Rules discussion

[The Bad Astronomer]

Originally Posted by maydaynm

OK, Phil - I have detected two errors of your today. First of all, on KMOX radio, you called the Law of Gravity a "theory." That would be a pretty big change from my days of scientific study if you were correct in your reference. How about that?

Gravitational theory is a theory. What would you call it? The "Law of Gravity" is something else entirely (that's Newton's law which is really just a formulation).

Secondly, in your verbiage for Rule #14, you used "themself." Ugg - could that possibly be a word? I thought it was themselves or himself or herself or maybe for sake of space him/herself.

This has been discussed extensively on the first page (in fact, the second post) of this thread.

I like many of your ideas, but you don't have to bash the faith people in order to do good science. Please remember how often strong scientific evidence has been thoroughly wrong and maybe it will help you with any scientific arrogance with which you might struggle.

I don't bash people of faith; I bash creationists, who are wrong. However, this is not the forum nor thread nor even the board to discuss this.

[HenrikOlsen]

Somehow I think rule 14 would be best off as simply "Be nice, or else!", all the things the current rule 14 mention also falls within this one, and it'll cover whatever new irritants posters can invent as well.
It also reflects well back to the (in my memory) rather harmonious time when it was the only rule there was (though the latter half wasn't explicit at the time)

[nokton]

Originally Posted by The Bad Astronomer

Gravitational theory is a theory. What would you call it? The "Law of Gravity" is something else entirely (that's Newton's law which is really just a formulation).



This has been discussed extensively on the first page (in fact, the second post) of this thread.



I don't bash people of faith; I bash creationists, who are wrong. However, this is not the forum nor thread nor even the board to discuss this.

Phil Plait. Totally agree with your evaluation, but my friend, stop the bus.
Are not creationists people of faith? And is it not so that in any faith there
are ones who interpret their faith to fund their own desire?
With respect, Phil, think this forum is the antitheses of creation thinking,
in that it allows the exploration of new ideas, and questions old assumptions
about beliefs our forefathers held in their misguided search for understanding.
To that end, this forum holds a special place in Mans understanding of truth.
Nokton

[Kaptain K]

Are not creationists people of faith?

Yes, but...
Not all "people of faith" are creationists!
Just as "all dachshunds are dogs" does not mean (or even imply) that "all dogs are dachshunds".

[The Bad Astronomer]

Yup. My point exactly. I am not "bashing" all people of faith. I am taking on one very small subsect of them.

Enough of this here, please. It's off topic, and against the rules.

[nokton]

Originally Posted by Thomas(believer)

I think there is a difference between mathematics and physics in ths aspect.
Mathemics is very black and white. Something is proven right or wrong.
In physics you often can speak of a good or a better model. More complete if you like.



I know this is a friendly board, that's why I like to visit it.
It was not my intention to make the people more friendly.
Just the rules.

Yes Fermats theorem has been proved, but not in the way Fermat
proved it, that is my contention, what method of evaluation did Fermat
realise his conclusion????
Nokton.

[hhEb09'1]

Originally Posted by nokton

Yes Fermats theorem has been proved, but not in the way Fermat
proved it, that is my contention, what method of evaluation did Fermat
realise his conclusion????

This is an older thread (not too old, but the discussion seems to have died out).

Fermat probably did not actually prove it, but thought he did--other mathematicians since have thought they've proven it as well only to find mistakes. We don't know anything at all about his approach, he left no real record of it, although he worked on similar problems.

[Thomas(believer)]

Originally Posted by nokton

Yes Fermats theorem has been proved, but not in the way Fermat
proved it, that is my contention, what method of evaluation did Fermat
realise his conclusion????
Nokton.

Maybe it took some time in this case, but in the end there is proof.
Unless this proof is going to be proven wrong also, but then it was not proof.
But as I think of it, you do have a good point. Certainly when the proof is very complex. How can you be certain, the proof is correct then? Theoreticly it is possible to don't make mistakes though.

And maybe that is the difference with physics. Because in physics, it is theoreticly not possible to be sure there never will be an observation, which is going to disprove, your idea.

Once you proof something mathematicly the book is closed. While in physics there always will be an open end.

[Frog march]

rule #15 - no catapults

[Van Rijn]

I think this:

Noah's Ark

Noah's Ark

Noah's Ark

Noah's Ark

warrants discussion.

Obviously there was a misunderstanding, but I do think this requires some clarification for rule purposes. As I see it, a moderator made some comments in a thread (not what I would consider an official moderator action), a poster disagreed publically and got an official warning for being disrespectful. First, I don't see how that is an issue per the rules, and second, I wasn't aware that moderators couldn't be criticized.

Edited to add another relevant post.

[Disinfo Agent]

Thanks for the post.

[Moose]

Uh, yeah. I just read through that thread, and all my concerns about self-moderation have come right back to the forefront. The official warning antoniseb gave Erioica regarding IMO valid criticism regarding antoniseb was way out of line, IMO, and goes right to the core of my earlier concerns about self-moderation. If a warning in that instance was warranted (which I strongly feel it wasn't), it should not have come from antoniseb, but another moderator and confirmed by an admin.

When I expressed my concerns about moderator transparancy shortly after BAUT merged, I was asked (in my perception rather defensively) [paraphrased] "don't I trust the mod team" [/paraphrased]. I repeat my answer: trust must be earned. So must respect.

If anyone should choose to consider my expressing my very real concerns as disrespecting a mod, and choose to exercise the rule about no-public criticism, then I consider the matter important enough to gladly accept my suspension.

In any case: the admin should consider this my appeal and protest of what I see as Eroica's undeserved, and inappropriately delivered warning, and will trust in the admin that the situation will be corrected appropriately.

[Edit: I've used the "report post" feature to request the admins' attention to this matter.]

[Musashi]

I totally agree with Moose's first and last paragraphs, as well as his edit.

[antoniseb]

Originally Posted by Moose

the admin should consider this my appeal and protest of what I see as Eroica's undeserved, and inappropriately delivered warning, and will trust in the admin that the situation will be corrected appropriately.

This will be in interesting discussion. I believe that Eroica's ad hom attack of me was completely out of place, and we have warned people for less.

Since then Eroica has explained that my original post was misread, and that caused Eroica's ad hom attack. I took that as an apology, and an effort to correct things. No further discussion has happened between myself and Eroica since then, but in other threads we've been interacting like any other two people on the forum.

That being the case, I'm taking your protest as more of a what-if kind of issue as opposed to genuine concern that a terrible miscarriage of justice has been done.

[Melusine]

Quadritto. Van Rijn and Moose make good points. I experienced a case in point recently and it could have been resolved a better way than it was (or wasn't). Moderators, imho, should have more tolerance, not less, and set an example by resolving within the thread...iow, rising to the occasion and letting capable people resolve the issue by themselves. I like the moderators here--they all seem like good, smart people--so I'd hate to see resentment build against them. They should let others mediate their disputes with others. Being able to delete a poster's comment is an unfair advantage, especially when it's unwarranted...these are things to think about.

I work for a corporation all day...I don't want to treat the admins like bosses and come here and feel there's this chain of command/rank and file/Indians and Chiefs thing here. Respect is earned and it should be a bit more fun than work.

[Fraser]

I've had a chance to read through the threads, and I think it's a series of miscommunications on top of each other. I'm happy to discuss this as transparently as you like.

At the same time, though, I think that when there are personality clashes, people have the right to deal with it personally. For example, if I've got a problem with someone at work, I'm not going to complain about them in public until I've given them a chance to respond and deal with the situation. Barring that, I'd go to the next stage and complain to their manager. When the conversation is public, it's unfair for the participants and generally makes the whole situation uglier.

Feel free to criticize the forum, our software, the general tone, or even the moderation team in general all you like. But as a favour to me, Phil, and to the volunteer team of moderators who generously give their personal time to make this forum a better place, I ask... no... beg that you don't undermine their morale by criticizing then specifically until we've had a chance to get to the bottom of it and deal with it.

Is that distinction clear enough? And does it explain why we have that info in the rules? If not, fire away, I'm at your disposal, and ready to earn your respect. But you're going to have convince me why you think criticizing people out in public on the forum is a positive thing, and generally improves the forum overall.

[Moose]

Originally Posted by antoniseb

That being the case, I'm taking your protest as more of a what-if kind of issue as opposed to genuine concern that a terrible miscarriage of justice has been done.

You may choose to see it that way, but I assure you I consider this a serious matter even if you don't, and have phrased my "report this post" protest to the admin accordingly.

You may consider your action completely under protest.

IMO, you owe Eroica an apology far more than he owed you one, if he owed you one at all. (And it just shows how much class he has that he offered you one. Given your response, I would have stood by the characterization, suspension or no. But then, I've never considered myself classy. So there it is.)

As such, I have asked the admin that the policy about self-moderation be looked into with mind to prevent repetitions, and Eroica's warning publically repealed.

[Edit for typo.]

[Moose]

Originally Posted by Fraser

But as a favour to me, Phil, and to the volunteer team of moderators who generously give their personal time to make this forum a better place, I ask... no... beg that you don't undermine their morale by criticizing then specifically until we've had a chance to get to the bottom of it and deal with it.

It's not an unfair request, but my requests stand: I want antoniseb to apologize to Eroica, and for the warning to be reversed.

Until this happens, I would prefer my protest be public to the extent I've made it.

[Fraser]

Well, as per the forum rules, Antoniseb was justified; and at the same time I can see why you and others would see it as out of line, considering the fact that he was the one being criticized. And I go back to my original comment that this is already blown way out of proportion.

Phil and I will discuss this over with the mods and figure out what's a clearer language for the forum rules, and then anything else that needs to be done from this point on.

[Moose]

Originally Posted by Fraser

But you're going to have convince me why you think criticizing people out in public on the forum is a positive thing, and generally improves the forum overall.

More wood for the fire: can you consider that a rule (such as we have) that basically censors public criticism of mods/admin, and/or your request to do the same when the warnings are embarassingly public is similarly not good for the morale of the participants of this forum? Is this, as you say, a good thing overall?

I've never been a fan of double-standards, and this is just close enough to being one that my skin crawls every time I consider it.

[antoniseb]

Originally Posted by Moose

I want antoniseb to apologize to Eroica, and for the warning to be reversed. Until this happens, I would prefer my protest be public to the extent I've made it.

I believe I made the right choice. Walk through the sequence of events and show me I didn't and you might change my mind, but I won't be bullied into making a false apology, or reversing myself.

[Musashi]

I feel like one of the benefits of having a team of moderators is that they can "proofread" each others works. It did seem like a case of overzealous moderation and then it seemed like a case of "don't criticize me, punk, I have the power to ban you." Bad form. Maybe a better idea would be to have another moderator at least consult on the situation, if not actually make the warning post. If that cannot be done in a timely manner, then maybe a "this post is under consideration by moderation" is a better idea than threatening to ban people. Maybe? I have seen totally unwarranted attacks on a moderator, and they were handled much more appropriately than this one was.

[Moose]

Originally Posted by Fraser

Well, as per the forum rules, Antoniseb was justified; and at the same time I can see why you and others would see it as out of line, considering the fact that he was the one being criticized. And I go back to my original comment that this is already blown way out of proportion.

Perhaps it was then, but given these comments, I feel the extent of my protest is now, and thus has been, entirely justified.

I also now feel an escalation of my protest has become necessary: I am placing myself under a voluntary three-day suspension/strike where I will not visit nor post to BAUT. Fraser, you and Phil consider the matter as you feel you must. I assure you I will be doing the same.

In three days, barring the actions I have requested to redress the immediate problem I feel is getting swept under the rug, I will then consider if I wish to continue being a member here. An action I deeply regret being forced to consider.

[Musashi]

Originally Posted by Fraser

Well, as per the forum rules, Antoniseb was justified; and at the same time I can see why you and others would see it as out of line, considering the fact that he was the one being criticized. And I go back to my original comment that this is already blown way out of proportion.

Phil and I will discuss this over with the mods and figure out what's a clearer language for the forum rules, and then anything else that needs to be done from this point on.

I think it would be a much better system to have at least one other moderator look at the offending post(s) before an action is taken. Sometimes one person can bring a fresh perspective to the scenario. It also provides more of a sense of fairness to the people involved. Sure, there are certainly cases where the solution is clear (if one was to go off on a moderator, using foul language and full on rants, it is easy to see that a warning is warranted), however, this particular case was not clear, and the way it was handled appeared, to me, heavy-handed. So, perhaps a policy of bringing these situations before the moderation team would be a better idea.

[Fraser]

Originally Posted by Moose

More wood for the fire: can you consider that a rule (such as we have) that basically censors public criticism of mods/admin, and/or your request to do the same when the warnings are embarassingly public is similarly not good for the morale of the participants of this forum? Is this, as you say, a good thing overall?

Our policy is to warn people privately unless they've turned off their email/PM, and to try and keep things discreet.

[Moose]

Originally Posted by Fraser

Our policy is to warn people privately unless they've turned off their email/PM, and to try and keep things discreet.

Eroica's PMs are turned on, Fraser.

[Fraser]

Originally Posted by Musashi

I think it would be a much better system to have at least one other moderator look at the offending post(s) before an action is taken. Sometimes one person can bring a fresh perspective to the scenario. It also provides more of a sense of fairness to the people involved. Sure, there are certainly cases where the solution is clear (if one was to go off on a moderator, using foul language and full on rants, it is easy to see that a warning is warranted), however, this particular case was not clear, and the way it was handled appeared, to me, heavy-handed. So, perhaps a policy of bringing these situations before the moderation team would be a better idea.

We normally do discuss these issues within the moderation team. In tricky cases, we'll arrive at consensus before taking action. In other cases, people will handle it on their own.

It's not a perfect system, but we also don't want to bog it down in paperwork. I'd rather try and keep things fast and loose, and trust that people want to do the right thing. I hate being micromanaged, and I've vowed to never do it to anyone else.

So, if there's a miscommunication, or problem with the system, I'd rather deal with it after the fact, help clean up, and then move forward again. I trust the forum members, and I trust the moderators to do the right thing. I give everyone the benefit of the doubt, and I hope that people can pay me the same in return.

[Van Rijn]

Originally Posted by Musashi

I think it would be a much better system to have at least one other moderator look at the offending post(s) before an action is taken.

There may be practical difficulties, but in marginal cases, I certainly would like to see something like that. Is it safe to say that many of the posters here didn't see the comment in question as an ad-hom attack? There clearly is a case of different perceptions here. As it is, I have a "Walking on eggshells" feeling when I post on BAUT. My perception was that a poster was suggesting a moderator was being overenthusiastic (with a smiley!), and the moderator gave him an official warning for saying it. Frankly, that was chilling.

That's all I'll say for now, things are getting heated and it would be good to let things cool down and give the admins and moderators time to discuss it.

[Musashi]

Well, the problem is, your moderator does not believe there was a miscommunication or a problem with his actions and refuses to even offer a simple apology for them. I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt and trust that he could act like a resposible adult and say, "hey, there were some misunderstandings, I think I did the right thing, but I may have been a bit hasty or acted a bit harshly, so Roy and Eroica, I am sorry for that." The reality is that, in acting on the word "overzealous," he appeared to me to become overzealous. I have to imagine that I am not alone in this, considering the people who have posted about this issue and the quality of their membership here.

[Musashi]

I think Wolverine's response here is a much better model.