Rules discussion

[mugaliens]

Originally Posted by 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.

I agree!

...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.

Unfortunately, that winds up rewarding exceptionally rude behavior.

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.

Agreed, and I've witnessed a similar pattern, where the same question was asked over many identical posts, even though it was either answered in the OP, or after the first post. The poster thought otherwise, and instead of clarifying his question, as asked, he kept repeating it, and thereby derailed the entire thread.

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

That's a good idea, though I'm not sure how the que would be managed given the limitations of the software that runs this forum.

[Nereid]

Originally Posted by mugaliens

[...]

That's a good idea, though I'm not sure how the que would be managed given the limitations of the software that runs this forum.

Actually, I think it's an awful idea.

It's far too easy to game it ... simply load the OP with all your fave ATM ideas, and in every post in which you say you're replying to the question at the top of the queue, give a non-answer, followed by yet another piece of marketing fluff (the longer the better).

Of course I'm not providing a playbook for a BAUT member determined to (ab)use the ATM section as a marketing vehicle ... this sort of approach is quite common (and there are many ways to vary the game).

[aastrotech]

Originally Posted by captain swoop

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

The rules don't say anyone has a burden of proof. It says defend your claims. The owner say this applies to both sides.

[Neverfly]

Originally Posted by Nereid

Actually, I think it's an awful idea.

It's far too easy to game it ... simply load the OP with all your fave ATM ideas, and in every post in which you say you're replying to the question at the top of the queue, give a non-answer, followed by yet another piece of marketing fluff (the longer the better).

Of course I'm not providing a playbook for a BAUT member determined to (ab)use the ATM section as a marketing vehicle ... this sort of approach is quite common (and there are many ways to vary the game).

Very true.

From cherry picking to word salad to shift, move, fire, shift, move, fire- an ATM proponent can "answer" many questions without answering them and then claim that he has answered them.

This leads the opponent to repeat the question.
It leads the opponent to point out that the answer was word salad.

Sometimes, a Mainstreamer can be VERY rude or insulting in his delivery of stating such.

I, personally, don't really buy it if someone says that they believe they have satisfactorily answered a question.
Because had they, the questioners would have been satisfied.

It's hard work-(But I have little sympathy because I have had to work hard on examining my behavior on this board)but the questioners must examine HOW they repeat questions and explain WHY a question was not answered.

It's hard work- but the ATM proponent must compose himself and try to answer as best he can, explain what he understands are his weaknesses in his support and try to gain knowledge rather than just Fight.

But hard work means overcoming nature. It's very hard.

You cannot FORCE a person.

No matter how obtuse the behavior of a proponent may seem- a moderator will still be the "Bad Guy" if he/she tries to force the proponent.

[Neverfly]

Originally Posted by aastrotech

The rules don't say anyone has a burden of proof. It says defend your claims. The owner say this applies to both sides.

It's unpopular, but I agree.

An ATM proponent can easily shift the burden of proof.

ATM: I claim "Such"
Opponent: "Such" is in direct contradiction with "mainstream View."
ATM: Prove that "Mainstream view" is true.

Any claim made should be supported with evidence. However, an ATM proponent can use that to create confusion and not progress in the thread.

An ATM'er must actually support his claims alone. Not try to "disprove" maintstream.
He/she should defend his proposition, not attack the opposition.

[Buttercup]

I think I'm going to start an ATM thread concerning my belief that Saturn's rings are made of crushed bits of Reese's Peanut Butter Cups.

At least I hope they are.

Let's see some of the brainiacs here try to DISPROVE me!

[captain swoop]

It would be for you to provide support for your claim, not for 'brainiacs' to disprove.

[Buttercup]

No matter, I'm sure I've already lost.

[HenrikOlsen]

Originally Posted by Neverfly

ATM: I claim "Such"
Opponent: "Such" is in direct contradiction with "mainstream View."
ATM: Prove that "Mainstream view" is true.

A rather irritating trend by some ATM'ers have recently been that instead of the exchange you just mentioned we get:

ATM: I claim "Such".
Opponent: But that can't be because mainstream says "Thus" which is in contradiction.
ATM: mainstream doesn't say "Thus", you're an ATM'er so according to the rules you have to prove "Thus".
Opponent: If you read this textbook reference you can see that mainstream does say "Thus", now show how you resolve the contradiction.
ATM: mainstream doesn't say "Thus", you're an ATM'er so according to the rules you have to prove "Thus".
Opponent: If you read this other textbook reference you can clearly see that mainstream does say "Thus", now show how you resolve the contradiction.
ATM: mainstream doesn't say "Thus", you're an ATM'er so according to the rules you have to prove "Thus".
Opponent: If you read this other textbook reference you can clearly see that mainstream does say "Thus", now show how you resolve the contradiction dammit.
Opponent reported for bad language.

Repeat until someone loses calm and thread is closed or until 30 days, whichever comes first.

[Neverfly]

Originally Posted by HenrikOlsen

ATM: I claim "Such".
Opponent: But that can't be because mainstream says "Thus" which is in contradiction.
ATM: mainstream doesn't say "Thus", you're an ATM'er so according to the rules you have to prove "Thus".
Opponent: If you read this textbook reference you can see that mainstream does say "Thus", now show how you resolve the contradiction.
ATM: mainstream doesn't say "Thus", you're an ATM'er so according to the rules you have to prove "Thus".
Opponent: If you read this other textbook reference you can clearly see that mainstream does say "Thus", now show how you resolve the contradiction.
ATM: mainstream doesn't say "Thus", you're an ATM'er so according to the rules you have to prove "Thus".
Opponent: If you read this other textbook reference you can clearly see that mainstream does say "Thus", now show how you resolve the contradiction dammit.
Opponent reported for bad language.

You know, that was much more fun to read than most of the threads in ATM.

Maybe you should just close the ATM forum and keep doing the above here. Seems much simpler.

[Nereid]

Originally Posted by HenrikOlsen

A rather irritating trend by some ATM'ers have recently been that instead of the exchange you just mentioned we get:

ATM: I claim "Such".
Opponent: But that can't be because mainstream says "Thus" which is in contradiction.
ATM: mainstream doesn't say "Thus", you're an ATM'er so according to the rules you have to prove "Thus".
Opponent: If you read this textbook reference you can see that mainstream does say "Thus", now show how you resolve the contradiction.
ATM: mainstream doesn't say "Thus", you're an ATM'er so according to the rules you have to prove "Thus".
Opponent: If you read this other textbook reference you can clearly see that mainstream does say "Thus", now show how you resolve the contradiction.
ATM: mainstream doesn't say "Thus", you're an ATM'er so according to the rules you have to prove "Thus".
Opponent: If you read this other textbook reference you can clearly see that mainstream does say "Thus", now show how you resolve the contradiction dammit.
Opponent reported for bad language.

Repeat until someone loses calm and thread is closed or until 30 days, whichever comes first.

This specific approach may be new, but the general one - do everything you possibly can to push Opponent's buttons, as often and as hard as you can so they eventually lose it and get banned - is as old as the ATM section itself.

Works the other way too - some Opponents seem to delight in finding ways to make ATM go postal.

The ATM section is not for people with thin skins, no matter how large the letters in the "Be Nice" guideline are.

[captain swoop]

Originally Posted by HenrikOlsen

A rather irritating trend by some ATM'ers have recently been that instead of the exchange you just mentioned we get:

ATM: I claim "Such".
Opponent: But that can't be because mainstream says "Thus" which is in contradiction.
ATM: mainstream doesn't say "Thus", you're an ATM'er so according to the rules you have to prove "Thus".
Opponent: If you read this textbook reference you can see that mainstream does say "Thus", now show how you resolve the contradiction.
ATM: mainstream doesn't say "Thus", you're an ATM'er so according to the rules you have to prove "Thus".
Opponent: If you read this other textbook reference you can clearly see that mainstream does say "Thus", now show how you resolve the contradiction.
ATM: mainstream doesn't say "Thus", you're an ATM'er so according to the rules you have to prove "Thus".
Opponent: If you read this other textbook reference you can clearly see that mainstream does say "Thus", now show how you resolve the contradiction dammit.
Opponent reported for bad language.

Repeat until someone loses calm and thread is closed or until 30 days, whichever comes first.

And I have seen one example of this recently that claimed all of the Mainstream were effectively ATM.

[Spoons]

I really dislike when people just charge into ATM and blatantly state that "mainstream is wrong!", and then think that puts their idea on a level playing field, with automatically as much merit as the mainstream or any other ideas.

It would be nice if mainstream could not just be directly challenged, but instead for someone to try prove their ATM idea, and if it gets to the point where some valid points regarding their ATM idea conflict with mainstream ideas, only then can the mainstream be compared and questioned.

Of course, this is being too idealistic I suppose, though if someone is rational and genuine in their proposal I shouldn't think it would be too much to ask.

If they really want support for their idea it is a poor tactic to shore up one line of thought by attacking another - it stinks of political games. If I believe in an idea I'd want it to stand on it's own two feet, not lean it against a dead horse.

I appreciate the position the moderators are in though - how to sift through them all and discern genuine OP's from trolls in the first place without seeming oppressive is a troublesome issue.

[Neverfly]

Originally Posted by Spoons

I really dislike when people just charge into ATM and blatantly state that "mainstream is wrong!", and then think that puts their idea on a level playing field, with automatically as much merit as the mainstream or any other ideas.

It would be nice if mainstream could not just be directly challenged, but instead for someone to try prove their ATM idea, and if it gets to the point where some valid points regarding their ATM idea conflict with mainstream ideas, only then can the mainstream be compared and questioned.

Of course, this is being too idealistic I suppose, though if someone is rational and genuine in their proposal I shouldn't think it would be too much to ask.

If they really want support for their idea it is a poor tactic to shore up one line of thought by attacking another - it stinks of political games. If I believe in an idea I'd want it to stand on it's own two feet, not lean it against a dead horse.

I appreciate the position the moderators are in though - how to sift through them all and discern genuine OP's from trolls in the first place without seeming oppressive is a troublesome issue.

This is excellently put on a couple points- that I'd like to expand on.

ATM is important.

To challenge mainstream thinking and mainstream ideas is not only a great thing- it's SCIENCE.
On this forum, however, much of the mainstream has been analyzed and recorded and tested by a great many highly capable people in the field. It's a bit unlikely that an ATM idea presented on this forum would lead to a scientific discovery. You never know...
But what it does allow is for the minds of the readers to expand. To poke and prod. To learn about their misconceptions about the mainstream, to question the mainstream and to think in terms of evidence and not of faith.

Which is part of the trouble... Many ATM proponents see the mainstreamers as "faithful" to scientific theory.
A true scientist does not work that way. A true scientist is happy to scrap his pet theory in favor of a better theory.

As long as ATM'ers show up at the door in a defensive mindframe, they will see the mainstreamers as rigid and 'faithful.'


The other point is the Moderation. I imagine that moderating an ATM topic must be a frustratingly difficult task.
Any action a Moderator takes in the ATM forum will make them the Bad Guy to one side or the other.
I think this is why the Moderators need a more fair playing field in ATM.
To lessen the defensiveness on ATMers so that they can challenge the mainstream comfortably and to support the mainstream when it's trolled or attacked as you described.


ETA: I wanted to expand on it as I noticed some commentary suggesting to do away with ATM.(urk)

[forrest noble]

This is a thread concerning the rules. I have experienced a number of recent problems that I think could be resolved by more explicit rules. The first problem is this: Someone makes a comment on a thread concerning an ATM topic of a thread not in the ATM section. ...... such as: "don't assume that one side is right and the other side wrong. I think in some cases the mainstream position is wrong." This entire posting was censured and removed claiming it is an ATM proposal when the subject of the thread is how to make the ATM section better. This is a prime example of a problem not covered by the rules.

The question is What is an ATM proposal as interpreted by the rules. Simply claiming I believe, I assert, it is my opinion, that some mainstream theories are wrong is an ATM proposal requiring defense? A simple warning seemingly would have sufficed if thought necessary. The rules should explain what the meaning of an ATM proposal is exactly. I think Censorship should not be allowed unless a posting or sentence explicitly violates the rules and the definitions therein.

The second problem is related: In the ATM section someone says there is a ATM proposal that says this and that. The mainstreamer says that's an argument that's been disproved based upon XYZ. Another commentator says: but there are still yet other arguments and proposals A,B, C, & D that have also be proposed (even though the commentator does not adhere to any of these ATM proposals). The mainstreamer complains to a moderator that the commentator is making ATM claims. A Moderator says you must defend your ATM proposals. Commentator says these are not my ATM proposals. "Do you expect me to defend ideas I don't even believe in?" Moderator: 3 days suspension to commentator for failure to defend his ATM ideas.

Again a real problem with the definition/ interpretation of what an ATM proposal is. In this case suspension involved the mentioning of somebody else's well published ATM ideas in defense of the OP caused a 3 day suspension.

A third problem not clarified by the rules, is arguments in defense of the OP : In most cases only people whose arguments are against the ATM proposal are allowed to continue. Those who have points which lend support to the OP are warned to open their own thread and sometimes there comments are stripped from the thread when they are in perfect agreement with the OP. It would seem only when a new unrelated proposal is made should such a warning be given or action taken.

A forth problem involves another type of thread highjacking in the ATM section not included in the rules. I have only seen this in my own ATM threads but I expect it has happened a number of times to others. The mainstream-proponent asks so many questions at one time the OP cannot possibly answer all the questions immediately since sometimes it would take days to answer just this one mainstream-proponent including asking questions over and over again that have already been answered maybe attempting to seriously annoy, intimidate, or discredit the OP. The mainstream-proponent complains to moderation whereby moderation says to the OP -- that you must answer only mainstream-proponents questions and none from others. An effective form of highjacking by the ATM proponent since the OP can no longer explain the OP proposal because of a highjack. All the mainstream-proponent has to do is keep on complaining to moderation.

The fifth serious problem not explicitly discussed in the rules is moderator bias. In this and other threads it has been discussed that violations should be reported. I never did so until recently at which time no response came regarding my specific complaints concerning rudeness, sarcasm, and attempted intimidation. One responder answered my comment by saying "let there be no doubt this is sarcasm." The response to my complaints was to close my thread for 24 hours, saying cool off, not addressing in the slightest way my complaints. The problem is this. There is a strong moderator favoritism to the ATM adversary and position, in direct violation of the spirit of BAUT and I think the desires of its owners.

A sixth problem concerning the rules is: Moderators use personal discretion in interpreting the rules where nothing is explicitly stated. Moderators have used their own interpretations to make seemingly biased decisions. I believe that the rules should suggest that only an administrator should make decisions not explicitly covered by the rules or those rules that might be considered ambiguous.

Since this thread has been left open I think a service is being done since these rule violations and issues have a venue to be aired; it seems to me that since the posting of this thread some moderators are acting more responsibly and evenhandedly but I believe there's still a long way to go to completely eliminate moderator bias in the ATM section.

[Neverfly]

I'm going to comment on your post, for no other reason than that so moderators can see a poster who currently is mainstream, a reader, a vaguely active participant in the ATM forum's views:

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Someone makes a comment on a thread concerning an ATM topic of a thread not in the ATM section. ...... such as: "don't assume that one side is right and the other side wrong. I think in some cases the mainstream position is wrong." This entire posting was censured and removed claiming it is an ATM proposal when the subject of the thread is how to make the ATM section better.

I agree. Simply stating an open opinion of such should not be treated as if it's taboo.

ETA: Myself and others have often stated our misgivings on Dark Matter etc in Q&A...
However, none of us have ever proposed an ATM hypothesis to account for Dark Matter, either...

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Simply claiming I believe, I assert, it is my opinion, that some mainstream theories are wrong is an ATM proposal requiring defense?

That, in itself, should not require a defense.

It's not unusual for ATM'ers to start out innocently like that but then hijack the thread later with their proposal.

So a Mod may have felt you were leading up to it.
Simply put- best to wait and cross the bridge when you come to it.

Originally Posted by forrest noble

In the ATM section someone says there is a ATM proposal that says this and that. The mainstreamer says that's an argument that's been disproved based upon XYZ. Another commentator says: but there are still yet other arguments and proposals A,B, C, & D that have also be proposed (even though the commentator does not adhere to any of these ATM proposals. The mainstreamer complains to a moderator that the commentator is making ATM claims. A Moderator says you must defend your ATM proposals. Commentator says these are not my proposals. Do you expect me to defend ideas I don't even believe in? Moderator: 3 days suspension to commentator for failure to defend his ATM ideas.

This sounds like a case of Confusion.
A misunderstanding can happen. I know how it feels to be suspended and to feel angry about it.

Originally Posted by forrest noble

In most cases only people whose arguments are against the ATM proposal are allowed to continue. Those who have points which lend support to the OP are warned to open their own thread and sometimes there comments are stripped from the thread when they are in perfect agreement with the OP. It would seem only when a new unrelated proposal is made should such a warning be given.

I disagree.

You might, at times, THINK someone is supporting your ATM, but then differences come up later and you end up a tangle of arms and legs brawling on the floor in confusion.

It's best to stick with ONE atm proposal at a time. It's the nature of a "proving ground."

Originally Posted by forrest noble

The mainstream-proponent asks so many questions at one time the OP cannot possibly answer all the questions immediately since sometimes it would take days to answer just this one mainstream-proponent including asking questions over and over again that have already been answered maybe attempting to seriously annoy, intimidate, or discredit the OP. The mainstream-proponent complains to moderation whereby moderation says to the OP -- that you must answer only mainstream-proponents questions and none from others. An effective form of highjacking by the ATM proponent since the OP can no longer explain the OP proposal because of a highjack. All the mainstream-proponent has to do is keep on complaining to moderation.

I agree to a degree.
And this is my beef too.
An ATM proponent gets very swamped. And when you are dealing with heavy probabilities and hard math- it can take a while to effectively answer a question.
You end up trying to answer the same way as folks do in Q&A. Analogies and such.
Many give Word Salad as an answer. But many really do try to answer as best they can and still get accused of not answering.

But there's an easy way out of this. Coordinate with amoderator to Lock the Thread in between answering.
So say you get a tough question and you need to research your answer and crunch some numbers.
Request a mod locks the thread until your return.

Originally Posted by forrest noble

In this and other threads it has been discussed that violations should be reported. I never did so until recently at which time no response came regarding my specific complaints concerning rudeness, sarcasm, and attempted intimidation. One responder answered my comment by saying "let there be no doubt this is sarcasm." The response to my complaints was to close my thread for 24 hours, saying cool off, not addressing in the slightest way my complaints. The problem is this. There is a strong moderator favoritism to the ATM adversary and position, in direct violation of the spirit of BAUT and I think the desires of its owners.

This particular situation has been covered above. It was addressed by the Mod who temporarily locked the thread. It was pretty clear what happened and why- so please scroll up to read that.

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Moderators use personal discretion in interpreting the rules where nothing is explicitly stated. Moderators have used their own interpretations to make seemingly biased decisions.

I agree with this one.
However, the mods do discuss among themselves and they do answer to eachother.

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Since this thread has been left open I think a service is being done since these rule violations and issues have a venue to be aired; it seems to me that since the posting of this thread some moderators are acting more responsibly and evenhandedly but I believe there's still a long way to go to completely eliminate moderator bias in the ATM section.

I agree too. A public area to air out grievances is a Great Thing.

Sure wish I had had one...

Anyway- my take on all these as a poster and reader returning from a suspension of my own.

[forrest noble]

Neverfly,

ATM is important.

To challenge mainstream thinking and mainstream ideas is not only a great thing- it's SCIENCE.
On this forum, however, much of the mainstream has been analyzed and recorded and tested by a great many highly capable people in the field. It's a bit unlikely that an ATM idea presented on this forum would lead to a scientific discovery. You never know...
But what it does allow is for the minds of the readers to expand. To poke and prod. To learn about their misconceptions about the mainstream, to question the mainstream and to think in terms of evidence and not of faith.

Which is part of the trouble... Many ATM proponents see the mainstreamers as "faithful" to scientific theory.
A true scientist does not work that way. A true scientist is happy to scrap his pet theory in favor of a better theory.

As long as ATM'ers show up at the door in a defensive mindframe, they will see the mainstreamers as rigid and 'faithful.'


The other point is the Moderation. I imagine that moderating an ATM topic must be a frustratingly difficult task.
Any action a Moderator takes in the ATM forum will make them the Bad Guy to one side or the other.
I think this is why the Moderators need a more fair playing field in ATM.
To lessen the defensiveness on ATMers so that they can challenge the mainstream comfortably and to support the mainstream when it's trolled or attacked as you described.

ETA: I wanted to expand on it as I noticed some commentary suggesting to do away with ATM.(urk)

I generally agree with everything you said above excepting for maybe the mainstream-being-attacked idea. I've never seen it or may have a different idea of what an attack is. Statements that are not backed up by arguments and evidence are not attacks, in my opinion, only harmless rantings. To me an attack would be something like saying "the mainstream theory is stupid because it makes no predictions and is illogical". This might be considered a statement of attack but I have never seen such a thing even though I'm sure it exists in the ATM section.

Many mainstreamers might enjoy this kind of talk since it makes the ATMer look like he's a novice and ignorant concerning debate decorum. For the ATMer, stating what he thinks is wrong with the mainstream model along with supporting evidence/ links, etc., is always necessary for any good ATM proposal to explain why the ATM model should be preferred over the mainstream model. Otherwise what is the purpose of the ATM model. This should not be considered an attack, only a necessary part of an ATM argument providing a polite attitude is included. An adversarial or disagreeable attitude (with complaints galore) often stifles a possibly enjoyable discussion which could not progress civilly if a such an attitude, on either side of the argument, is involved. What do you think?

[forrest noble]

Neverfly,

Thanks for the good commentary and opinions above. I wish all discussions in the ATM section could proceed this way.

regards, forrest

[slang]

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Simply claiming I believe, I assert, it is my opinion, that some mainstream theories are wrong is an ATM proposal requiring defense?

Depending on the circumstances: yes. Because the very simple implication is that something else (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) is right. And this is one of the methods employed by certain ATM proponents to sneak their ideas into the regular science forums (which is a big no-no).

A simple warning seemingly would have sufficed if thought necessary.

And a generous reading of many, many mainstream threads indicates that your proposed action is often used. Depending on the circumstances, depending on if the poster may be expected to know the rules and their interpretations well. The more flagrant the remark, the more chance there is of a harsh response or a move of the post.

I think Censorship should not be allowed unless a posting or sentence explicitly violates the rules and the definitions therein.

Yay. Everyone agrees! Now define "explicitly", and come up with a completely unambiguous rule set, without any need for interpretation, weighing or judgment. Good luck!

Another commentator says: but there are still yet other arguments and proposals A,B, C, & D that have also be proposed (even though the commentator does not adhere to any of these ATM proposals).

In that case the other commentator may be posting off-topic. (If that is acceptable depends on the situation: check out some CT threads when it's clear that the OP has fled and not returning..) Add to that the infraction of posting ATM claims without defending them, and there are two rule infractions already. How to handle that situation, such that the original ATM claim defense can best be continued, is up to the mods.

A third problem not clarified by the rules, is arguments in defense of the OP : In most cases only people whose arguments are against the ATM proposal are allowed to continue. Those who have points which lend support to the OP are warned to open their own thread and sometimes there comments are stripped from the thread when they are in perfect agreement with the OP. It would seem only when a new unrelated proposal is made should such a warning be given or action taken.

It does not matter whether they are in agreement with OP or not (which is debatable often anyway). The ATM forum is for defending an ATM proposal. Not for developing it, or chatting about it, or publishing it. (Although sometimes other threads are tolerated).

A forth problem involves another type of thread highjacking in the ATM section not included in the rules. I have only seen this in my own ATM threads but I expect it has happened a number of times to others. The mainstream-proponent asks so many questions at one time the OP cannot possibly answer all the questions immediately since sometimes it would take days to answer just this one mainstream-proponent

If this situation arises, you can ask a moderator for help, Nev gave a suggestion for that already.

including asking questions over and over again that have already been answered

Ah. Now we arrive at what I consider the core of the problem. You see, there is a really big difference between answering a question, and just responding to it.

In your last thread, you answered several yes/no type questions (Are you willing to defend...) with a bunch of arguments. Of course that leads to either more discussion (plus more ATM claims), or just a repeat of the questions until they are properly answered.

In one case you were asked a question. You did not answer it, but in response you changed the question, and then answered it. Of course the question is repeated!

In several other cases, you simply did not properly read the question, and assumed it was already answered in your response to another (but different) question on the same topic. Of course the question is repeated!

maybe attempting to seriously annoy, intimidate, or discredit the OP.

These are very serious allegations, and you better be able to back them up when you level them at someone. Do not assume you know the reason for asking a certain question... If it really does violate rules: report it, and a moderator will deal with it. If alleged intention seems to live in your mind only, no action will be taken. If it's in between: moderators exercise judgment.

no response came regarding my specific complaints concerning rudeness, sarcasm, and attempted intimidation.

Alleged attempted intimidation. Rudeness is a subjective subject. There is AFAIK no rule against sarcasm (except where covered by the be nice rule. Being nice is subjective).

The response to my complaints was to close my thread for 24 hours, saying cool off, not addressing in the slightest way my complaints.

Which, in itself, is a severe warning to everyone involved in questionable posting behavior to cool down. On both sides, if applicable. It is not always clear that a rule has been broken, or who broke it first, or who broke it in the worst way. As long as things don't get out of hand badly, temporarily closing a thread is a response, and often it's enough to calm things down. Surely you don't want to see every rule infraction, however slight, be punished by suspension or otherwise dealt with in public?

A sixth problem concerning the rules is: Moderators use personal discretion in interpreting the rules where nothing is explicitly stated.

Right, and wrong. Right: this need for judgment and interpretation is exactly why moderators are very carefully chosen for their position, and why the job is not something you can apply for. Wrong: moderators and admins have on several occasions stated that moderator action is often discussed in the admin forum, implying (I don't remember if they explicitly stated it) that non-trivial decisions are never done by one moderator alone.

Moderators have used their own interpretations to make seemingly biased decisions.

A wrong decision can be discussed. Reporting triangle and all that. Seeming bias is a tricky thing, though. Is the mod biased, or are you, or are you reading too much into a situation, or did a mod make an honest mistake?

I believe that the rules should suggest that only an administrator should make decisions not explicitly covered by the rules or those rules that might be considered ambiguous.

Nonsense! They'd kill the board if they were swamped with every judgment call that is now made by mods.

[Moose]

Originally Posted by slang

Wrong: moderators and admins have on several occasions stated that moderator action is often discussed in the admin forum, implying (I don't remember if they explicitly stated it) that non-trivial decisions are never done by one moderator alone.

I'll explicitly state it now. Yes, this is true. You can pretty much assume that suspensions longer than a day have been signed off by three mods or more.

It's pretty much why the notation in the log sometimes reads "duration to be determined". The situation is considered urgent enough to prevent it from getting worse, but still deserving of appropriate consideration.

It's also why that if you're expecting instant response at all hours of the day and night, you probably shouldn't hold your breath over it.

A wrong decision can be discussed. Reporting triangle and all that.

All non-trivial decisions are seen by the entire mod team. Concerns are routinely discussed, and we do attempt to correct our mistakes.

Nonsense! They'd kill the board if they were swamped with every judgment call that is now made by mods.

Pretty much. The mod team have a hard enough time keeping up with the shenanigans in ATM as it is.

I'll repeat what I said earlier. If you guys are looking for 24-hour ATM coverage with 15 minute response time, then you all need to pony up. Otherwise, take a number and we'll get to you when we can.

[Nereid]

Originally Posted by slang

Depending on the circumstances: yes. Because the very simple implication is that something else (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) is right. And this is one of the methods employed by certain ATM proponents to sneak their ideas into the regular science forums (which is a big no-no).

It used to happen quite a lot too ('back-door' tactics are many and varied).

There's another aspect:

A: I assert that BBN is wrong.
M: And I assert that BBN is not wrong.
A: But I assert you are wrong, M; I claim BBN is wrong.
(you can fill in the rest)

In the Fun&Games section, this might be OK, but given that BAUT is avowedly science-based, nearly all* such statements should be challenged (and once challenged, it's likely a new ATM thread will be created not long afterwards).

[...]

In that case the other commentator may be posting off-topic. (If that is acceptable depends on the situation: check out some CT threads when it's clear that the OP has fled and not returning..) Add to that the infraction of posting ATM claims without defending them, and there are two rule infractions already. How to handle that situation, such that the original ATM claim defense can best be continued, is up to the mods.

It's also another back-door tactic, or 'wedge strategy' (be honest Mr Mod, you can't complain about me merely mentioning ATM1, can you? I mean, look, ATM1 has been mentioned [link], [link], [link], and [link]; and in [link], B mentioned it and B was not banned; and ...)

More fundamentally, there is indeed an asymmetry; stuff that's mainstream has become so as a result of a great deal of research (and has withstood far fiercer attacks than any ATM idea in BAUT has ever faced), if and when A, B, C, and D have withstood similarly fierce attacks, then they can be mentioned.

[...]

Ah. Now we arrive at what I consider the core of the problem. You see, there is a really big difference between answering a question, and just responding to it.

In your last thread, you answered several yes/no type questions (Are you willing to defend...) with a bunch of arguments. Of course that leads to either more discussion (plus more ATM claims), or just a repeat of the questions until they are properly answered.

In one case you were asked a question. You did not answer it, but in response you changed the question, and then answered it. Of course the question is repeated!

In several other cases, you simply did not properly read the question, and assumed it was already answered in your response to another (but different) question on the same topic. Of course the question is repeated!

Not answering direct, pertinent questions of the ATM idea/claim, as presented is perhaps one of the most common shortcomings of ATM proponents, and one reason why there's an explicit mention in the BAUT Rules.

OTOH, many is the time that a BAUT member questioning an ATM proposal has simply misunderstood that proposal ... which is why I tend to try to stick to the exact words used in any such proposal, when I ask questions.

However, there are many, many examples of "asking questions over and over again that have already been answered" that are, I think, due to a deep failure in communication (I discussed this in How to make discussions of ATM ideas less frustrating - a suggestion).

[...]

A wrong decision can be discussed. Reporting triangle and all that. Seeming bias is a tricky thing, though. Is the mod biased, or are you, or are you reading too much into a situation, or did a mod make an honest mistake?

[...]

I, for one, hope that mods make biased decisions ... BAUT is avowedly science-based, and I hope mods are biased against non-science.

* of course, in some contexts it may be quite unexceptional

[Swift]

A couple of points, I'd like to comment on

Originally Posted by forrest noble

<snip>
There is a strong moderator favoritism to the ATM adversary and position, in direct violation of the spirit of BAUT and I think the desires of its owners.

I would not call it "favoritism", but in science, and in the "spirit of BAUT", non-mainstream ideas do have an uphill battle. They have to prove themselvers.

I don't really know what the "spirit of BAUT" is (and I suspect we all see it differently), but here is what the first couple of paragraphs of Rule 13 actually say:

If you have some idea which goes against commonly-held astronomical theory, or think UFOs are among us, then you are welcome to argue it here. Before you do, though READ THIS THREAD FIRST. This is very important. Then, if you still want to post your idea, you will do so politely, you will not call people names, and you will defend your arguments. Direct questions must be answered in a timely manner.

People will attack your arguments with glee and fervor here; that's what science and scientists do. If you cannot handle that sort of attack, then maybe you need to rethink your theory, too. Remember: you came here. It's our job to attack new theories. Those that are strong will survive, and may become part of mainstream science.

Additionally, keep promotion of your theories and ideas to only those Against the Mainstream or Conspiracy Theory threads which discuss them. Hijacking other discussions to draw attention to your ideas will not be allowed.

If it appears that you are using circular reasoning, depending on long-debunked arguments, or breaking any of these other rules, you will receive one warning, and if that warning goes unheeded, you will be banned.

Particularly note paragraph 2 as it regards this point.

You will also note the Bad Astronomer's system of suspensions as noted in his last paragraph. And, in practice, when the BA did most of the banning/suspensions, that was how he operated; basically one warning and then gone forever.

The currently active moderation team is much nicer than that, IMHO.

A sixth problem concerning the rules is: Moderators use personal discretion in interpreting the rules where nothing is explicitly stated. Moderators have used their own interpretations to make seemingly biased decisions. I believe that the rules should suggest that only an administrator should make decisions not explicitly covered by the rules or those rules that might be considered ambiguous.

I have said this repeatedly, but I have no other choice but to use my "personal discretion in interpreting the rules". It is the only discretion I have .

Unless one was to create a 473 page list of rules, there is no way we can take out all personal interpretation. As has been mentioned, there is almost always some discussion among moderators before serious actions, but ultimately it will always come down to personal decisions of one or several moderators. And this isn't really any different than the "real" world.

[Nereid]

Originally Posted by Neverfly

I'm going to comment on your post, for no other reason than that so moderators can see a poster who currently is mainstream, a reader, a vaguely active participant in the ATM forum's views:

I agree. Simply stating an open opinion of such should not be treated as if it's taboo.

I'm curious to know what you think of the almost inevitable result of such simple statements of opinion (concerning contemporary astronomy, and outside of F&G or OTBB).

For example:

A: Don't assume that one side is right and the other side wrong. I think in some cases the mainstream position is wrong.
M (who's seen this sort of comment a hundred times): A, no one assumes any such thing! The whole point of doing science is to formulate hypotheses and test them!! Do you have any specific mainstream position you think is wrong?
A: Well, actually, I think X is wrong.
(you can fill in the rest)

IOW, how could such simple statements avoid becoming new ATM threads?

ETA: Myself and others have often stated our misgivings on Dark Matter etc in Q&A...
However, none of us have ever proposed an ATM hypothesis to account for Dark Matter, either...

There's a distinction here which is, I think, very very important.

To state misgivings - especially well-founded ones - is perfectly OK, and to ask questions is positively encouraged; however, I assert X is wrong is a whole different kettle of worms.

[...]

I agree with this one.
However, the mods do discuss among themselves and they do answer to eachother.

I agree too. A public area to air out grievances is a Great Thing.

Sure wish I had had one...

Anyway- my take on all these as a poster and reader returning from a suspension of my own.

(bold added)

Do you (agree)?

Really?

I mean, don't you expect that mods will be heavily biased ... against non-science?

[Nereid]

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Neverfly,

I generally agree with everything you said above excepting for maybe the mainstream-being-attacked idea. I've never seen it or may have a different idea of what an attack is. Statements that are not backed up by arguments and evidence are not attacks, in my opinion, only harmless rantings. To me an attack would be something like saying "the mainstream theory is stupid because it makes no predictions and is illogical". This might be considered a statement of attack but I have never seen such a thing even though I'm sure it exists in the ATM section.

(bold added)

This is extremely important, and perhaps the most central to what BAUT is for.

If a BAUT member wishes to rant, then there's the OTBB section, and plenty of other discussion fora where anti-science or non-science rants are not only welcome but encouraged.

There are also BAUT sections where serious and enjoyable discussions on the nature of science can be held (and I don't mean the ATM section).

But, and I hope my personal opinion on this is crystal clear, there is no such thing as a harmless anti-science, or non-science, rant in a discussion forum that is avowedly science-based.

Many mainstreamers might enjoy this kind of talk since it makes the ATMer look like he's a novice and ignorant concerning debate decorum. For the ATMer, stating what he thinks is wrong with the mainstream model along with supporting evidence/ links, etc., is always necessary for any good ATM proposal to explain why the ATM model should be preferred over the mainstream model. Otherwise what is the purpose of the ATM model. This should not be considered an attack, only a necessary part of an ATM argument providing a polite attitude is included. An adversarial or disagreeable attitude (with complaints galore) often stifles a possibly enjoyable discussion which could not progress civilly if a such an attitude, on either side of the argument, is involved. What do you think?

(bold added)

This is an oft-repeated view, expressed in many different ways.

However, the ATM section does not have as its primary objective the fostering of enjoyable discussions.

BAUT members are free to present ATM ideas, or claims, in the ATM section (one per thread) ... and other BAUT members are expected to attack those ideas "with glee and fervour". Why? Because that's how it works in science (though the real-world experience - real scientists, real ideas - makes what happens in the ATM section look like a stroll in the park).

No BAUT member has to present ATM ideas ... but once they have, the attacks begin (and if you have made such a presentation, you'd better be prepared, and preparation may involve devoting a great many hours of your time to answering direct, pertinent questions on the ATM idea presented, as presented).

[slang]

Originally Posted by Nereid

I, for one, hope that mods make biased decisions ... BAUT is avowedly science-based, and I hope mods are biased against non-science.

I agree. FWIW: I interpreted the bias comment to mean that moderators were supposedly more strict in applying the rules to ATM proponents than to mainstream posters (if such an absolute distinction were even possible). And this I do not see.

[grant hutchison]

Originally Posted by Nereid

No BAUT member has to present ATM ideas ... but once they have, the attacks begin (and if you have made such a presentation, you'd better be prepared, and preparation may involve devoting a great many hours of your time to answering direct, pertinent questions on the ATM idea presented, as presented).

Yes, this is important.
I've seen BAUT members complain at how time-consuming presenting an ATM idea has been for them, as if this were some unreasonable imposition. Of course it's going to be time-consuming! The mainstream is big and finely detailed: dotting all those i's and crossing all those t's in order to make a case against the standard view is going to be hard work. Being surprised at how hard it turns out to be is pretty much a marker for not having understood the problem, in my view.

Grant Hutchison

[Nereid]

Originally Posted by forrest noble

This is a thread concerning the rules. I have experienced a number of recent problems that I think could be resolved by more explicit rules. The first problem is this: Someone makes a comment on a thread concerning an ATM topic of a thread not in the ATM section. ...... such as: "don't assume that one side is right and the other side wrong. I think in some cases the mainstream position is wrong." This entire posting was censured and removed claiming it is an ATM proposal when the subject of the thread is how to make the ATM section better. This is a prime example of a problem not covered by the rules.

The question is What is an ATM proposal as interpreted by the rules. Simply claiming I believe, I assert, it is my opinion, that some mainstream theories are wrong is an ATM proposal requiring defense? A simple warning seemingly would have sufficed if thought necessary. The rules should explain what the meaning of an ATM proposal is exactly. I think Censorship should not be allowed unless a posting or sentence explicitly violates the rules and the definitions therein.

[...]

There is a considerable risk that this post of mine will be misunderstood or misinterpreted, no matter how carefully I try to describe its scope, so caveat lector.

I think Censorship should not be allowed unless a posting or sentence explicitly violates the rules and the definitions therein.

And I think this is impossible in practice and undesirable in principle.

Looking at non-ATM stuff, censorship happens all the time, and at least some of it carried out despite the fact that there is no explicit violation of the rules and the definitions therein.

Concerning ATM stuff, explicit rules and definitions would be of only modest help - just look at how huge some of the gaps in interpretation of textbook definitions of key physics terms is, and think how much greater gaps would be for fuzzier things than "mass"! - even if 473 pages of them could be written.

But the whole idea is irrelevant anyway.

As has been said many, many times, this is a forum whose owners may choose to run any way they want.

[Nereid]

Originally Posted by slang

I agree. FWIW: I interpreted the bias comment to mean that moderators were supposedly more strict in applying the rules to ATM proponents than to mainstream posters (if such an absolute distinction were even possible). And this I do not see.

There are two aspects which I think should be discussed separately.

The first is moderation when it comes to BAUT members' posts (or PMs) on content that is quite unrelated to astronomy, or science in general. In this, I think we all agree that mods should be unbiased wrt BAUT members who have presented an ATM idea and those who have not (political commentary, swearing, spamming, ... equality before the mods).

The second is related to astronomy, or science in general. In this respect I expect mods to be more strict in applying the rules to ATM proponents than to mainstream posters (if such an absolute distinction were possible). Further, I hope that mods would not feel any need to be apologetic about such bias, nor have to justify it; if BAUT is science-based, such bias should be a given.

This might be tricky sometimes, because it seems some ATM proponents have radically different views of what science is than any of the mods.

[Neverfly]

Originally Posted by Nereid

I'm curious to know what you think of the almost inevitable result of such simple statements of opinion (concerning contemporary astronomy, and outside of F&G or OTBB).

For example:

A: Don't assume that one side is right and the other side wrong. I think in some cases the mainstream position is wrong.
M (who's seen this sort of comment a hundred times): A, no one assumes any such thing! The whole point of doing science is to formulate hypotheses and test them!! Do you have any specific mainstream position you think is wrong?
A: Well, actually, I think X is wrong.
(you can fill in the rest)

IOW, how could such simple statements avoid becoming new ATM threads?

M: This is not the proper place to discuss an ATM idea. If you wish to present one, you can start a thread in the proper forum.

I have done this many times, in fact, quite recently.

If the ATM'er continues, you can report then. That is when the bridge is crossed.

Originally Posted by Nereid

There's a distinction here which is, I think, very very important.

To state misgivings - especially well-founded ones - is perfectly OK, and to ask questions is positively encouraged; however, I assert X is wrong is a whole different kettle of worms.

True...

Originally Posted by Nereid

Do you (agree)?

Really?

I mean, don't you expect that mods will be heavily biased ... against non-science?

I think Slang answered this one.

And I still agree, even as you have worded it.

Swift mentioned earlier that, at times, he is uncertain as to who is presenting sound science and who is not.
That is a very good example of why there should not be any bias. He cannot err on the side of Mainstream if he is uncertain as to whom is dogging whom.

Moderator calls are not made to determine whose science is correct. They are made to determine whose behavior is correct.

[Nereid]

Originally Posted by Neverfly

M: This is not the proper place to discuss an ATM idea. If you wish to present one, you can start a thread in the proper forum.

I have done this many times, in fact, quite recently.

If the ATM'er continues, you can report then. That is when the bridge is crossed.

[...]

Thanks.

Indeed, you may respond like that, and so may dozens of others.

However - and this is the critical thing - for every one of you who responds like that, there will be at least one (and maybe ten) who responds as in my sketch (though M may not have seen this sort of thing a hundred times, for all Ms). One thing I'm saying is that such a response is near certain, given what BAUT is and given its large membership base.

Or do you see it differently?