Rules discussion

[HenrikOlsen]

Originally Posted by mugaliens

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.

The interesting thing about that, is that invariably, when someone raises that issue, they are people who have recently had a failed ATM taken down.
As such, it's not substantiation of something being wrong with the moderation but rather a substantiation if the idea that ATM'ers don't like to have rules for their soapbox even when it's sponsored by someone else.

[PetersCreek]

Originally Posted by mugaliens

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.

And that, my friend, is classic Argumentum ad numerum. That and the remainder of your observations/arguments weren't really supportive of forrest's sweeping accusation, that "[t]hreads in the ATM section are closed based upon personal reasons of the moderator with no explanations at all to the thread initiator."

As for the behavior of ATM discussion participants...on both sides...I agree that the tone of discussion in general needs to be improved. Some proponents need to recognize that being blunt is not necessarily the same thing as being rude (or intimidating) and that attacks on their theories are not personal attacks, no matter how much personal time, sweat, blood, or soul they've put into them. On the opponents' side, some do need to work on their people skills and on making their counter-arguments more dispassionately, without the invective I've seen more of lately...and have warned about.

Regarding unequal treatment...just as some opponents are given leeway in behavior, so are proponents...and I think the latter really, really don't appreciate just how much leeway that amounts to. We do let some transgressions go for the sake of the discussion or in the hope that they will self correct in good time...and believe me, that hope is more often futile than fulfilled. Overall, though, my impression is that enforcement of the rules in ATM is usually pretty equitable...if not blow-for-blow equal.

[Neverfly]

Originally Posted by Nereid

I thought you'd left Nev!

I have made an odd return, mostly because I have a bad attitude.
I love Swift and Josh to death. Can't help it- the characters are so likeable.
Even so, I am barraging this poor forum with posts so that they cannot keep up with me and notice all of my rule infractions.




Also, JREF was no fun. But my ears are still VERY open to suggestions for other science forums

Originally Posted by Nereid

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").

This is very true, too.

I cannot count on both hands how often I have perceived negativity directed toward me that may have not even existed.
The paranoid part of me wishes to reject the notion that I am over-reacting on the grounds that if I'm not over-reacting, I'm at least defending myself.

Originally Posted by Nereid

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.

I cannot vouch for what Mugs or yourself have observed.

Only your statement in comparison with what I have observed.

I have observed mainstreamers behave in a rude, condescending or insulting or derisive manner. To the ATM'er, who is already on the defensive, this kind of fuel for the fire is the worst.
Were I to speak to someone in the manner I have seen people talk to ATM'ers, I would be banned.
I know this because I have had Moderators discuss posts I have made which were much Less worthy of attention.
Whether or not the obviousness of rudeness is an assumption is a bit hard to demonstrate without using specific examples. I really (very strongly and always have on this forum) shied away from providing specific names and examples when discussing a general issue.
If you like, I can find many.

Your statement referred to the "Frustration".

Now, if I get frustrated in a debate in Babbling- and another is frustrated in a debate in ATM...

Why is it Seemingly acceptable in ATM but not for me in babbling?

Your statement did not say that it was unclear if people were rude to ATM'ers.
It said that they were frustrated.

[Swift]

Originally Posted by Neverfly

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?

Actually, that has been among the possibilites. One variant of it is sort of the Mosh Pit on FWIS (Neverfly will understand this, sorry to most of the rest to you). In other, it is sort of "cage match", and people can "just have at it", with most of the BAUT rules waived for that area. I personally am not very fond of the idea, and I think it has little support among the rest of the moderation team.

[Moose]

Originally Posted by Swift

If you have a problem with the amount of time I am devoting to my moderator duties, you can complain to my supervisors.

Just to amplify and extend:

I shouldn't have to explain this, but it's come up several times in the past few months.

So you know, guys, reporting the same thread more than once within, say, a day or so just wastes our time and ultimately delays our response.

Also, unless something's a no-brainer like adult images or spam, the mod team may need to discuss the issue before acting. For thornier issues (like ATM, typically, where we may need to establish context from scratch), that discussion can take several hours (or even a day or two) for the discussion to progress to the point where we have any sort of thoughtful consensus on what to do about it.

Time of day matters big, too. Every single member of the mod team have lives and responsibilities that don't involve having our backsides bolted to our PC chairs.

If you want 24-hour moderator coverage with 15 minute (or better) response times in your ATM thread, you will need to start contributing to our salaries.

[Neverfly]

Originally Posted by Swift

Actually, that has been among the possibilites. One variant of it is sort of the Mosh Pit on FWIS (Neverfly will understand this, sorry to most of the rest to you). In other, it is sort of "cage match", and people can "just have at it", with most of the BAUT rules waived for that area. I personally am not very fond of the idea, and I think it has little support among the rest of the moderation team.

What I was thinking, Swift...

How embarrassing to learn that there are other people as warped as I...

My thought was not so much the Mosh Pit type arena, however, as much as greater limitation on how evidence is presented, but also greater freedom in expression.

If an ATM presentation could be limited such that they are not slammed so hard, could not deviate from an explanation until it has passed challenge or the fear of banning being lifted when someone snaps- maybe a different flow might emerge.

That is to say, bring it from many rules to say- 2 rules:
--An ATM proponent cannot post additional information until he has satisfied a reasonable request for evidence
--Mainstream posters cannot ask for any evidence until the ATM'er has had a chance to satisfy the last.

Other than that, anything goes. After-all, the ATM arena on BAUT is not a true proving ground. It's unlikely that a peer reviewed journal will publish findings made on BAUT. It doesn't necessarily need to meet that kind of politeness standard.
But it would give the ATM'er a bit more footing.

It would also force the ATM'er to examine where his evidence is weak.

These are speculations off the top of my head and I have no idea whatsoever how practical it may be.

[Buttercup]

Just my 2 cents' worth: I find most ATM threads pointless. Most thread starters either can't or won't back up their claims; why bother in the first place? What makes them think they're smarter than the pro's? To each their own, but it seems ATM generates more negative and off-topic controversy than it's worth.

Of course I could be wrong.

[PetersCreek]

Originally Posted by Neverfly

That is to say, bring it from many rules to say- 2 rules:
--An ATM proponent cannot post additional information until he has satisfied a reasonable request for evidence
--Mainstream posters cannot ask for any evidence until the ATM'er has had a chance to satisfy the last.

This touches on something I've mentioned before in these kinds of discussions. It seems that quite a few ATM proponents are their own worst enemies when it comes to generating the volume of questions they complain about not being able to keep up with. Instead of focusing on one aspect of their claims and the questions that it inspires, some folks flit from one assertion to another, stirring up new questions every step of the way...as if kicking about in a field of dandelions. By the time they get around to answering questions, they have more than they can handle. Some focus sure would help, IMO.

[Swift]

Originally Posted by Nereid

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").

This is personally where I have the most difficulty in moderating ATM.

I do not have a Ph.D. in Physics. I will admit, a lot of the time, I do not understand enough of the material to get into details of many of these debates (as far as the technical aspects).

So, I have a thread where the ATM proponent is claiming that he has answered the question, and that the Mainstreamers are now just "intimidating him", and the Mainstreamers are saying, no that word-salad the ATM proponent keeps putting out means nothing and doesn't come close to answering the question, and they are avoiding the question.

Assuming that no one is doing anything flagrant, like calling the other person bad names, what is a mod to do?

And no, that is not a rhetorical question - I honestly do not know what to do.

[Neverfly]

Originally Posted by PetersCreek

Instead of focusing on one aspect of their claims and the questions that it inspires, some folks flit from one assertion to another, stirring up new questions every step of the way...as if kicking about in a field of dandelions..

Which is often a well known tactic- Confuse the enemy and then claim to have outsmarted him.

Originally Posted by Swift

This is personally where I have the most difficulty in moderating ATM.

I do not have a Ph.D. in Physics. I will admit, a lot of the time, I do not understand enough of the material to get into details of many of these debates (as far as the technical aspects).

So, I have a thread where the ATM proponent is claiming that he has answered the question, and that the Mainstreamers are now just "intimidating him", and the Mainstreamers are saying, no that word-salad the ATM proponent keeps putting out means nothing and doesn't come close to answering the question, and they are avoiding the question.

Assuming that no one is doing anything flagrant, like calling the other person bad names, what is a mod to do?

And no, that is not a rhetorical question - I honestly do not know what to do.

Even a well rounded physicist would have difficulty with that dilemma, Swift.

One thought I had was to have the ATM'er present a case and ( I hate to use this word) have the knowledgeable mainstreamers act like a committee and analyze it, then spit it back to him as an editor would spit back a manuscript.
Repeat his post back to him without any word salad and see how he responds.

[Nereid]

Originally Posted by Neverfly

[...]

I cannot vouch for what Mugs or yourself have observed.

Only your statement in comparison with what I have observed.

I have observed mainstreamers behave in a rude, condescending or insulting or derisive manner. To the ATM'er, who is already on the defensive, this kind of fuel for the fire is the worst.

Perhaps rudeness, etc, is like beauty?

If you perceive rudeness (etc), perhaps you could say so, and ask the BAUT member whose writing seems rudeness to you for clarification?

Etc.

Were I to speak to someone in the manner I have seen people talk to ATM'ers, I would be banned.
I know this because I have had Moderators discuss posts I have made which were much Less worthy of attention.
Whether or not the obviousness of rudeness is an assumption is a bit hard to demonstrate without using specific examples. I really (very strongly and always have on this forum) shied away from providing specific names and examples when discussing a general issue.
If you like, I can find many.

Thanks, but no thanks.

Your statement referred to the "Frustration".

Now, if I get frustrated in a debate in Babbling- and another is frustrated in a debate in ATM...

Why is it Seemingly acceptable in ATM but not for me in babbling?

Your statement did not say that it was unclear if people were rude to ATM'ers.
It said that they were frustrated.

One can, of course, be frustrated without writing frustrated (if you see what I mean).

My comment was intended to refer only to perception (you perceive intimidation, I feel frustration); these are internal to the relevant BAUT members, and have nothing directly to do with actual words they may, or may not, write (except, of course, if they write "I perceive {text} as attempted intimidation", etc).

[Swift]

Originally Posted by Neverfly

My thought was not so much the Mosh Pit type arena, however, as much as greater limitation on how evidence is presented, but also greater freedom in expression.

If an ATM presentation could be limited such that they are not slammed so hard, could not deviate from an explanation until it has passed challenge or the fear of banning being lifted when someone snaps- maybe a different flow might emerge.

I should mention another variant of this that Moose recently proposed. It would create basically two levels of ATM. The first would be of a style similar to what you said - in particular, it would waive the requirement you had to answer questions (you still would need to be polite, etc.). However, your thread would only be open for 2 days. So you would need to really do your homework, have all your ducks in a row, etc.

In order for the thread to graduate to the next level, the idea would have to be deemed worthy enough to attract a sponsor. The nature of the sponsor is still somewhat unclear (at least to me), but would be a senior member of some sort, who thinks the idea worthy of further consideration (it couldn't be the OP, for example). At this higher level, the thread is open for much longer than 30 days.

This kind of gives lots of people a swing at ATM (but really only one swing), with limited "intimidation", but narrows the survivors to a very select few that could be carefully watched.

I find the idea attractive, but it has many bugs still to work out, and is far from a consensus among the moderation team.

Again, I mostly mention it to point out that we are trying to think this through.

[Swift]

Originally Posted by Neverfly

One thought I had was to have the ATM'er present a case and ( I hate to use this word) have the knowledgeable mainstreamers act like a committee and analyze it, then spit it back to him as an editor would spit back a manuscript.
Repeat his post back to him without any word salad and see how he responds.

Which is similar to other ideas that have proposed - some sort of gatekeeper, or Moose's "sponsor", or an editor, etc., etc.

First, in a sense, it is against the idea of an open forum where everyone is allowed to respond to everything. You set up a subset of the membership who are the ones that are allowed to judge/comment.

Second, we would need to create that committee. You know that the membership of that committee will become a matter of debate. I know if I was an ATM proponent, I would claim "you can't pick XYZZY, they've always hated me".

[Nereid]

Originally Posted by Swift

This is personally where I have the most difficulty in moderating ATM.

I do not have a Ph.D. in Physics. I will admit, a lot of the time, I do not understand enough of the material to get into details of many of these debates (as far as the technical aspects).

So, I have a thread where the ATM proponent is claiming that he has answered the question, and that the Mainstreamers are now just "intimidating him", and the Mainstreamers are saying, no that word-salad the ATM proponent keeps putting out means nothing and doesn't come close to answering the question, and they are avoiding the question.

Assuming that no one is doing anything flagrant, like calling the other person bad names, what is a mod to do?

And no, that is not a rhetorical question - I honestly do not know what to do.

If it's any consolation, Swift, having a PhD in astrophysics would likely make little difference (I addressed at least one set of reasons why in How to make discussions of ATM ideas less frustrating - a suggestion - in a nutshell, a discussion requires a minimum of common understanding, which is often missing in ATM threads, even concerning quite basic concepts and methods).

And there's a quite recent example (though the PhD the mod has is in space physics, not astrophysics) ... if the ATM idea rests on a radically different definition of 'current', if the proponent doesn't recognise how radical his definition is, and so on, I submit that Alfvén himself would be stumped*.

* actually not; he'd likely lose his cool and be banned (apparently he "did not suffer fools gladly", as the saying goes)

[Moose]

Originally Posted by Swift

The nature of the sponsor is still somewhat unclear (at least to me), but would be a senior member of some sort, who thinks the idea worthy of further consideration (it couldn't be the OP, for example). At this higher level, the thread is open for much longer than 30 days.

The very basic idea was that members with a very clean record over a significant posting history* could report short-term ATM threads to point out high-quality short-term ATMs to the mod team for a closer look.

(* I suggested Kilopied members because of the long posting history and we already have that part of the infrastructure.)

But ultimately, if a moderator becomes aware of a short-term ATM thread, a proposal which seems well prepared, and with some assurances that the ATMer is ready for what will be expected of him, we can move the thread to a semi-closed ATM forum for a more rigorous defense with the usual Rule 13 responsibilities, but a stronger overall decorum requirement.

There are additional details, but those are most of the high points.

[Neverfly]

Originally Posted by Nereid

Perhaps rudeness, etc, is like beauty?

If so, I'm gorgeous.

Originally Posted by Nereid

My comment was intended to refer only to perception (you perceive intimidation, I feel frustration); these are internal to the relevant BAUT members, and have nothing directly to do with actual words they may, or may not, write (except, of course, if they write "I perceive {text} as attempted intimidation", etc).

I can often see how ATM'ers would feel intimidated, however.

Originally Posted by Swift

In order for the thread to graduate to the next level, the idea would have to be deemed worthy enough to attract a sponsor. The nature of the sponsor is still somewhat unclear (at least to me), but would be a senior member of some sort, who thinks the idea worthy of further consideration (it couldn't be the OP, for example). At this higher level, the thread is open for much longer than 30 days.

For either sponsor or a (urk) committee... who would actually volunteer for that kind of task?

[Moose]

Originally Posted by Neverfly

For either sponsor or a (urk) committee... who would actually volunteer for that kind of task?

Exactly.

Actually, the driving requirement of my proposal was that every step be as passive as possible. Nobody is required to read ATM threads. Nobody is required to sponsor them. [Edit to add: And a sponsor gains no special responsibilities towards that thread by sponsoring.] The mod team isn't going to moderate that thread for content, and we're not going to go looking for good ATMs unless an individual mod enjoys doing that sort of thing.

If, however, a thread's interesting enough to attract someone's attention, and if its merit is successfully brought to the attention of a mod, then we would have a mechanism in place where we can relax the time rules while strengthening the decorum rules.

It's still a plus because that proponent would tend to have the ATM community's undivided attention. The price of that attention would be that the ATM really would need to be fully baked, up front.

What _I'd_ be looking for in a baked ATM would be something like this:

Originally Posted by Advice for ATMers seeking to increase their chances

Such (qualifying) ATMs:
* Must make quantifiable, mathematical predictions that can be tested by data, that is to say, by observation or by experiment.
* Must demonstrate that it explains available data (observations and experiments) at least as well as the mainstream model it seeks to replace.
* For ATMs that seek to improve upon an existing model, the 'improvements' must be supported by data in thread, or must clearly describe an experiment to obtain such data.

[mugaliens]

Originally Posted by Nereid

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

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

I concur, Nereid, having often seen ATM proponents ignore simple, direct, pertininent questions which do not fall into my previously-mentioned examples of inappropriate commentator behavior. Willfully ignoring comments/questions which are appropriate is indeed grounds for action.

My concern has been the failure on the part of some mods to differentiate between appropriate commentator input, which should never be ignored by an ATM proponent, and imappropriate commentator input, which deserves a raspberry, at best, but which should most certainly be ignored, if not reported. There was a tendancy to blindly consider all commentator questions as legitimate, and hold the ATM proponent's feet to the fire to answer all questions, period, bar none, or be banned for failure to adhere to the ATM rules! (insert maniacle laugh)

Obviously, the failure to distinguish between appropriate and inappropriate commentator behavior lead to several ATM meltdowns, but fortunately, is an issue which appears to be in the process of being addressed.

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

Also agreed, as evidenced by inappropriate actions on the part of both ATM proponents as well as commentators.

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.

As previously mentioned, I believe it stems from several things:

1. ATM rules which are unclear

2. ATM rules which appear to absolve commentator responsibility

3. Unequal moderator enforcement of all the board's rules (not just the ATM rules) in the ATM section

We'll always have ATM proponents who believe their pet theories aren't being given a fair shake when others don't immediately buy off on it, just as we'll always have commentators who believe any ATM proponent is out to lunch.

We can't change either one of these. What we can do is to rewrite the ATM rules to remove all ambiguity while reflecting the existing forum rules. Additional ATM rules should reflect the fact that this will never replace peer-review process, and is far better suited for the sort of collaborative discussions researchers do between the conception of an idea and its final publication elsewhere. Beyond that, consistent enforcement of the rules in the ATM section would be a plus.

vBulletin provides for the ability to assign moderators to different sections. It needed get that complicated, but if you find an active mod who is good at being objective and who wants the job, giving them primary enforcement of the ATM section may help, as well. It's common practice on most larger boards to divide mod duties in this way, and I'm surprised it hasn't happened here on BAUT, given the diverse backgrounds, skills, and abilities of both users and mods.

Something along the lines of this:

Mods and sections to which they're assigned:

captain swoop - 1,3,5,6,7
chrissy - 5,6,9,11
HenrikOlsen - 3,6,7,8
hhEb09'1 - 2,3,6,7
Jim - 2,3,5
Josh - 5,6,7,8,9
Moose - 1,2,4,7,8
etc.

Again, this is cake in vBulletin, and organized by sections, not mods, and includes some very attractive benefits:

1. Reported posts are sent only to those mods who're listed as mods for those sections.

2. Mods would know which sections are their responsibility and so wouldn't feel distressed at having to police the entire board.

3. If the admins encounter a mod overstepping bounds in one section, simply remove their name from that section's list. They can still post, can still post in color, can still ban members for inappropriate behavior, but they wouldn't be able to modify posts, delete posts, or merge or close threads.

BAUT is a terrific forum, make no doubt about it! But it is by no means all that it can be, and has a lot of room for both improvement and growth. Getting there from here, however, requires a vision of where it is the owners want this forum to go, the ability to solicit input from the mods and regular members, clear, sound leadership to move things along, and the technical expertise to do so in a way that leverages vBulletin's strengths to result in the best product for all involved.

[Swift]

Originally Posted by Neverfly

For either sponsor or a (urk) committee... who would actually volunteer for that kind of task?

For some sort of editorial committee, that is a very good question, and should have been point # 3 in my post as to why that won't work. I certainly am not volunteering.

For the sponsor, Moose is better at answering that, but if I understand it right, it could be any member who meets the criteria of a sponsor. For example, any member at kilopi posts or higher, and they are not the proponent of the idea. But other than them saying "hey, this is a cool idea, let's raise it to level 2", they have no continuing responsibilites after that.

[mugaliens]

Originally Posted by Swift

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 understand fully, Swift. Sometimes quick action, including the closing of a thread is necessary in order to get some shut-eye! No mod or admin should be expected to stay up until three a.m. sorting things out when they're working and the alarm is set for 6 a.m. I've done that, too, and usually leave a simple, "Thread out of hand. Closed for 24 hours" which gives me enough time to tackle it the next day.

In short, I agree wholeheartedly with the need to temporarily shut down a thread.

My focus in responding to forrest's post is that I've heard this issue many times here on BAUT, have experienced it myself, and have seen it many other places, too. I commented because the issue is one that's easily solved, provided the root issue is identified and appropriately addressed. It pains me to see this issue drag on for two years here on BAUT after having fixed it elsewhere in a matter of days.

If you have a problem with the amount of time I am devoting to my moderator duties...

Not I!

...well, maybe they need different moderators.

By and large the ones you have here are fine. It doesn't hurt to bring in fresh or experienced talent on a steady basis, though, both to add to the experience of the group and prevent stagnation.

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).

I'll buy that.

[captain swoop]

Originally Posted by 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!!!

When another ATM idea is posted into a thread it distracts from the OP and causes confusin even if the idea is similar to the OP.
There is a 30 day limit on an ATM thread and it's not fair on the OP to confuse the issues.
One idea to one thread. It's not a matter of 'isolating' the OP so he can be 'ganged up on' It's about giving the OP chance to support his idea and answer questions without it being hi-jacked by another ATMer trying to Spam their own idea across the board.

If an ATMer is convinvced their idea is right they start their own thread. If they have already had a thread and it's had its 30 days they need to bring something new to it or they have had their cick at the can.

My 'Tirade' is nothing more than an attempt to enforce the rules of the forum. If that upsets posters attempting a thread-jack they can report it in the usual way.

[HenrikOlsen]

Originally Posted by captain swoop

When another ATM idea is posted into a thread it distracts from the OP and causes confusion even if the idea is similar to the OP.

I'd say it causes confusion especially when the idea is similar, since it can be really hard from context to figure out which of the two ATM ideas are being discussed by whom.

[Nereid]

Originally Posted by HenrikOlsen

I'd say it causes confusion especially when the idea is similar, since it can be really hard from context to figure out which of the two ATM ideas are being discussed by whom.

And the ATM thread that kicked off this latest round of posts here is a textbook perfect example of exactly that.

Specifically, the OP answered some key, fundamental questions about the ATM idea presented in one way, explicitly endorsed a post - by a different BAUT member - containing what seems to be an almost identical ATM idea, yet within 24 hours that second (non-OP) ATMer posted answers to the very same questions that were almost exactly the opposite (of how the OP had answered them)! A more certain recipe for a train-wreck-waiting-to-happen would be hard to describe ...

[mugaliens]

Originally Posted by Nereid

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.

Not at all. It's because of the disparity of perception between readers that I made a recommendation concerning the rules.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

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

Actually, the recommendation I made was for the ATM rules to be re-written so they were more clear, less ambiguous, and more objective.

[mugaliens]

Originally Posted by HenrikOlsen

The interesting thing about that, is that invariably, when someone raises that issue, they are people who have recently had a failed ATM taken down.

Nein, Herr Heinrik. Non-participating readers share these perceptions, too. Without a vested interest in the issue, however, you're unlikely to hear from them.

[Neverfly]

Originally Posted by mugaliens

Nein, Herr Heinrik. Non-participating readers share these perceptions, too. Without a vested interest in the issue, however, you're unlikely to hear from them.

Speaking for myself, I jumped into the middle of this one with OLD complaints that the Mods are already well aware of.

What I mentioned had nothing to do with Forrest Nobel or his thread, nor had I any complaints with that thread- which is irony... As that is what happens in ATM threads that the Mods just recently pointed out.

[Spoons]

I think what Neverfly has mentioned here about question flooding is a key issue.

Some people may have slight variations on questions which have already been raised, and while it is reasonable for them to ask the question, I think that a bit more structure would lead to a much neater and more productive outcome for all involved.

Some of the least productive threads have been ones where an OP may be absent for a period of time, and upon their return they have 20 something questions to tend to. In the end either none get answered or often the questioner who shouts loudest (continually repeats the question) gets what they want.

I don't know how this would be managed / moderated, but I do think that just as an ATM proponent shouldn't spray multiple statements, so queriers shouldn't launch barrages of questions at once.

One at a time, each side of the table, would be easier to follow. Just my 2 cents.

[RussT]

Originally Posted by RussT

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.

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)

So, evidently I need to post this as a direct question to ALL the Mods...

If an OP asks a direction question of a responder, can said responder answer that question with what they understand to be the correct workings of Our Universe???

[PetersCreek]

Originally Posted by RussT

So, evidently I need to post this as a direct question to ALL the Mods...

If an OP asks a direction question of a responder, can said responder answer that question with what they understand to be the correct workings of Our Universe???

As long as the question is relevant/appropriate, sure. It happens all the time in ATM with little-to-no bloodshed. The trouble with questions usually starts when answers about the mainstream are demanded or when an OP uses those questions as a means of shifting the burden of proof.

[captain swoop]

Proof shifting is common, it seems to be a standard ATM tactic.