The Future of ATM

[rtomes]

I am grateful for the interesting replies. In particular what Robert Tulip says in the preceding post about extending knowledge by meshing ideas. Maybe I should get back into the general science thread on cycles and keep posting stuff there. Eventually it may assist others to see the benefits of that perspective.

[hhEb09'1]

Originally Posted by Robert Tulip

The topic of cycles can be scientific, but it is not accepted within the mainstream as interesting, which is what makes it ATM.

?? I'm not sure what you mean here.

Ray's thread Cycles in everything has been open in the BAUT General Science forum for four months. I'm a big fan of cycles myself, having studied them for forty years.

[lbiar]

Over the 30 days:

Is good now in summer write a new atm with this rule of 30 days or is better wait until near september?

[Tinaa]

The new thread will last for thirty days no matter when you start it.

[lbiar]

And this momment (summer) is good for a new ATM or there are less people active?

[pzkpfw]

It's winter where some BAUT members live and work.

[lbiar]

Originally Posted by pzkpfw

It's winter where some BAUT members live and work.

Sorry. I understand it, but for many members it's a summer month.

The ask is it's good time for a new ATM.

Thanks.

[Spoons]

Ibiar - The only reason you might delay bringing it up would be if you feel it could benefit from more research before being raised.

I'm not telling you what to do, just suggesting with the 30 day rule it is a good idea if you really believe in your idea to do a reasonable amount of background research ahead of time.

And it's winter where I am, so fire away.

[lbiar]

Thanks Spoons for your notes.

[Spoons]

Pleasure to help. Oh, and be aware of the ATM posting rules. Check the sticky at the top of the thread list.

[forrest noble]

I'm a little late for this party but I thought I'd add my two cents. Part of the interest of an ATM proposal, in my opinion, is that everybody has the opportunity to ask questions and add their two cents. It is very difficult and sometimes impossible to agree with the OP poster and additionally add information and observations that might support his proposal without the mods eventually getting involved and chasing the supporter away. The answer to the problem is not easy because sometime this support includes other theoretical possibilities. If the new comments concerning the same theory are more interesting or controversial and inspire many comments the mods may claim thread highjack and chase the supporter away.

A couple of thoughts I have on this matter would be that another member could also answer questions on the OP topic without carrying the burden of proof beyond his own statements. In might be cool if another person could take over the thread if acknowledged on the thread by the OP. This might be an appealing idea for those who make an interesting proposal but eventually realize they cannot properly defend it and that someone else may be more capable.

Another problem, the way I see it, is that some responders are allowed to dominate the comments. This is no fun for the OP or other commentators. Still this monopoly was allowed and enforced by moderators who threatened to close the thread if certain answers were not given even when those questions were already answered on two or more prior postings. A moderator warning might be given to a commenter that asks the same question that has already been clearly answered on two prior posts. I made my own rule that no more that two questions would be answered for any one person without answering at least one question from another -- unless there is just one responder. The responder got around this idea by asking single questions that were a combination of many questions. This again was condoned by moderators. I considered this as abuse and intimidation. I never complained at that time but in the future I will complain regularly when I think intimidation occurs. Intimidation is most common by moderators since they have the power to do so. Although I don't know when reporting by a commenter occurs, it seems that moderators almost always side with the commenter rather than with the OP and in some cases the moderators point is not clearly made . I have been suspended for violating rule 13, not answering questions when no specific question was ever asked.

For the most part I understand the moderators point and purposes. Nobody is perfect but I think more effort must be made by the moderators trying to understand both points of view in a dispute and be very certain that each request made by the moderator is perfectly clear such as spelling out the detail of each request which have at times been ambiguous, resulting in wrongful suspensions. From time to time it has become apparent that a moderator is prejudiced against an ATM idea. Without reading all the details of the entire thread some wrongful decisions can be made by moderators.

[forrest noble]

Thought I'd add another comment on purely a positive note. Love the fact that in ATM (and elsewhere) one can continue to correct spelling, typos, also by adding moderate clarification. It is a much better reference for comments if ambiguity can be decreased, and a better archive legacy and journal for BAUT. This feature seems to be unique and I hope there is little abuse of this feature that would change the present policy. It seems particularly important for the OP, his proposal and answers which must be clear and ambiguous without provoking unnecessary questions and unneeded explanations.

[korjik]

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Thought I'd add another comment on purely a positive note. Love the fact that in ATM (and elsewhere) one can continue to correct spelling, typos, also by adding moderate clarification. It is a much better reference for comments if ambiguity can be decreased, and a better archive legacy and journal for BAUT. This feature seems to be unique and I hope there is little abuse of this feature that would change the present policy. It seems particularly important for the OP, his proposal and answers which must be clear and ambiguous without provoking unnecessary questions and unneeded explanations.

Do you mean going back and editing old posts? If you do, be very careful about changing content. While changing typos is allowed, changing the content of old posts can get you banned. If you have to change the info in an old post, you are better off making a new post and explain that you are modifying what was said in the older post.

[slang]

Originally Posted by korjik

Do you mean going back and editing old posts? If you do, be very careful about changing content. While changing typos is allowed, changing the content of old posts can get you banned. If you have to change the info in an old post, you are better off making a new post and explain that you are modifying what was said in the older post.

Or use the [s] and [/s] tags to get a strikethrough effect on the text you replace, along with a few words on why you replace it, and this of course only in those very limited occasions where editing is allowed.

ETA: Yes, Robinson, you can.

[Robinson]

You can go back and edit posts later? As in, after the hour expires?

[Swift]

Originally Posted by korjik

Do you mean going back and editing old posts? If you do, be very careful about changing content. While changing typos is allowed, changing the content of old posts can get you banned. If you have to change the info in an old post, you are better off making a new post and explain that you are modifying what was said in the older post.

What korjik said. The software does allow you to edit posts well after they are posted, but our rules are more narrow.

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.

It is also a good idea to add a Reason for Editing in the field at the bottom of the edit post screen.

[hhEb09'1]

Originally Posted by forrest noble

A couple of thoughts I have on this matter would be that another member could also answer questions on the OP topic without carrying the burden of proof beyond his own statements.

So far as I know, this is already allowed. I've even done it a few times myself.

[forrest noble]

hhEb09'1,

So far as I know, this is already allowed. I've even done it a few times myself.

It appears that there is a difference between moderators on this matter and even a difference in a moderator's mood depending on their interpretation whether there is something new being proposed, or if he understands the meaning or intent of the posting etc. Another thing that may be a problem is just the distasteful identification with the word "against" as in ATM. I have long believed based upon extensive study that very little in mainstream cosmology is valid but I'm not against anything. I believe in an alternative model and am not against other proposals and models including the mainstream. "Against" to many people is an antagonistic word.

Thanks for the quote and related info. I tread very lightly on a lot of threads that I would like to give better answers on behalf of the OP without adding any additional proposals, which I have also done in the past. At the time I felt like I was walking on eggshells concerning the moderators since I've been chased away numerous times when I thought I was proposing nothing new or different from the OP at all -- only perhaps making the OP's argument stronger. I'm always ready to supply sources and explanations for any reply and therefore consider that I've always been following the rules.

[forrest noble]

korjik,

Do you mean going back and editing old posts? If you do, be very careful about changing content. While changing typos is allowed, changing the content of old posts can get you banned. If you have to change the info in an old post, you are better off making a new post and explain that you are modifying what was said in the older post.

Upon reading something I wrote days or weeks before, I sometimes realize that what I said was not clear or could be misinterpreted. If changing the wording does not interfere with subsequent comments by others I make the changes for clarity's sake and add the "reason for change" : clarity of content.

[01101001]

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Upon reading something I wrote days or weeks before, I sometimes realize that what I said was not clear or could be misinterpreted.

One person's "could be misinterpreted" can be another person's "wrong", especially when it's in regards to a contentious point. If I find myself wanting to go back and make a change, I think it's more polite, and I'm less likely to be hassled, to leave the original words -- perhaps typographically stricken out -- and add the needed change, instead of rewriting history.

Make it obvious what you have done. Do be careful, and respectful of others, when making changes.

[Nereid]

Being respectful of others includes recognising that others may have quoted, or commented on, the post you are editing ... so by changing your original, among other things, you make it hard for anyone who reads the thread later to work why there may seem to be a disconnect (unless, of course, in quoting a later poster preserved your original ...).

[ilja]

is the 30-days rule for ATMs.

Initially I have thought that it would be tolerated if the discussion continues in a new ATM, but it appears that this is not the case. (As a consequence of this misunderstanding, my third ATM has been closed with not even a single response to the ATM itself.)

The justification of this rule is completely nonsensical:

"30 days should be plenty of time to present your concept, deal with objections, answer anything else."

To present the concept, the introductory posting is sufficient. But to deal with objections and answering anything else? Sorry, but this depends on the objections and the questions, and in particular their timing. If 29 days nobody objects to anything, and then there appear some questions and objections, the remaining day is certainly not sufficient to deal with the objections and to answer the questions. And if one is not sitting all the time behind the computer, it may happen that one reads the question only when the thread is already closed.

To have a topic closed where the last posting contains questions and/or objections is highly frustrating, because it looks for all eternity as if I have not been able to answer the last questions or to meet the last objections. One rule should be obvious in a forum which is minimally fair: The owner of the ATM should be allowed to answer each question/objection made by others at least once.

I don't understand what could be the problem: If it is that some posters make some content-free postings simply to move their topic at the first place, forbid this. That's quite easy to detect (postings which do not answer questions of other users) and used in other forums. What else? If the thread is hijacked, the hijackers have to be penalized, not the owner by closing his thread.

Given this long discussion about it, I have no hope that this rule will be changed. So it's more reasonable to discuss the question if one can use a forum with such a stupid rule at all for presenting the own ideas.

Because I would like to link these discussions from my homepage, a situation where it looks like I'm unable to answer questions is intolerable for me. Or the rule has to be changed, or I have to apply some countermeasures. I'm thinking about commenting this stupid rule near the link to the discussion, or about commenting about this in the initial posting or 29-th day posting, with indications in which other place the discussion may be continued. The alternative would be to leave this forum. Any other suggestions?

[Spoons]

To be honest, I haven't searched the history of your ideas, but if there are/were any questions pending when the thread/s got suspended I expect they'd agree to open it for your opportunity to answer those particular questions.

That's certainly the first port of call.

If you've got an example of what you describe do you have a link? I'm interested but lazy. But if there's any example, that I agree on, of need for refinement within BAUT I'd be happy to push the cart.

Most do just go stale by then anyway. I don't know if the 30 day rule is really necessary, most that I've seen that last near that long lose the original meaning of the OP far before there. If discussion loses the OP meaning it can be sent to a different thread, in my opinion, so unless there's a complete stalemate a 30 day limit doesn't seem necessary.

(Unless people bump threads without any merit)

[Nereid]

Originally Posted by ilja

is the 30-days rule for ATMs.

Initially I have thought that it would be tolerated if the discussion continues in a new ATM, but it appears that this is not the case. (As a consequence of this misunderstanding, my third ATM has been closed with not even a single response to the ATM itself.)

The justification of this rule is completely nonsensical:

"30 days should be plenty of time to present your concept, deal with objections, answer anything else."

To present the concept, the introductory posting is sufficient. But to deal with objections and answering anything else? Sorry, but this depends on the objections and the questions, and in particular their timing. If 29 days nobody objects to anything, and then there appear some questions and objections, the remaining day is certainly not sufficient to deal with the objections and to answer the questions. And if one is not sitting all the time behind the computer, it may happen that one reads the question only when the thread is already closed.

To have a topic closed where the last posting contains questions and/or objections is highly frustrating, because it looks for all eternity as if I have not been able to answer the last questions or to meet the last objections. One rule should be obvious in a forum which is minimally fair: The owner of the ATM should be allowed to answer each question/objection made by others at least once.

I don't understand what could be the problem: If it is that some posters make some content-free postings simply to move their topic at the first place, forbid this. That's quite easy to detect (postings which do not answer questions of other users) and used in other forums. What else? If the thread is hijacked, the hijackers have to be penalized, not the owner by closing his thread.

Given this long discussion about it, I have no hope that this rule will be changed. So it's more reasonable to discuss the question if one can use a forum with such a stupid rule at all for presenting the own ideas.

Because I would like to link these discussions from my homepage, a situation where it looks like I'm unable to answer questions is intolerable for me. Or the rule has to be changed, or I have to apply some countermeasures. I'm thinking about commenting this stupid rule near the link to the discussion, or about commenting about this in the initial posting or 29-th day posting, with indications in which other place the discussion may be continued. The alternative would be to leave this forum. Any other suggestions?

Without commenting - one way or another - on your particular ATM threads (or ideas), there is a straight-forward way to handle this: write to the mod team (by PM), making a request that a second (third, etc) 30-day thread on this topic be allowed, giving good reasons.

IMHO, the example you give is almost unique, and certainly there are ways to accommodate continued challenging of an ATM idea, in the spirit of the ATM rules (we do not need special rules to handle highly unusual cases!).

[captain swoop]

You may think the rule 'syupid' but the first post in this very thread gives the reasons for it from one of the board owners.

[uncommonsense]

The following suggestion is not directed at any individual post or member, but rather spings from all the dissatifaction I have seen in seveal feedback threads, and partly upon my own experience in BAUT:

Whereas, BAUT is a public forum and further encourages public participation ( (I assume this part of the mission statement of the owners for several reasons that need not be mentioned). I assume this because it is not private and there are no credentials required to join. And it's free.

Whereas, many members are not scholarly, and therefore lack the skills necessary to present and defend an ATM post. However, if they are members (by and large) they have a passion for science and a creative mind.

So, these well intentioned passionate (by and large) "amateurs" are invited in but don't really have an appropriate forum to express their ideas. Yes, they can ask questions - yes they can lurk and learn, yes tey can play fun and games. But thats not what brought many of them here (by and large).

I suggest there by 2 different ATM's. One for "part time scientists" and one for "strict" scientists.

I speculate many "strict" scientist reading this suggestion are cringing at the idea - but - if you are here, I assume you enjoy the "publicness" of BAUT. Otherwise you would be in a private forum of stricly colleagues.

So, keep in mind one of the goals of BAUT (I assume) - to bring an understanding of science to the public.

I suggest a more inclusive way to share your awesome scientific abilities is to add a 101 ATM for the freshmen. Who knows, you may learn someting yourselves.

[Nereid]

Originally Posted by uncommonsense

The following suggestion is not directed at any individual post or member, but rather spings from all the dissatifaction I have seen in seveal feedback threads, and partly upon my own experience in BAUT:

Whereas, BAUT is a public forum and further encourages public participation ( (I assume this part of the mission statement of the owners for several reasons that need not be mentioned). I assume this because it is not private and there are no credentials required to join. And it's free.

Whereas, many members are not scholarly, and therefore lack the skills necessary to present and defend an ATM post. However, if they are members (by and large) they have a passion for science and a creative mind.

So, these well intentioned passionate (by and large) "amateurs" are invited in but don't really have an appropriate forum to express their ideas. Yes, they can ask questions - yes they can lurk and learn, yes tey can play fun and games. But thats not what brought many of them here (by and large).

I suggest there by 2 different ATM's. One for "part time scientists" and one for "strict" scientists.

I speculate many "strict" scientist reading this suggestion are cringing at the idea - but - if you are here, I assume you enjoy the "publicness" of BAUT. Otherwise you would be in a private forum of stricly colleagues.

So, keep in mind one of the goals of BAUT (I assume) - to bring an understanding of science to the public.

I suggest a more inclusive way to share your awesome scientific abilities is to add a 101 ATM for the freshmen. Who knows, you may learn someting yourselves.

I think this suggestion may have some merit.

Can you give some examples - of recent ATM threads - that you think would fall into each category? And, if you know of any, at least one that you would consider difficult to categorise one way or the other!

[uncommonsense]

I would rather avoid offending anybody by passing judjment upon their abilities. And, I would rather avoid the implications that I am more qualified than others to do the same. (I'm chicken).

However, if asked, I believe their would be a consesus among members that their is a large disparity between members' knowlege of formal science. Sometimes this is more obvious sooner rather than later.

May I suggest (if feasible) that in addition to ATM forum rules and recomendations - that often are brushed over with the same neglect as are software licensing agreements and terms - there be an additional mechanism of mandatory disclosure as to the cautions/distinctions between the 2 threads.

[cran]

Originally Posted by Nereid

Without commenting - one way or another - on your particular ATM threads (or ideas), there is a straight-forward way to handle this: write to the mod team (by PM), making a request that a second (third, etc) 30-day thread on this topic be allowed, giving good reasons.

IMHO, the example you give is almost unique, and certainly there are ways to accommodate continued challenging of an ATM idea, in the spirit of the ATM rules (we do not need special rules to handle highly unusual cases!).

almost, but not quite, unique ... it has happened (usually my fault; I came into the discussion late ... and in one instance, I was away ill for five or six days near the end) ...

it's a hassle to extend a given thread beyond its set time; a moderator has to manually re-open it and that only works for 24 hours - and whilst it's true that moderators have been prepared to open a new thread under such circumstances, there's an awareness that the OP risks the stigma of favouritism (allowed a new thread on the same topic without the requirement of introducing new evidence), so the offer is not always taken up ...

in the few (yes, very few) such instances where I've participated, two things have happened:
1. a thread was re-opened for one day to allow the OP to post an acknowledgment, responses to unresolved questions/issues, and summation; and
2. ongoing discussions moved to PM ...

......

Originally Posted by uncommonsense

... I suggest there by 2 different ATM's. One for "part time scientists" and one for "strict" scientists...

without arguing for or against this, I'm aware that there have been previous proposals for some kind of segregation, usually along the lines of challenge v discussion, or professional v amateur, or peer-restricted v open slather ...

one of the sticking points is "who decides"? - the passionately held idea which overturns everything and shines the light of [insert appropriate term here] upon the rest of us would surely wish to be appreciated in the arena which assumes the strongest credibility, no?

in other words, how to prevent the "planets grew from seeds like trees", or "nesting mammoths dug the Mammoth caves", or "who needs maths when I've got imagination!" proponents from setting up their tents in the caravan section?

if the mods are expected to police this, then you're asking them to make value judgments on the merit of every idea and on the OP's ability or credibility, and as Nereid has hinted - what about the margin calls, those which (especially early on) are difficult to categorise?

is it possible that this would lead to fewer cries of "discrimination!" or "moderator bias!"?

another science forum has separated proposed new hypotheses from free-wheeling discussions and again from something they call "pseudoscience", but on the whole there is little within the actual threads to distinguish them - it's the same mish-mash of good and bad stuff that arises here in ATM.

[uncommonsense]

IMHO, the crux to this thread distinction is the the poster decides:

There is a short, concise set of informative directives / rules, reading of which are prerequisites for each area.

Members will know rather soon if an am has OP'd in the pro arena, and can simply flag. Mod's will then simply do what they do now, ie, view posts and make calls. If need be, move thread to am arena.

IMHO this process will remove MUCH of the hostility and personal slants from ATM, as, an am has been unequivocally "directed" where to OP, and then he/she makes the choice. Therfore responsibility for am ramblings in pro arena are firmly upon member.

Of course irrational posters will come thru, but IMHO this method of "resposibility for your own decisions" will filter many problems, and, IMHO, provide a better quality forum.