Rules discussion

[VanderL]

Originally Posted by 01101001

Where does it suggest getting personal? It's about attacking ideas.

Yep, it should be about attacking the ideas, but that's not always the case. The opposite to glee is not sad so much as earnest, or modest or something like that. You don't see how this "glee and fervour" could be a problem? The way the section is organized right now, there is no room to discuss an ATM idea without a personally accountable proponent. If the proponent does not answer quickly enough, or the answers are not accepted he/she will have to quit discussing the idea or get suspended/banned. Holding the proponent personally accountable is therefore a big threat to anyone who wants to start a discussion. In effect (if the rules are applied strictly) it will inevitably lead to either very short discussions, or bannings and short discussions. I don't see much fun in that.

Cheers.

[01101001]

Originally Posted by VanderL

Yep, it should be about attacking the ideas, but that's not always the case.

I don't see your logic in getting from the statement in the rules to what you claim is happening. In fact, I find the idea laughable. With glee.

But, if you think it's causing a problem, why don't you just propose an alternative statement then to replace the factual "glee and fervor" sentence.

Originally Posted by VanderL

You don't see how this "glee and fervour" could be a problem?

No!

[Gillianren]

If the person says, "I don't know," that will not result in a banning, you know. If the attacker attacks the person with glee and fervour, a report to the mods should result in at least a warning for the attacker, if not a suspension or even a banning.

If the idea cannot be defended by anyone, it's not much of an idea to be presented, is it?

[Jeff Root]

Originally Posted by VanderL

The opposite to glee is not sad so much as earnest, or modest or
something like that.

Doink? (That was a sound effect. Like in a cartoon. I tend
to use sound effects to express myself in real life )
The opposite of glee (in context) would be "displeasure" or
"reluctance" or "grudgingly".

People will nitpick your antonyms with glee and fervor here.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[Tensor]

Originally Posted by VanderL

Hi all,

They make sure that the proponent of an alternative idea/theory has to defend claims personally.

Why is that such a bad idea? A proponent of an alternate idea has to have some reason they came to the conclusion that the alternate idea is the best one. Defending that idea will allow the proponet to provide the needed backing to show why or allow the detractors to point out the fallacy with the idea.

Originally Posted by VanderL

While it is obviously necessary that the alternative is questioned and explored fully, the challengers are asked to attack with "glee and fervor"

I don't agree with you here. The line in the rules says "Your idea will be attacked with glee and fevor..." and that pretty much decribes how the idea will be treated here, unless the proponent can provide evidence for the idea. Most of the time, the idea goes directly against an observation or the math. Most of the "mainstreamers" here will attacked such an idea with "glee and fevor", whether or not that line is in there. I read it as just a warning to the proponent to be ready provide evidence support the idea. The rest of that paragraph pretty much warns someone that if they can't handle the questioning of their idea here (where the rules of politeness are much more stringent that in an academic setting), they should, as the BA says, rethink presenting their idea.

Originally Posted by VanderL

which only adds to the possibility that people will call into question the proponent, and his/her ability to show the necessary evidence, instead of the theory or idea (this has happened on several occasions).

I don't think the ATM proponent's ability should be called into question. However, I don't think it's a bad idea to call into question the proponents understanding of the mainstream idea, politely, of course.

Originally Posted by VanderL

I think a more balanced approach is called for where civilised conversation is the rule and not any potentially flaming posts that I've seen in some threads.

Again, I agree with you here.

Originally Posted by VanderL

Moderators suggested to ask questions on ATM papers in the Q&A sections, but usually they are rapidly transferred to the ATM section, where subsequently the question is turned into a claim that needs to be defended with all the problems I mentioned above.

I think, and don't quote me , that this applies more to the understanding of the mainstream ideas the proponent has, rather than the ATM idea. How many time have you seen someone post here on, say, the "missing neutrino problem" when, as Tim has pointed out, observations and theoretical work on the neutrino problem has pretty much eliminated it.

edited to remove a stray quote marker

[hhEb09'1]

Originally Posted by VanderL

I disagree; there are examples where "personalizations" led to disruptions and bannings/suspensions.

Personalizations may, but glee and fervor do not lead to personalization. There are other rules against it.

Originally Posted by VanderL

Just "critically" and without getting personal will do. "Glee" is just the wrong term, no one likes to be laughed at, even if they are warned this could happen. Furthermore all the other rules are adequate to prevent things getting out of hand (the "be nice" rule is the most important, also in the ATM section), the addition of a "gleeful" attack is quite unneccesary.

But, it doesn't conflict with other rules, either. It's a warning--the BA was just trying to be nice.

[Jeff Root]

Posters should be required to attack "gleefully, willfully, and wantonly",
or be kicked out of the forum, or at least sent to bed without supper.

-- Jeff, in Cognito

[nokton]

Originally Posted by Gillianren

If the person says, "I don't know," that will not result in a banning, you know. If the attacker attacks the person with glee and fervour, a report to the mods should result in at least a warning for the attacker, if not a suspension or even a banning.

If the idea cannot be defended by anyone, it's not much of an idea to be presented, is it?

Gillianren, replace the word attacker with a 'contestant', having dispute
with what is proposed. The word 'attacker' has a connotation that I feel
is not always appropriate.
Your last sentence Gillian, sums it up really, if ones idea cannot be
defended, duck and take the flack :-).
I feel what is at issue here, is the form that flack takes. Contesting an
idea or theory ( and the person behind it ), requires a reasoned and
rational rebuttal, even ithough it may be 'spirited'. To respond by insult,
denigration and deprication only, requires the serious attention of the
boards moderators, who would be responding to such, in the interest
of every one in this forum.
Nokton.

[lyndonashmore]

[Moderator Note] This, and the next two, post(s) have been moved from the Big Bang Theory: Whats wrong with it?, in the ATM section [/Moderator Note]

Post here if you want to discuss a theory that goes against the astronomical mainstream. Have a beef with relativity, heliocentrism, the Big Bang? This is the place.

can one post a thread here against the bb?
According to the rules one can only posts theories that go against the bb - not criticse it. is this so?

[Nereid]

Originally Posted by lyndonashmore

can one post a thread here against the bb?

yes, you can.

According to the rules one can only posts theories that go against the bb - not criticse it. is this so?

There are plenty of examples of threads that 'bash' mainstream astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology, etc, without proposing an alternative (and not just the various concordance cosmological models). One example.

We even had a thread discussing whether 'bashing' should still be OK, here in the ATM section! (general feeling was "yes, it's OK to have such threads in the ATM section).

[lyndonashmore]

Great,
Let's reword the rules to allow this.

[hhEb09'1]

Originally Posted by lyndonashmore

According to the rules one can only posts theories that go against the bb - not criticse it. is this so?

I don't think it's against the rules. So, no rules changes are necessary.

[Bob Angstrom]

Originally Posted by Mosheh Thezion

For the most part it is reasonable...

but the idea that one must answer each and every question put to them, in a timely manner is questionalble... since in many cases the question itself is flawed due to a misunderstanding and in answering it.. it is not answered, but is made clear in its relavance to the topic, while still being part of the mystery.
thus your rule that everything must be answered is suspect.. and should i think be reviewed.. and changed to allow more flexability in discussion.

I agree this rule should allow for a lot of flexibility. Some posters ask more questions in a single post than any respondant should be required to answer. Too many questions at once can kill a discussion.

[HenrikOlsen]

"I don't know, let me check" is a valid answer.
It's the one answer that never shows up in an ATM discussion.

No need to change the rules.

[Thanatos]

Be nice . . . is that not the intent? We should be able to discuss anything so long as we are not so attached to our views as to rule out any alternatives. I enjoy disagreements that include observational evidence, analysis, and mathematically sound models. Bright minds do not object to well reasoned questions. Attacking ideas is fine, attacking the motives for raising them is . . . useless and unproductive.

[Gillianren]

When I was in Academic Decathlon in high school, we were forbidden by our coach to write our speeches (one of the competitions) about a couple of subjects on the premise that the judges might judge our position rather than our content. It's not that she didn't think the judges were capable, rational people--if she had, she would have protested their standing as judges!--but she recognized that, on some subjects, a lot of people aren't capable and rational, even if they normally are.

The way it manifests itself here is that, rather than wade through the arguments later to decide who gets banned, they ban the conversations in the first place. They have that right; it's their board.

I just wish the backing up of claims applied to the CT section as well as the ATM section.

[ToSeek]

Originally Posted by Gillianren

I just wish the backing up of claims applied to the CT section as well as the ATM section.

We moderators are looking into adding some special rules for the CT forum along those lines, as there already are for ATM.

[Maksutov]

Originally Posted by ToSeek

We moderators are looking into adding some special rules for the CT forum along those lines, as there already are for ATM.

A modest proposal.

(children of Ireland, rest easy!)

[Nereid]

The "ATM rules" contain this: "Before you do [argue some idea which goes against commonly-held astronomical theory], though READ THIS THREAD FIRST. This is very important."

The thread is Advice for ATM theory supporters, and begins with a post by dgruss23, one of the ATM section's strongest contributors, especially in that section's longest, current thread. It contains 22 points, many of which have been adopted (sometimes modified) in Maksutov's excellent proposal.

Note the way it works - the rule is about reading a thread; the thread contains advice. While I certainly agree that the CT section needs a special rule, similar to the ATM one, I also feel that it is important to distinguish between rules and advice.

[loglo]

I've noticed a couple of posts on the forum recently with spelling like the above. It really bugs me so I just wanted to know what other people think about it.

Would it be going too far if the bad language rules were extended to include deliberately bad grammar?

[tdvance]

Originally Posted by loglo

I've noticed a couple of posts on the forum recently with spelling like the above. It really bugs me so I just wanted to know what other people think about it.

Would it be going too far if the bad language rules were extended to include deliberately bad grammar?

I would be in favor of asking posters for a good-faith attempt at being clear, to include not "encrypting" responses in the style of cell-phone text messaging (this annoyance ranks up there with all caps, alternated caps and small, and not quite so bad but still looks illiterate, no capitalization). At the least, more people would read the post instead of making a quick assumption about the person's intelligence and literacy and then not reading any further.

Todd

[Tog_]

Originally Posted by amyangel

people disobeys which rules may be baned

Welcome. The rules that need to be followed are here. You may want to make a particular note about the ne regarding advertising, as the link you included seems to be just that.

[antoniseb]

Originally Posted by Tog_

You may want to make a particular note about the one regarding advertising

AmyAngel is gone and AmyAngel's posts have been removed as spam.

[Tog_]

Wasn't sure if that was just a newbie error or real spam. Feel free to drop this one and my last one in this thread of you want.

[Cougar]

Originally Posted by Nereid

The "ATM rules" contain this: "Before you do [argue some idea which goes against commonly-held astronomical theory], though READ THIS THREAD FIRST. This is very important."

The thread is Advice for ATM theory supporters, and begins with a post by dgruss23, one of the ATM section's strongest contributors, especially in that section's longest, current thread. It contains 22 points, many of which have been adopted (sometimes modified) in Maksutov's excellent proposal.

Note the way it works - the rule is about reading a thread; the thread contains advice. While I certainly agree that the CT section needs a special rule, similar to the ATM one, I also feel that it is important to distinguish between rules and advice.

So that thread is advice, and the Rule is this:

13. Alternative Concepts

If you have some idea which goes against commonly-held astronomical theory, 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 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.

Perhaps it is somewhere else, but I don't see here any requirement that the initiation of ATM threads must consist of a poster's alternative theory that he or she is willing to defend against all challengers. Certainly the Rule is clear that IF one's alternative theory is put forward, then it must either be defended against criticism, or the poster must admit s/he doesn't know. But is there any provision that keeps one from opening an ATM thread by asking what people think of one ATM idea or another? Offhand I don't see it.

[Michael Noonan]

Hello Members of Bad Astronomy,

I hope there was something of value in some of my ideas before I went Star Trek and Star Gate. Sorry about the flowery post, it was not worthy. Waiting in the joyful anticipation of seeing that people will attack my arguments with glee and fervor.
Cheers Michael Noonan

[umop ap!sdn]

I have a concern about language on this board. Not everyone has the same ideas about what's okay and what's profane. I have seen time and time again where words that I wasn't allowed to use when I was a kid get posted with not even a warning. Okay, so avoiding problematic words can be as simple as "when in doubt, leave it out", but how do I know there aren't words that cannot be posted here that I would think are just fine? And we're not even allowed to misspell them or block them out with asterisks? What about abbreviations, is whiskey tango foxtrot okay? I just wish we had some kind of list, 'cuz I'm tired of watching my forking step all the time for fear of posting a no-no.

I ain't even gonna touch the ATM section. Sure, I can understand how when faced with a deluge of uninformed folks with less than rigorously tested hypotheses, one would be tempted to hand out perma bans to the worst offenders - and of course it's your board to run as you (Admins) see fit. I'd like to try to educate people, having once been in their shoes myself, but the rules there are so what-beavers-do strict that I'm afraid I'm going to get my mule handed to me for either A.) being busy at work thus unable to stay on top of the threads in a timely manner, or 2.) not being able to produce a cite.

[Tog_]

I am an admin on another board that says in no uncertain terms that it is family friendly. One of the posters is another admin's 6 year old son. The rule of thumb that was in place when I got bumped was anything that one could reasonably expect to see on The Simpsons was okay. The words you've linked to are prevalent in the Harry Potter books, which, regardless of the other controversies surrounding them, has never been a big deal (that I know of).

A master list might be a good idea, but how to post it without it being a violation?

[mickal555]

Hmm

Damn, bloody, jeeez and hell arn't really swear words these days*, they seem to be in the same class that Blast, shoot, heck and darn were once in.
*apparently neither is crap, but I've always thought it worse then the similer word starting with S.


The swear words of today seem to be (worse to least worse):
C(not crap)
F
S
B

There are others which are bad, but not exactly a 'curse word'.

[antoniseb]

Originally Posted by umop ap!sdn

words that I wasn't allowed to use when I was a kid get posted with not even a warning.

It should not be a surprise to anyone here that not all posts that happen in CT, OTB, or F&G get read by the moderators. Some do, but not all. We rely on the notification system, especially for these forums.

We do try to keep an eye on language.