Rules discussion

[The Bad Astronomer]

Folks-

We now have rules on how to post on this bulletin board.

Know them. Love them.

This thread is for making comments on the rules. Did we forget something? Is there something that needs to be more specific, or less specific? We're willing to listen.

On October 1, these rules will be strictly enforced. Until then, we will issue gentle reminders if rules are broken. However, this does not mean we will allow flagrant, repeated violations of them. Please have a care.

[Reina]

I was just reading the rules & regulations, I have never seen so many rules for a message board lol. I post on another message board (not astronomy related) and we have no rules.... which is probably why we all get into so much drama.

Don't worry, I'll be abiding by all the rules.

[Champion_Munch]

To tell you the truth, that's the first "rules list" I've ever bothered to read before.

with regards

[Andromeda321]

It sounded good! The only thing that I thought was perhaps worth commenting on is perhaps too big a deal was made regarding posting something in the wrong forum: while it's obvious that someone persistantly posting things in the wrong place should be reprimanded people do sometimes make mistakes regarding where they post, and that shouldn't be held on the same level as, say, profanities and hit-and-run posting.
Just my 2 cents.

[Ricimer]

I think one part of rule 13 is a bit strict:

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.

I don't know if I'd suggest banning after one warning. I'd warn them, then close the thread if it continues. If it becomes evident that it's a pattern of behavior, then ban them.

[Ken Vogt]

Concerning rule 11, there was a discussion about the edit limit of 24 hours, and the time limit was removed. Edit buttons are still available for old posts ATM, I believe? Perhaps the rule's text was formulated before this change was made?

In any case, I am a persistent and serial violator of the rule against revisionism. I do try to indicate when something has been edited, and why, but I often make long intricate posts that I later discover are wholly wrong: is such cases, to save people's time, I will replace the post with an apology.

Also, I once posted what I call a "review" of a piece BOINC-related software. This software is updated frequently, and I would occasionally revise the post to include the new features, again with a warning that the post is likely to have been edited.

I could of course handle this by a series of posts each linking through to all the previous additions, but I think it easier on the reader to have it in one place?

Also mentioned in yaohua2000's post linked above (specifically, #14) is how valuable editing the first post of a persistent thread can sometimes be.

I do grasp that editing content after a post has been replied to (mine never are ) is bad if it is an attempt to makes oneself look better (or the respondent foolish.)

But:

As a "senior member" in the biblical sense, to whom the internet is not a native culture, I have to say, with respect and just IMO, that the rule 11 phrase "changing content is not allowed!" seems a bit overbroad to me.

I will of course try to abide by the rule in future, but perhaps there might be a revision of the language? 8)

[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.

after all would it be wrong to shut someone down just because they dont have every answer? are we all to be Einstiens now? and pull the knowledge out of a hat?

2) the idea that you would opennly state that we should be prepared for.."attacks"
is i think a bad choce of words.. its fundamental in your rules.. which contradicts the basics of calm nice discussions...
attacks are quick and mean.. and have nothing to do with sharing ideas and knowledge.

the survival of the strong and fittest is for the jungle.!

we are suposed to be better than that...
-MT

[Maksutov]

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

Do I detect a standard ATM smokescreen here?

Originally Posted by Mosheh Thezion

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.

What mystery? This is a science board, remember?

Originally Posted by Mosheh Thezion

thus your rule that everything must be answered is suspect.. and should i think be reviewed.. and changed to allow more flexability in discussion.

No, the idea is to keep threads from going around in circles due to the inability or reluctance of the OP to defend the presented idea.

Originally Posted by Mosheh Thezion

after all would it be wrong to shut someone down just because they dont have every answer?

If the idea is properly thought through to the point where it is deemed presentable to a group of peers for criticism, then, yes, all questions about the idea should be answered. Otherwise, the idea is either wrong or not yet ready for public consumption.

Originally Posted by Mosheh Thezion

are we all to be Einstiens now?

Funny that someone who has now "corrected" one of Einstein's equations would complain about that.*

Originally Posted by Mosheh Thezion

and pull the knowledge out of a hat?

Ah, now you're getting closer to the issue.

Originally Posted by Mosheh Thezion

2)

What was "1)"?

Originally Posted by Mosheh Thezion

the idea that you would opennly state that we should be prepared for.."attacks"
is i think a bad choce of words.. its fundamental in your rules.. which contradicts the basics of calm nice discussions...
attacks are quick and mean.. and have nothing to do with sharing ideas and knowledge.

the survival of the strong and fittest is for the jungle.!

we are suposed to be better than that...
-MT

You've obviously never experienced the world of graduate academia, where one defends one's thesis against attacks by the committee that will judge whether it is worthy of consideration, and whether you are worthy of being granted an advanced degree. It's the committee's charter to attack without mercy any weakness of logic, evidence, etc., that might be found in the thesis. Such attacks actually benefit the candidate, providing him/her with, among other things, the opportunity to learn where the paper went astray.

Tell you what, MT. Take a few college courses. Maybe for four years. Perhaps even graduate. Better yet, add another 2-4 years for post-graduate work, then come back here and tell us what you think. I'm very sure what appear to be your currently uninformed opinions about what defending an idea entails will have changed quite a bit .

Meanwhile, the rule is a good one. It will (hopefully) keep certain ATM and CT threads from approaching infinity when one takes the limit as x approaches total inconclusiveness. The fact that the rule got you nervous indicates its initial effectiveness.


*BTW, wouldn't you agree that it would be good form at least to spell the fellow's name correctly?

[dgruss23]

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.

I think this is answered with points 3 & 8 here .

Its ok to say that you do not know. Its ok to so say that you're not sure, but you'll look into it and it may take a while. Sometimes in these debates direct questions relevant to the thrust of the debate are ignored. Perhaps a better way to state it is that questions should be "acknowledged" not ignored.

[Mosheh Thezion]

My point is.. you can still crush someones theory.. but you can do it with class... and do it so that you sound nice, even while your ripping there ideas to shreds.'

thats called manners and tact, usually express amoung friends... and its fundamental to having a open discussion.

allowing for the logic of attacks, means, that i or you can be stubborn and tear and slash at any fault we see, even if it isnt really relevant to the specific issue..

and it doesnt help anyone.. and its just mean..

being nice means saying what good you can first... and then adding the "BUT...."
and finishing with your argument either way.

and in a friendly manner.. continueing the discussion.

attacks make people open to say.. things which dont need to be said in order to get any point across..

-MT

[Cylinder]

Originally Posted by Ken Vogt

In any case, I am a persistent and serial violator of the rule against revisionism. I do try to indicate when something has been edited, and why, but I often make long intricate posts that I later discover are wholly wrong: is such cases, to save people's time, I will replace the post with an apology.

It is probably a better self-correction practice to leave the incorrect information in place but supply a warning or caveat where you point to the correct information. I understand that leaving incorrect information in a post is undesirable especially when it's not challenged or corrected by subsequent posters or until later pages in a long thread. I have self-corrected without comment in the first couple of minutes after a post (sometimes I submit then proof) but after that very short period of time, I think the post should stand.

Something like:

The freezing point of water is 32C.

That could be edited to:

The freezing point of water is 32C.

Edit: Whoops! The freezing point for water is actually 0C. The value I quoted was degrees Fahrenheit. Sorry for the confusion.

Or, if someone else catches it:

The freezing point of water is 32C.

Edit: Whoops! The freezing point for water is actually 0C. The value I quoted was degrees Fahrenheit. Thanks to Ken Vogt who catches my mistake here.

For a more complicated correction which involves more than one data point and especially when subsequent posts are made in the thread, it may be more clear to provide a simple caveat like:

Edit: My solution for this equation is wrong. The correct solution can be found [here].

You should also give credit if another user corrects your mistake.

It's also a good practice to correct the information with a new post in the thread to inform those users who may already be following the thread, especially if a significant amount of time elapses before the error is noticed. The problem with simply deleting your error is that it can cast undue doubt or an incorrect impression on a subsequent post in the thread by another user who is pointing out your error or somehow building on your post.

I think this practice will actually help increase a user's credibility (or at least it does in my mind) because it demonstrates the fact that the user takes seriously the information they provide.

[Maksutov]

Originally Posted by Mosheh Thezion

My point is.. you can still crush someones theory.. but you can do it with class... and do it so that you sound nice, even while your ripping there ideas to shreds.'

thats called manners and tact, usually express amoung friends... and its fundamental to having a open discussion.

allowing for the logic of attacks, means, that i or you can be stubborn and tear and slash at any fault we see, even if it isnt really relevant to the specific issue..

and it doesnt help anyone.. and its just mean..

being nice means saying what good you can first... and then adding the "BUT...."
and finishing with your argument either way.

and in a friendly manner.. continueing the discussion.

attacks make people open to say.. things which dont need to be said in order to get any point across..

-MT

Since the poster apparently has little or no experience with the world of academics, especially the post-graduate variety, perhaps this small exercise re word definitions will help:

at•tack

Pronunciation: (u-tak'), [key]
—v.t.
1. to set upon in a forceful, violent, hostile, or aggressive way, with or without a weapon; begin fighting with: He attacked him with his bare hands.
2. to begin hostilities against; start an offensive against: to attack the enemy.
3. to blame or abuse violently or bitterly.
4. to direct unfavorable criticism against; criticize severely; argue with strongly: He attacked his opponent's statement.
5. to try to destroy, esp. with verbal abuse: to attack the mayor's reputation.
6. to set about (a task) or go to work on (a thing) vigorously: to attack housecleaning; to attack the hamburger hungrily.
7. (of disease, destructive agencies, etc.) to begin to affect.

When one proposes a hypothesis, the operative definition of the word attack is #4, within the realm of real data and objective evidence. If one is unable to defend one's hypothesis, then the typical sell-out fall back position is to claim definitions #3 and #5 apply. This might be called a ad hominem mihi fallacy, where the defender of the hypothesis wrongly claims that the presenter, not the hypothesis, is being attacked. Despite such claims, protests, and appeals to emotion (another logical fallacy), the criticism of the hypothesis remains within the scope of definition #4.

As it says in the Advice for ATM theory supporters. sticky:

3. You have not been attacked if you are told you are wrong. Only your theory is attacked.

[hhEb09'1]

Originally Posted by The Bad Astronomer

This thread is for making comments on the rules. Did we forget something? Is there something that needs to be more specific, or less specific? We're willing to listen.

I just noticed this.

Rule 15 says

If you feel a post breaks one of these rules, please report it by clicking the 'report' button (the red triangle with the exclamation mark inside it, located at the top right hand side of every post).

But when you click on the red triangle, at the bottom of the form, it says

Note: This is ONLY to be used to report spam, advertising messages, and problematic (harassment, fighting, or rude) posts.

Does that "ONLY" emphasize that it is not to be used to report violations of Rules 4 (Copyright), 7 (Second & Third Party Posting), or 8 (hotlinking), and maybe other rule violations? That seems to contradict Rule 15.

If so, I didn't notice the "ONLY" until it was too late. Sorry.

[Ken Vogt]

Originally Posted by Cylinder

It is probably a better self-correction practice to leave the incorrect information in place but supply a warning or caveat where you point to the correct information.

Hi Cylinder,

I very much appreciate your thoughtful reply.

I think I do usually follow a pale approximation of your practices except for the "First post" and "Review" type items where multiple interpolation of "I first said this, but really it's this" would make an already complex post unreadable. (See here for a first post that was edited piecemeal, palely approximating your suggested practice, which would in fact greatly benefit from a thorough revision, without prejudicing any subsequent post. By agreement, BOINC teams are not allowed multiple threads in the Astronomy section, so we rarely start new ones.)

But a larger point is that even the editing methods you suggest are prohibited by Rule 11 as it now reads:

11. Editing & Revisionism

Edit your posts with care. There's no problem with editing a post later to change the tone or to correct spelling and the like. But changing content is not allowed! This is a slippery path that can be seen as revisionism. You may edit your post for up to 24 hours. Also, when quoting other posters, you may trim the text down to brief snippets to address something in particular, but do not misquote others or alter their content to suggest they've stated things which they haven't.

(emphasis added)

Firstly, as I mentioned, unlimited editing is now permitted, so the 24 hour statement is factually incorrect. And as I read the rule even the editing of the kind you mentioned is forbidden, as it definitely changes content.

I don't read ATM, and the hostility that must exist there (as implied by these rules) means I may never do so. Also I know that the BA has experienced much wholly undeserved grief from his generosity in even allowing a forum for alternative views.

But, and I wish I could make this sound kinder than it will look on the page, I fear that Rule 11 might be applied more vigorously and more literally in ATM than elsewhere. The edits in the post referred to above, among others, are clearly "revisionist" in the terms of the rule, but no one has ever warned me about them. But a post with a similarly edited block structure in ATM might well earn one. If someone is banned in ATM for revisionism, I should be too.

So I would greatly welcome a more nuanced rule, which couldn't do better than incorporate the examples you gave, in my opinion.

Originally Posted by Cylinder

I think this practice will actually help increase a user's credibility (or at least it does in my mind) because it demonstrates the fact that the user takes seriously the information they provide.

By this point, nothing I do will increase my credibility.

[pumpkinpie]

Originally Posted by The Bad Astronomer

This thread is for making comments on the rules. Did we forget something? Is there something that needs to be more specific, or less specific? We're willing to listen.

You might want to define "trolling." In rule 9 you say hit-and-run posting is barely above trolling. I'm sure most people know what that means, but some who don't spend as much time on bulletin boards may not have encountered that term, and could be confused.

[Robert Andersson]

Originally Posted by pumpkinpie

You might want to define "trolling." In rule 9 you say hit-and-run posting is barely above trolling. I'm sure most people know what that means, but some who don't spend as much time on bulletin boards may not have encountered that term, and could be confused.

Might be enought with a link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
Or, the more strict definition http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/troll.html

[Mosheh Thezion]

I just think it was better when people we told to be nice to each other.

rather than...
told that its ok to attack people, and so, expect to be attacked.

-MT

[Wolverine]

Originally Posted by Mosheh Thezion

I just think it was better when people we told to be nice to each other.

rather than...
told that its ok to attack people, and so, expect to be attacked.

It's not okay to attack people. It is ok to attack ideas. Please note the difference.

[Donnie B.]

Originally Posted by Maksutov

For example, if a poster keeps making claims based on the idea that 1 + 1 = 3 in base 10, then eventually it would be proper and fitting for that poster to receive a recommendation that a refresher on arithmetic would be in order.

Uh... is there a base in which 1 + 1 does equal 3?

I can only think of one base in which 1 + 1 = [something other than 2]...

[Maksutov]

Originally Posted by Donnie B.

Uh... is there a base in which 1 + 1 does equal 3?

I can only think of one base in which 1 + 1 = [something other than 2]...

Good question. I usually specify which base I'm working in when posting simple arithmetic since someone will invariably ask "what base is that?"

I wonder if employing continuous rather than integer variables, i.e., use fractional base and a fractional number of digits would allow for such a formula.

Then again a large, custom base that used non-tradition orders of symbols could achieve this result rather easily, such as this version of base 36: 0,1,3,5,7,9,2,4,6,8,A,B,C,D...Z, where 1 + 1 = 3, 1 + 3 = 5, and 1 + Z = 10.

[Donnie B.]

Well, I was hoping we wouldn't get to the point of redefining '1', '3', '+', or '='. If we start down that road, it'll get hard to communicate at all pretty quickly.

[Maksutov]

Originally Posted by Donnie B.

Well, I was hoping we wouldn't get to the point of redefining '1', '3', '+', or '='. If we start down that road, it'll get hard to communicate at all pretty quickly.

Agreed. Even when reading hexadecimal, I still have an ambivalent view of the the letter 'A", and so on!

Any more "special" or "double purpose" symbols and it's all Joyce to me! See you at the "Wake"!

[bearcub]

Back on topic.

I'd like to suggest adding a line to #10 covering "retired" usernames. There are a lot of folks here unfamiliar with the kilopi limit (assuming that the practice will continue) and regard switching to a new username to be a violaton of the rules.

[Astrobairn]

Think of the language used on TV during an after-school special and you'll get the idea.

So should every thread finish "We learned something today......"

Beyond that what language is acceptable for attacking an idea. I's clear that calling an arguement stupid is too far but outlandish?

[publiusr]

I try to give examples--like the Santorum/AccuWeather Bill--to deflate ideas like "NASA hurts jobs worse than it helps them" or such. There are many examples (non space related) about how private industry dosesn't always help and Gov't always hurt. Lou Dobbs is good on that.

I usually try some humor from time to time. I'll leave it to you to see how good that is :}

[The Bad Astronomer]

Originally Posted by bearcub

I'd like to suggest adding a line to #10 covering "retired" usernames. There are a lot of folks here unfamiliar with the kilopi limit (assuming that the practice will continue) and regard switching to a new username to be a violaton of the rules.

I personally frown on changing names, as that can make it hard to keep track of people. I allowed it on BA only grudgingly, and here on BAUT I think people should get one name and stick with it.

[Moose]

One way, IMO, to handle kilopi would be to add a kilopi smiley to which folks could link from their signatures. Multiple smileys for multiple multiples. Or something.

[Ari Jokimaki]

Regarding rule #2, sometimes in BAUT discussions people who are not members here (Richard Hoagland for example) get insulted. I don't know how others feel about this, but I find it very annoying. So, I'm just wondering if it would be a good idea to include a mention about that to rule #2.

[Jens]

I also have a little bit of trouble with the rule that you have to answer questions. It's a good rule, generally, but one might misunderstand that you have to give a correct answer to every question, which means theoretically that a person who doesn't like you could get you banned just by asking a series of really hard questions. I don't think it would be a bad idea to add something like, "If you don't know the answer, admit it."

[Mosheh Thezion]

Very good, and when all else fails.. we just re-write history.
wwoops didnt notice the split.. and usually there is also a danger of putting one foot in ones mouth.
-MT