Rules discussion

[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.

[Robinson]

OK I give up. Where is the rule that says, something to the effect of, "In ATM threads only one person can defend an ATM idea"?

And the other one like it. "Nobody but the thread starter can answer questions"?

I looked at all the rules I could find, and I don't see it. I know I read it once, but where?

It isn't here
Rules For Posting To This Board

It isn't here
Advice for ATM theory supporters.

and I don't see it here
New Policies Regarding Against the Mainstream section

[Moose]

There are two overriding problems that moderators have to consider when deciding whether or not to intervene in these cases:

1) The original poster has 30 days, no more, to make a case for his/her ATM. It's not fair to that poster if another ATMer comes along and co-opts his ATM defense with an idea that's only vaguely similar in topic, but detectably different in execution. In these cases, we require the second ATMer to start his/her own thread, and defend their own claims there.

2) The other issue we consider is that the second ATMer may already have had his/her 30 days to defend his/her claim. Our mandate permits us to grant 30 days, no more (exceptional cases notwithstanding). It's not fair for an ATMer to nick someone else's time.

Either case would be handled as disruptive hijacks and would be covered by Rules 14 and 0.

Barring any additional complications, a post saying "I agree with the OP's claim, and here's some relevant data that supports his claim that has yet to be presented" would tend to be fine.

[Robinson]

So you can't find it either?

[hhEb09'1]

Originally Posted by Robinson

So you can't find it either?

I think he's made a stronger statement than that. He said that there are no such rules.

Originally Posted by Robinson

OK I give up. Where is the rule that says, something to the effect of, "In ATM threads only one person can defend an ATM idea"?

And the other one like it. "Nobody but the thread starter can answer questions"?

I looked at all the rules I could find, and I don't see it. I know I read it once, but where?

[Nereid]

Originally Posted by Robinson

OK I give up. Where is the rule that says, something to the effect of, "In ATM threads only one person can defend an ATM idea"?

And the other one like it. "Nobody but the thread starter can answer questions"?

[...]

As has already been stated, there is no such rule.

There is an important practical aspect to consider; namely, what is the ATM idea?

If there is an external source, or if the ATM has been clearly stated and explained (preferably in the OP or shortly afterwards), then anyone who has read and understood that material could answer questions on that ATM idea, and possibly defend it too.

However, in my experience, there are very few ATM ideas like this, making it close to impossible for anyone except the person presenting the ATM idea to answer questions on it, or defend it, accurately ... and answering questions on (or, worse, defending) inaccurately creates confusion, leads to thread-jacking, and so on.

Further, in the few cases where the ATM idea being presented does have the features above, it is rare indeed that the person presenting it keeps the scope unchanged for long. You see, it nearly always becomes quickly obvious to the one presenting the ATM idea that its initial scope is too broad for a mere 30 days' of questioning and defending, so they redefine the scope ...

[Robinson]

Originally Posted by hhEb09'1

I think he's made a stronger statement than that. He said that there are no such rules.

Well, I read the reply and don't see "there are no such rules" in it. If there is no rule about this, then say so.

If there are rules to that effect, where are they stated? It's a simple question.

Originally Posted by Moose

There are two overriding problems that moderators have to consider when deciding whether or not to intervene in these cases:

1) The original poster has 30 days, no more, to make a case for his/her ATM. It's not fair to that poster if another ATMer comes along and co-opts his ATM defense with an idea that's only vaguely similar in topic, but detectably different in execution. In these cases, we require the second ATMer to start his/her own thread, and defend their own claims there.

2) The other issue we consider is that the second ATMer may already have had his/her 30 days to defend his/her claim. Our mandate permits us to grant 30 days, no more (exceptional cases notwithstanding). It's not fair for an ATMer to nick someone else's time.

Either case would be handled as disruptive hijacks and would be covered by Rules 14 and 0.

Barring any additional complications, a post saying "I agree with the OP's claim, and here's some relevant data that supports his claim that has yet to be presented" would tend to be fine.

Here, let me give an example of a reply to a question.

Robinson,

Answer to question --> There are no such rules as you describe. You did not read them anywhere. That is why you can't find them.<--answer is now over.

See? Obviously I got the impression there ARE rules about this, but I did not read them in the posted rules.

That this is an issue is obvious from the Moderator reply.

Originally Posted by Moose

There are two overriding problems that moderators have to consider when deciding whether or not to intervene in these cases:

Which brings us the question, what cases?

Originally Posted by Moose

1) The original poster has 30 days, no more, to make a case for his/her ATM. It's not fair to that poster if another ATMer comes along and co-opts his ATM defense with an idea that's only vaguely similar in topic, but detectably different in execution. In these cases, we require the second ATMer to start his/her own thread, and defend their own claims there.

So, it is unfair to the person who is under the gun to support them, or to help them, or to answer questions meant for them.

Is that correct?

Originally Posted by Moose

2) The other issue we consider is that the second ATMer may already have had his/her 30 days to defend his/her claim. Our mandate permits us to grant 30 days, no more (exceptional cases notwithstanding). It's not fair for an ATMer to nick someone else's time.

So, let me get this straight, somebody who supports or explains an ATM concept may have already talked about it, in which case they are cheating somehow.

Is that right?

Or, they are stealing time from the ATM defender by helping them out?

Until one thinks about it, this ATM stuff doesn't seem that complicated. But upon reflection, keeping track of every ATM discussion every member ever had must be incredibly complicated. Then you have to make sure they don't say anything about it ever again, after the 30 days is up. As well as deciding if it is a prior thought, or a new thought, in which case it is OK for them to express the thought, but only if they start a new thread, not express it in a thread that is already going.

I'm starting to understand why Mods seem frustrated and tense sometimes. That is madness. Nobody should have to be under that kind of pressure. Every day, every minute.

You would have to read every topic, every post, AND remember what every person ever said, going back years.

I don't know how you do it.

[hhEb09'1]

Originally Posted by Robinson

Well, I read the reply and don't see "there are no such rules" in it. If there is no rule about this, then say so.

If there are rules to that effect, where are they stated? It's a simple question.

There are no rules to the effect that you stated. The comment Moose made clearly says that more than just the OP can defend the ATM idea.

Originally Posted by Moose

Barring any additional complications, a post saying "I agree with the OP's claim, and here's some relevant data that supports his claim that has yet to be presented" would tend to be fine. [/color]

So, it is unfair to the person who is under the gun to support them, or to help them, or to answer questions meant for them.

Is that correct?

No, he didn't say that. He said it was not fair to the OP to try to push some other ATM in the OP's thread.

I don't know how you do it.

Just another superpower.

[Robinson]

(edit) The following was posted at the same time as the previous post, hence part of it is no longer true)

Originally Posted by Nereid

As has already been stated, there is no such rule.

Actually, No Mod stated that, and the one Mod who answered described two situations where Moderation is required, even when this is not stated in the rules for posting in ATM.

Originally Posted by Nereid

There is an important practical aspect to consider; namely, what is the ATM idea?

When discussing the rules, especially specific questions about them, it is best to discuss the rules, or lack of rules, rather than going into "what is an ATM idea" or other philosophical areas.

Originally Posted by Nereid

If there is an external source, or if the ATM has been clearly stated and explained (preferably in the OP or shortly afterwards), then anyone who has read and understood that material could answer questions on that ATM idea, and possibly defend it too.

You assume that there is something called "the ATM", and that it can be stated. I don't know where this comes from, but that is absurd.

The current discussion I am following is about objections to a theoretical concept, so there is no "ATM" to be stated. There is a hypothesis/theory/something that some people have proposed, and people questioning that, saying it is wrong, or pointing out errors in it.

Which brings up the original question.

Is there a rule that says only the first person to post in an ATM topic (or first person to propose something that is labeled ATM) can challenge, question or object to a mainstream idea?

Is there a rule that says "Any ATM topic is limited to one person on defense"? Is that the rule?

I am not challenging any rule, I support the right of the owner of this site toi make and enforce any and all rules. I am just asking where the rules are written down so I can read them.

If the convoluted situation Moose described, as well as the answer to it, is a rule, then shouldn't it be explained somewhere? In the rules? or at least the "Read this first" topic?

[Robinson]

Originally Posted by hhEb09'1

There are no rules to the effect that you stated. The comment Moose made clearly says that more than just the OP can defend the ATM idea.

Odd, I read what he said as:

Originally Posted by Moose

Barring any additional complications, a post saying "I agree with the OP's claim, and here's some relevant data that supports his claim that has yet to be presented" would tend to be fine.

Which looks like he is saying one post saying "I agree" and posting some data is OK.

It is obvious that ATM stuff is vastly complicated, the stated rules, as well as all the ramifications of them, makes it very complicated to know what is allowed.

For example, there is nothing in the rules or "read this first" thread that says what Moose said. The obvious thing most people do when reading a thread is respond to something.

But, responding to almost anything in an ATM thread means you might be labeled ATM, a thread started, different rules enforced, time limits set, as well as the huge issue of "did you ever say anything like that before because if you did it is a violation of the rules".

Isn't that correct?

[Moose]

Originally Posted by Robinson

See? Obviously I got the impression there ARE rules about this, but I did not read them in the posted rules.

That is because you are mistaken on two key points:

1) That there are rules prohibiting an ATMer from advocating for the OP's ATM. (There aren't.)
2) That we intervene to prevent an ATMer from advocating for the OP's ATM. (We don't.)

I've listed in my previous post the two major circumstances where we'll intervene. Both have to do with hijacking: where a secondary ATMer is advocating his own, superficially similar but identifiably distinct ATM in a thread not his own.

I don't know how you do it.

We don't, mainly.

Where we do have to track someone*, we only need to make occasional notes. Between that and the search facility, we have no trouble. It's a simple system and an effective one.

*The serial-promoters (most likely to hijack threads) often make themselves stand out like a marching band. It would be hard not to be aware of their activities, truth be told.

[Nereid]

Originally Posted by Robinson

[...]

So, it is unfair to the person who is under the gun to support them, or to help them, or to answer questions meant for them.

Is that correct?

IMHO, yes that is correct, in almost all cases (for reasons I gave in my previous post).

So, let me get this straight, somebody who supports or explains an ATM concept may have already talked about it, in which case they are cheating somehow.

Is that right?

IMHO, yes.

Or, they are stealing time from the ATM defender by helping them out?

IMHO, if "the second ATMer" is, objectively*, "helping them out", then no time is being stolen; however, the situations in which there is, objectively*, 'helping out' are rare indeed (for reasons I gave in my previous post).

Until one thinks about it, this ATM stuff doesn't seem that complicated. But upon reflection, keeping track of every ATM discussion every member ever had must be incredibly complicated.

In practice, it's not that complicated ... the members who present ATM ideas are relatively small in number, and the BAUT search tools powerful ...

Then you have to make sure they don't say anything about it ever again, after the 30 days is up. As well as deciding if it is a prior thought, or a new thought, in which case it is OK for them to express the thought, but only if they start a new thread, not express it in a thread that is already going.

If you approach the study of ATM ideas in BAUT this way, you will indeed very likely end up with a headache.

Fortunately, the reality of ATM ideas in the ATM section of BAUT has common features that enable one to get a good handle on things very quickly.

I'm starting to understand why Mods seem frustrated and tense sometimes. That is madness. Nobody should have to be under that kind of pressure. Every day, every minute.

You would have to read every topic, every post, AND remember what every person ever said, going back years.

I don't know how you do it.

The BAUT mods can, of course, speak for themselves ... however, when I was a mod - and I was then one of a very few who tried to moderate the ATM section - it was much, much more straight-forward than your description ...

* if you'd like to know how one can establish such a thing, objectively, just ask; I'd be glad to try to explain it to you.

[Robinson]

Originally Posted by Moose

That is because you are mistaken on two key points:

....

I am starting to get a better idea of what you are trying to do now. Thanks.

[Robinson]

Whoops, somehow I lost the color there.

[Nereid]

Originally Posted by Robinson

(edit) The following was posted at the same time as the previous post, hence part of it is no longer true)

It might be interesting for you to expand on that ... but thanks for noting it.

[...]

When discussing the rules, especially specific questions about them, it is best to discuss the rules, or lack of rules, rather than going into "what is an ATM idea" or other philosophical areas.

In an earlier post you used the word "madness"; I think it's an apt word to describe a discussion about rules concerning ATM ideas without going into "what is an ATM idea" ... just my opinion of course.

You assume that there is something called "the ATM", and that it can be stated. I don't know where this comes from, but that is absurd.

Actually, I didn't ... I simply omitted the word "idea" (as in "... or if the ATM idea has been clearly stated and explained ..."

The current discussion I am following is about objections to a theoretical concept, so there is no "ATM" to be stated.
[...]

My bad; I assumed that "ATM ideas" was central to the discussion.

Which brings up the original question.

Is there a rule that says only the first person to post in an ATM topic (or first person to propose something that is labeled ATM) can challenge, question or object to a mainstream idea?

I think this has already been answered ("no"), but I also think you may not have expressed yourself very clearly ... for example, you seem to be conflating three quite separate things: "questioning a mainstream idea" is what the Q&A section is all about (modulo differences over "questioning"); "objecting to a mainstream idea" is beyond the scope of this forum (it is avowedly science-based, and vanilla objecting is antithetical to science); "challenging a mainstream idea" is what the ATM section is for.

Is there a rule that says "Any ATM topic is limited to one person on defense"? Is that the rule?

I am not challenging any rule, I support the right of the owner of this site toi make and enforce any and all rules. I am just asking where the rules are written down so I can read them.

If the convoluted situation Moose described, as well as the answer to it, is a rule, then shouldn't it be explained somewhere? In the rules? or at least the "Read this first" topic?

I'm struggling to understand what part of Moose's posts (and others') you seem to find ambiguous ...

[Robinson]

Originally Posted by Nereid

I'm struggling to understand what part of Moose's posts (and others') you seem to find ambiguous ...

Maybe that is because you are the only person to use the word ambiguous in this discussion.

[hhEb09'1]

Originally Posted by Robinson

Maybe that is because you are the only person to use the word ambiguous in this discussion.

Exactly why you can't find the rules!

[Robinson]

I just realized the "read this first" thread in the ATM section is not general advice. The thread is called " Advice for ATM theory supporters."

[Moose]

Originally Posted by Robinson

But, responding to almost anything in an ATM thread means you might be labeled ATM, a thread started, different rules enforced, time limits set, as well as the huge issue of "did you ever say anything like that before because if you did it is a violation of the rules".

Not so much.

Sometimes we do wind up having to move an unsupported (or insufficiently supported) claim to the ATM forum, and yes, new rules apply and a time limit set...

... But only once the poster in question has chosen to take up a defense of that claim in the ATM forum. The ATMer is equally free to not defend his claim and to simply walk away from it, no questions asked (pun acknowledged). Here's an example of this situation in case you're curious.

[Robinson]

Speaking of, the ATM advice thread, which is locked, has a link to another thread, the discussion thread about the advice thread, which is also locked. At the end of it, it has a link to another thread, which is locked. Fortunately there is no link at the end of that thread.

[Moose]

I'm very tempted to go there and add a link to the first thread.

[geonuc]

Originally Posted by Moose

Here's an example of this situation in case you're curious.

That might seem to be a good example, but in that case, the OP hasn't even logged on to BAUT since making that, his first and only post.

Not that I have any problem with how such matters are handled. I don't - the BAUT mod team does an excellent job in ATM.

[Moose]

Originally Posted by geonuc

the OP hasn't even logged on to BAUT since making that, his first and only post.

Heh. Nobody's perfect.

[Robinson]

Originally Posted by Moose

I'm very tempted to go there and add a link to the first thread.

Well, the thread New Policies Regarding Against the Mainstream section also links to the locked thread.