Rules discussion

[Robinson]

A sticky thread in the ATM section with a link to the JREF forums might help out the bautforums.

Many of the banned members from here are there, still discussing the issues that are considered ATM here, and the threads are not locked, and nobody is stopped from talking forever about stuff.

So instead of saying "If you don't like it here, leave", you could say, "if you don't like it here, you can go over there and discuss it all you like".

Of course this may be unfair to over there, but it is more polite.

[mugaliens]

Originally Posted by Moose

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

Here we go again... Or, "Attack of the killer do-loops." "About the about the about it thread?"

"Mugs hasn't woken up yet and is trying to be funny thread?"

[Robinson]

Originally Posted by Moose

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.

That little fact somehow never made it into the rules.

[geonuc]

Originally Posted by Robinson

That little fact somehow never made it into the rules.

What? Are you being deliberately difficult? What Moose has said is quite clear and is a natural reading of the written rules.

[hhEb09'1]

Originally Posted by Robinson

That little fact somehow never made it into the rules.

Which little fact?

I think the time limit starts when the post is posted (the software is relentless on closing ATM threads as I've found out), but other than that I don't see anything else open to interpretation.

[HenrikOlsen]

Originally Posted by Robinson

That little fact somehow never made it into the rules.

That's because the rules don't cover every possible case imaginable and because it's explained in a comment in the thread when a thread is moved.

[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.

[mugaliens]

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.

For the most part, forrest, I share your perspective, though in defense of the admin/moderator team, I have seen them take appropriate action in recent weeks, at least in some of the cases of which I'm aware.

Originally Posted by 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.

I agree, as no one wants to hear allegations without substance. I would submit, however, that when several people raise the same issue, that is itself substantiation, and the issue of unequal treatment in the ATM forum has indeed been raised by many, and all the way back to 2007, at least.

I know what I'm about to say won't be the most platable observation out here, but forrest's perception is genuine, has a basis in fact, and is for the most part shared by several of those who frequent the ATM section, myself among them.

My own perception is similar to his, based only in part on one of my two ATM threads (behaviour in the second one was much better). It is mostly based, however, on the behaviour I've witnessed on many ATM threads, most of which I review without comment. To their credit, most posters are well-behaved! A few, however, do use (abuse) the ATM as an opportunity to shoot fish in a barrel and get away with having discharged a firearm within city limits.

The problem isn't that ATM proponents are held to high standards, which is a good thing. It's that the behavior of a few of those confronting the ATM proponent consistantly violate BAUT Forum rules, often without moderator intervention. Or, as forrest noted, the "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."

Most of the problems boils down to three types of unchecked behaviors, followed by recommended additions to the ATM rules:

1. Commentators use the "show me the math" ploy, and wrongly dismiss the idea as fallacious if the math isn't present. Obviously, if the ATM proponent can't deliver graduate-level work on demand, their concept is void and without merit, right? Actually, no. Most major advances in science began with an idea, followed by the math, research, evidence, etc. years, if not decades laters. An example was Einstein's belief that if matter can give off energy, there may be a definable relationship between energy and matter. It took more than a decade, however, while collaborating with other leading scientists in the field, before he was able to "show the math," along with it's end result, the beautifully simple equation we know and love today.

If he had published today, he certainly would not have used BAUT's ATM section! He would have used the appropriate peer-review process used today, as do all othes who are able to "show the math." Since those people will go elsewhere, and since we have the people we do have, there are two options: close the ATM section altogether, or stop attempting to apply rules suitable for finished products to the initial products commonly seen here.

Suggested Rule: While sound math, research, evidence, analysis, and other tools of science lend credit to an idea, their absense does not void the idea. Discuss the ATM proposal on whatever evidence the proponent is able to deliver. Do not demand that he/she "show the math!" then behave badly, being derisive, calling for thread closure, etc., if they can't.

2. Commentators use the "answer my question" ploy when the question has already been answered in the OP or in subsequent posts.

Suggested Rule: It's up to the commentator to thoroughly review the OP and subsequent posts to ensure their question hasn't been previously addressed, either in whole or part. If it has, and the commentator is unsatisfied with the answer, it's up to the commentator to communicate why, and to rephrase the question so as to provide clarity and to focus on the particular issue the commentator seeks to addres. Simply repeating, "you didn't answer my question - answer my question!" lends nothing to the discussion, detracts large from the thread by bumping serious posts into previous pages. This tactic is inappropriate, disruptive behavior and will be dealt with swiftly by the moderating team.

Similarly, dropping posts of no value to the discussion is inappropriate as it merely adds noise which detracts from the value of what others have posted.

3. Some people calling for thread closure before 30 days, and some mods have closed threads as a way of dealing with a contentious issue by grenade without taking the time to isolate and deal with the root issue.

The first part is easy:

Rule Suggestion: 30 days is 30 days. If you're calling for thread closure in the ATM section, you're wrong. If you're not satisfied with a proponent's response, please frequent one of the other many fine sections available here on BAUT.

The second part is more difficult, but not by much. If you were holding a party where most of the people were behaving themselves well, but two people were yelling and screaming at one another, would you say, "Ok, party's over! Everyone leave, now!" Of course not. You'd give the two the boot and tell them they're not allowed back in until they can behave themselves.

When moderators close a thread without taking time to isolate and deal with the issue, it's a lot like Spec Ops drviving by, noticing the noise coming from one house, and lobbing a few grenades through the window. The party is shut down, people are hurt, reputations are injured, and what has transpired is left in a sordid state of affairs with no hope for repair.

The solution is simple:

Rule Suggestion: Contentious issues will be isolated to the (usually) one individual responsible for antagonizing the other in a rule-violating manner, and that individual will be dealt with appropriately.

This raises an additional issue, that of posts by commentators/detractors which require absolutely minimal time and effort on their part but which require maximal time and effort (usually impossible given the 30-day window) on the part of the ATM proponent. In fact, all three of the aforementioned issues fall into this category.

When an ATM proponent makes a claim that is clearly contrary to mainstream science, both theory and observation, instead of spending a minute posting something derisive, which does nothing to help third-party readers who are really trying to learn something and who may be as ready to bite off on an errant ATM idea as they are on truth, how about taking the time instead to post a decent response, citing the mainstream science as well as the observational evidence supporting the science? I'd like to offer my own example, here. This approach is at least constructive, helping to educate the ATM proponent as well as third party readers. Instead of appearing to these folks as mere hecklers, we instead appear well-read, if not knowledgeable. Naturally, there are some ATM theorists who've left the planet altogether, for whom this approach has no direct merit. However, those third-party readers outnumber the ATM proponents 50:1, so consider them, perhaps first, while crafting your responses.

The fact these concerns continue to surface supports their legitimacy. Those who raise them are trying to get the attentions of the admins and the moderators so they actually do something about the root problems beyond either ignoring it, diminishing it, or sweeping it under the rug. Until the root problem, the core issue is addressed, others will continue to raise this as an issue.

To date, I've seen steps in the right direction! Continued enforcement of the rules on both sides of an ATM issue is a good start towards maintaining appropriate civility and decorum in the ATM section. Some tweaking of the ATM rules to ensure everyone, ATM proponents, commenators, and moderators are on the same sheet of music, will largely eradicate the current contention surrouding the ATM section.

Come to think of it, I think any lack of clarity in the rules may be the greatest problem of all, but one that's the easiest to fix. If various people frequenting or moderating the ATM section have varying perspectives of the rules, that will naturally lead to contentious situations, and the continuing presence of these contentions indicates the rules are not clear, and are perhaps in need of a rewrite.

[Nereid]

Originally Posted by mugaliens

For the most part, forrest, I share your perspective, though in defense of the admin/moderator team, I have seen them take appropriate action in recent weeks, at least in some of the cases of which I'm aware.

I agree, as no one wants to hear allegations without substance. I would submit, however, that when several people raise the same issue, that is itself substantiation, and the issue of unequal treatment in the ATM forum has indeed been raised by many, and all the way back to 2007, at least.

I know what I'm about to say won't be the most platable observation out here, but forrest's perception is genuine, has a basis in fact, and is for the most part shared by several of those who frequent the ATM section, myself among them.

My own perception is similar to his, based only in part on one of my two ATM threads (behaviour in the second one was much better). It is mostly based, however, on the behaviour I've witnessed on many ATM threads, most of which I review without comment. To their credit, most posters are well-behaved! A few, however, do use (abuse) the ATM as an opportunity to shoot fish in a barrel and get away with having discharged a firearm within city limits.

The problem isn't that ATM proponents are held to high standards, which is a good thing. It's that the behavior of a few of those confronting the ATM proponent consistantly violate BAUT Forum rules, often without moderator intervention. Or, as forrest noted, the "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."

Most of the problems boils down to three types of unchecked behaviors, followed by recommended additions to the ATM rules:

1. Commentators use the "show me the math" ploy, and wrongly dismiss the idea as fallacious if the math isn't present. Obviously, if the ATM proponent can't deliver graduate-level work on demand, their concept is void and without merit, right? Actually, no. Most major advances in science began with an idea, such as Einstein's belief that if matter can give off energy, there may be a definable relationship between energy and matter. It took more than a decade, however, while collaborating with other leading scientists in the field, before he was able to "show the math," along with it's end result, the beautifully simple equation we know and love today.

While sound math, research, evidence, analysis, and other tools of science lend credit to an idea, their absense does not void the idea. Discuss the ATM proposal on whatever evidence the proponent is able to deliver. Do not demand that he/she "show the math!" then behave badly, being derisive, calling for thread closure, etc., if they can't. They have 30 days, and they will be given 30 days.

2. Commentators use the "answer my question" ploy when the question has already been answered, either in the OP or

It's up to the commentator to thoroughly review the OP and subsequent posts to ensure their question hasn't been previously addressed, either in whole or part.

If it has, and the commentator is unsatisfied with the answer, it's up to the commentator to communicate why, and to rephrase the question so as to provide clarity and to focus on the particular issue the commentator seeks to addres.

Simply repeating, "you didn't answer my question - answer my question!" lends nothing to the discussion, detracts large from the thread by bumping serious posts into previous pages, and as such, this tactic is inappropriate, disruptive behavior and should be dealt with swiftly by the moderating team.

Similarly, dropping posts of no value to the discussion is inappropriate as that adds noise which detracts from the value of what others have posted.

3. Some people calling for thread closure before 30 days, and some mods have closed threads as a way of dealing with a contentious issue by grenade without taking the time to isolate and deal with the root issue.

The first part is easy - 30 days is 30 days. If you're calling for thread closure in the ATM section, you're wrong.

The second part is more difficult, but not by much. If you were holding a party where most of the people were behaving themselves well, but two people were yelling and screaming at one another, would you say, "Ok, party's over! Everyone leave, now!" Of course not. You'd give the two the boot and tell them they're not allowed back in until they can behave themselves.

When moderators close a thread without taking time to isolate and deal with the issue, it's a lot like Spec Ops drviving by, noticing the noise coming from one house, and lobbing a few grenades through the window. The party is shut down, people are hurt, reputations are injured, and what has transpired is left in a sordid state of affairs with no hope for repair.

The solution is simple: Contentious issues will be isolated to the (usually) one individual responsible for antagonizing the other in a rule-violating manner, and will be dealt with appropriately.

The fact these concerns continue to surface supports their legitimacy. Those who raise them are trying to get the attentions of the admins and the moderators such that they actually do something about the problem beyond either diminuizing it or sweeping it under the rug. Until the root problem, the core issue is addressed, others will continue to raise this as an issue.

To date, I've seen steps in the right direction! Continued enforcement of the rules on both sides of an ATM issue will help maintain appropriate civility and decorum in the ATM section.

Ah yet another lengthy comment on how some ATM threads develop!

There are, IMHO, several rather big problems that lurk beneath the surface of your fine post mugs.

For example:

The problem isn't that ATM proponents are held to high standards, which is a good thing. It's that the behavior of a few of those confronting the ATM proponent consistantly violate BAUT Forum rules, often without moderator intervention. Or, as forrest noted, the "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."

You say "attempted intimidation", I say "frustration at a simple, direct, pertinent question being repeatedly not answered".

Then there's:

It's up to the commentator to thoroughly review the OP and subsequent posts to ensure their question hasn't been previously addressed, either in whole or part.

If it has, and the commentator is unsatisfied with the answer, it's up to the commentator to communicate why, and to rephrase the question so as to provide clarity and to focus on the particular issue the commentator seeks to address.

You say "it's up to the commentator", I say "how many times must a simple, straight-forward, direct question be rephrased?"

Or, in both cases, perhaps deliberate, coldly calculated, cynical evasion can take many forms?

Until the root problem, the core issue is addressed, others will continue to raise this as an issue.

Well said.

Do you have actionable recommendations on how "the root problem", "the core issue" can be identified (in contentious ATM threads)?

And so on.

[Neverfly]

Originally Posted by Nereid

There are, IMHO, several rather big problems that lurk beneath the surface of your fine post mugs.

For example:

You say "attempted intimidation", I say "frustration at a simple, direct, pertinent question being repeatedly not answered".

Nereid, to be blunt, we all have witnessed your very keen intellect and astounding calm.
I can name many members who have an almost inhuman ability to keep their cool.
So you know that this comment is not directed at you personally but...

Are you saying that mainstreamers badmouthing ATM'ers are Excusable due to their feeling frustrated?

That has never flown for me when I tried it on the Moderators. I got berated anyway.

Frustration is understandable. And we all know there are devious ATM'ers out there. But it's still not an excuse.

[Swift]

Originally Posted by mugaliens

<snip>
3. Some people calling for thread closure before 30 days, and some mods have closed threads as a way of dealing with a contentious issue by grenade without taking the time to isolate and deal with the root issue.

The first part is easy:

Rule Suggestion: 30 days is 30 days. If you're calling for thread closure in the ATM section, you're wrong. If you're not satisfied with a proponent's response, please frequent one of the other many fine sections available here on BAUT.

The second part is more difficult, but not by much. If you were holding a party where most of the people were behaving themselves well, but two people were yelling and screaming at one another, would you say, "Ok, party's over! Everyone leave, now!" Of course not. You'd give the two the boot and tell them they're not allowed back in until they can behave themselves.

When moderators close a thread without taking time to isolate and deal with the issue, it's a lot like Spec Ops drviving by, noticing the noise coming from one house, and lobbing a few grenades through the window. The party is shut down, people are hurt, reputations are injured, and what has transpired is left in a sordid state of affairs with no hope for repair.

The solution is simple:

Rule Suggestion: Contentious issues will be isolated to the (usually) one individual responsible for antagonizing the other in a rule-violating manner, and that individual will be dealt with appropriately.

I am only going to comment on this point, since this is obviously related to my action of closing Forrest Noble's thread.

I did not close the thread because I was asked to. I closed it because we had received one Reported Post from one participant and five or six Reported Posts from another participant, all within a span of about an hour. I had just happened to make a brief stop-in before bed and noticed no one had done anything. I am not familiar with the details of the thread and the complaints were such that a quick look was not going to quickly answer who did what to who. As far as I was concerned the choice were do nothing and let them keep banging away at each other, or temporaily shut it down. If you have a problem with the amount of time I am devoting to my moderator duties, you can complain to my supervisors. If they have a problem with it... well, maybe they need different moderators.

I reject your party analogy. I am not the one throwing this party (frankly, if it was up to me, I would have shutdown ATM a long time ago). The party analogy I would use is that I'm just the beat cop, investigating the noise complaint. I told the owners of the party house that they are done for the night. I left it for the judge to figure out the whole thing in the morning (and yes, this is a mediocre analogy).

[Swift]

Originally Posted by mugaliens

Come to think of it, I think any lack of clarity in the rules may be the greatest problem of all, but one that's the easiest to fix. If various people frequenting or moderating the ATM section have varying perspectives of the rules, that will naturally lead to contentious situations, and the continuing presence of these contentions indicates the rules are not clear, and are perhaps in need of a rewrite.

OK, I lied, I have one more comment, about this bit.

I do have to be careful here, because this relates to discussions among moderators (and admins), but I'm going to plow ahead anyway.

Some of the things in that paragraph are true. But I strongly disagree with "that's the easiest to fix". Even over the last few months there have been multiple discussions among the moderation team about how to fix the problems in ATM. We have not come anywhere close to a consensus on what that fix might be, and both minor tweaks and major changes have been discussed. And yes, comments in all the various threads, such as this one, have been taken into consideration. I have yet to see any proposed changes that even a significant majority of the moderation team could agree to, let alone that the membership would like.

And no, I have no solution, at least that anyone but me would like.

[Nereid]

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Nereid, to be blunt, we all have witnessed your very keen intellect and astounding calm.
I can name many members who have an almost inhuman ability to keep their cool.
So you know that this comment is not directed at you personally but...

Are you saying that mainstreamers badmouthing ATM'ers are Excusable due to their feeling frustrated?

That has never flown for me when I tried it on the Moderators. I got berated anyway.

Frustration is understandable. And we all know there are devious ATM'ers out there. But it's still not an excuse.

I thought you'd left Nev!

I am making no comment on what is acceptable, excusable, or even legible.

I am merely pointing out that two BAUT members can read every post in an ATM thread, many times over, and reach conclusions that are about as far apart as it is possible to imagine (e.g. "attempted intimidation" vs "flagrant, persistent evasion"). Mugs' post seems - to me - to rest in large part on the assumption that such dramatically different conclusions are rare, if not impossible (given the premise of careful and complete reading of all posts); I am questioning that assumption.

[Neverfly]

Originally Posted by Swift

Some of the things in that paragraph are true. But I strongly disagree with "that's the easiest to fix". Even over the last few months there have been multiple discussions among the moderation team about how to fix the problems in ATM. We have not come anywhere close to a consensus on what that fix might be, and both minor tweaks and major changes have been discussed. And yes, comments in all the various threads, such as this one, have been taken into consideration. I have yet to see any proposed changes that even a significant majority of the moderation team could agree to, let alone that the membership would like.

Well, only the certifiably insane can offer up truly crazy ideas...

So I will do one of the things that I do best:

What if ATM had... Umm... Less Rules?