever being taken by the moderator to stop rule violations other than closing the thread.

[PetersCreek]

This is not the first time you've leveled allegations against the moderators. It's time for you to substantiate them or withdraw them.

[ToSeek]

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Threads in the ATM section are closed based upon personal reasons of the moderator with no explanations at all to the thread initiator. Many unanswered complaints are made based upon sarcasm and attempted intimidation by the commentators with no action ever being taken by the moderator to stop rule violations other than closing the thread.

The thread was generating multiple complaints from both sides, with no immediately obvious resolution. We closed the thread in order to allow time to review the situation and to forestall further complaints (there were at least six at last count). There will be a full reckoning when the moderators can put forth the time and effort to required to produce a fair one.

[pzkpfw]

This is what was posted in the thread by the mod that closed it:

Originally Posted by Swift

This thread is closed for 24 hours. We've received 6 reported posts in an hour. I'm am not going to slog through this mess to figure out who did what to who. Everyone go cool off.

Seems pretty clear. (1. The reports were received. 2. Reason for thread (temporary) closure.)

[RussT]

Like Forrest Noble, I am having a great deal of difficulty with certain aspects of ATM rules.

There have recently been quite a few ATM threads started by OP's with what they consider possible valid 'ideas' on how certain things might be working in Our Universe.

In some of those cases it is pretty obvious that these OP'ers do not possess a large degree of knowledge of mainstream concepts.

But, that does NOT mean that their 'idea' does NOT have some merit, even though it is against mainstream.

SO, as long as whomever is showing what mainstream does say, and then show how what the OP'er is/are saying/showing is somehow flawed, because they really don't understand, and then show how the 'idea' that they are considering could/should work, there should be nothing wrong with that!

Also, when the OP'er, then asks us a specific question, we should be able to answer that question, since the OP'er asked us, without any kind of warning from Mods. (I do agree that side conversations with other posters should not be allowed)

A couple of examples...

coliver specifically said that he thought that 'somehow' Black Holes were making/creating Matter....so any variation of that scenario should be allowable.

Same for Neil Russell + plus Steady State scenarios are/can be pretty generic.

And czeslaw stated that he thought that Black Holes had/have something to do with his "Simpler than Quarks" ideas. And asked me specific questions.

It seems to me, that Captain Swoop has been on a tirade lately, especially with me, although he has been a pretty equal opportunity warner, about trying to 'isolate' just the OP'er, so the OP'er can be ganged up on, and so mainstream can dispatch, and 'pigeon hole', that particular ATM 'idea/claim' to it's appropriate "ATM Woo Woo Box".

I have been searching for a while now (Days) to find something Nereid said quite a while back, when she was a Mod I believe, but I haven't been able to find it.

IIRC, she said something to the effect of...if an ATM is so convinced that their ATM 'model/concept' is correct, why don't we see them correcting other ATM'ers more often.

LOL, I just realized, that she will probably challenge this and I will be forced to spend even more time looking for it!!!

[Gillianren]

Originally Posted by RussT

In some of those cases it is pretty obvious that these OP'ers do not possess a large degree of knowledge of mainstream concepts.

But, that does NOT mean that their 'idea' does NOT have some merit, even though it is against mainstream.

It's not the "against the mainstream" bit that means it probably doesn't have merit. It's the "doesn't know what they're talking about" bit. If you don't have the knowledge of why the mainstream says what it does, you frankly do not have the knowledge to question it.