The Future of ATM

[Gillianren]

Originally Posted by uncommonsense

. . . But IMHO this method of "resposibility for your own decisions" will filter many problems . . . .

In my experience, it will not. You rely on people taking responsibility for their decisions in ATM. This is not a safe thing on which to rely.

[uncommonsense]

Oh, forgot, I see many ATM OP's that state from the beginning "i'm no scientist, but..." and so IMHO in many instances there is not a sense of " I want my theory in the forum with strongest credibility"

[uncommonsense]

I agree, and that is why you should'nt rely. What I suggested s not reliance, hence, the checks and balances. Rather it is a potential method of making things better than they are. Thats all.

[Nereid]

In Moose's post/thread, A Very Brief History of the ATM Forum, a key criterion for actively considering proposals for changes (to the ATM section, its rules, guidelines, etc) is that it does not increase the workload of the mod team*.

Can you please say a few words, uncommonsense, about how the workload of the mods might be impacted, were your suggestion to be implemented (in any form)?

* "I also feel very safe in suggesting that it's probably not worth the time of proposing anything that would require additional effort on the part of the mods."

[slang]

Originally Posted by uncommonsense

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

The latter already exists. Peer reviewed journals.

[01101001]

Originally Posted by uncommonsense

Oh, forgot, I see many ATM OP's that state from the beginning "i'm no scientist, but..." and so IMHO in many instances there is not a sense of " I want my theory in the forum with strongest credibility"

Simply, people who wish to advocate a position should be prepared to advocate it.

People who just want to ask science-oriented questions or engage in clearly labeled speculation are welcome in many of the science subfora. Discussions of that nature happen all the time.

People who want to tell others the ways things are, to assert stuff they made up, when those ways are not part of mainstream science, are headed for the exclusive Against the Mainstream forum.

People who come here and read statements they find in most parts of the forum -- besides in a couple clearly labeled preserves -- should expect that what they are reading is from out of the mainstream, a part of life that works, the part that has been tested, tormented, and conforms to the measured data.

This forum is designed and positioned by its owners as being for the discussion of mainstream astronomy and space science, not sciency-flavored speculation in the form of assertions. Those can happen elsewhere. It's a big Web.

[uncommonsense]

My suggestion by design is predicted to decrease the work load of mods:

peron arrives at BAUT ATM with intent to OP their idea.

Person is either: "reasosonable" novice or expert, or "unreasonable" novice or expert (4 total, of course people come in more varieties, but for our purposes this is the analysis)

person can not (mechanically prohibited) post prior to reading information and guidlines about each ATM

assuming all people is not unreasonable, people will post in the appropriate forum more often than they do now in current format, as, amatures incapable of proving their ATM are currently expected to so do, thus they will always be in an inapropriate forum under current system. Assume without arguing that posting ATM in inappropriate forum often requires mod involvement.

If an unreasonable expert ends up in novice forum, as expectations of proof are much lower, then there should be less problems, therefore less mod involvement,and, the person can always choose to go over to expert forum. If Unreasonable expert strts in expert forum...............you can have him

Furthermore, assume that some mod involvement under current system is caused by people "not realizing what they were getting into". Yes, they are told to read the ATM rules upfront but, they would now have a choice of more appropriate forum that will serve their goals, and so assume they will choose accordingly, thus decreasin mod involvement.

I can continue, but i gotta get to work. IMHO, what I have given, if believed, should suffice.

Thanks for the opportunity.

[uncommonsense]

Originally Posted by 01101001

Simply, people who wish to advocate a position should be prepared to advocate it.

People who just want to ask science-oriented questions or engage in clearly labeled speculation are welcome in many of the science subfora. Discussions of that nature happen all the time.

People who want to tell others the ways things are, to assert stuff they made up, when those ways are not part of mainstream science, are headed for the exclusive Against the Mainstream forum.

People who come here and read statements they find in most parts of the forum -- besides in a couple clearly labeled preserves -- should expect that what they are reading is from out of the mainstream, a part of life that works, the part that has been tested, tormented, and conforms to the measured data.

This is forum is designed and positioned by its owners as being for the discussion of mainstream astronomy and space science, not sciency-flavored speculation in the form of assertions. Those can happen elsewhere. It's a big Web.

I respect that and choose not to argue. I will however invite you to consider that this is how you think it should be, and many others think so as well, including me,

but it is not how it IS as we speak, and proof of that is scatterd about the hals of BAUT.

I see no resolution here, except maybe "leave it alone"

[Nereid]

Originally Posted by uncommonsense

My suggestion by design is predicted to decrease the work load of mods:

peron arrives at BAUT ATM with intent to OP their idea.

Person is either: "reasosonable" novice or expert, or "unreasonable" novice or expert (4 total, of course people come in more varieties, but for our purposes this is the analysis)

person can not (mechanically prohibited) post prior to reading information and guidlines about each ATM

Quite a few ATM threads result from a post (or thread) - usually by a newbie - being moved from some other part of BAUT (e.g. Q&A).

How would this work, under your suggestion?

Perhaps a holding pen, where such posts would stay - locked - and the BAUTian would re-write their ATM idea, and submit it after agreeing to the t's and c's (and then the original would be deleted)?

assuming all people is not unreasonable, people will post in the appropriate forum more often than they do now in current format, as, amatures incapable of proving their ATM are currently expected to so do, thus they will always be in an inapropriate forum under current system. Assume without arguing that posting ATM in inappropriate forum often requires mod involvement.

If an unreasonable expert ends up in novice forum, as expectations of proof are much lower, then there should be less problems, therefore less mod involvement,and, the person can always choose to go over to expert forum.

This seems like an invitation to game the system! And may be the weakest part of the suggestion.

If Unreasonable expert strts in expert forum...............you can have him

Furthermore, assume that some mod involvement under current system is caused by people "not realizing what they were getting into". Yes, they are told to read the ATM rules upfront but, they would now have a choice of more appropriate forum that will serve their goals, and so assume they will choose accordingly, thus decreasin mod involvement.

I can continue, but i gotta get to work. IMHO, what I have given, if believed, should suffice.

Thanks for the opportunity.

There'd need to be some guidelines on how each of the two ATM streams would work.

The t's & c's those proposing ATM ideas would have to sign up to would need to be hammered out (an interesting exercise, but do-able).

And the 'rules' for each clearly stated.

Presumably, the 'expert' part would have much tougher ones, with standards more like those of peer review (e.g. proper references, something of a literature search).

Anything else?

[uncommonsense]

yes. just getting up and about. need to take 5.

[uncommonsense]

Quite a few ATM threads result from a post (or thread) - usually by a newbie - being moved from some other part of BAUT (e.g. Q&A).

How would this work, under your suggestion?

Perhaps a holding pen, where such posts would stay - locked - and the BAUTian would re-write their ATM idea, and submit it after agreeing to the t's and c's (and then the original would be deleted)?

I see that as working quite well in several ways:

It gives poster a chance to "recollect" his/her thoughts while under temporary shelter.

Also, if the holding tank move is accompanied by a standardized prewritten explanation regareding differences between ATM v. Mainstream- along with statement of BAUT's commitment to mainstream science, BAUT's mission to bring science to the public, and a gift certificate for a free toaster. IMHO, this accomplishes BAUTs goals of growing and retaining members who want to share science. Even if the poster runs off without diving into ATM, they were privilaged to some very sound priciples regarding how and why science works.

More in a bit, gotta get kids up and fed.

[Moose]

Originally Posted by uncommonsense

assuming all people is not unreasonable,

For the purposes of this exercise, you should worst-case all of your assumptions. Assume every OP will be unreasonable. Assume everybody will start out in the wrong forum. Assume somebody (not necessarily the OP) will get their backs up over every single mod action and decision, no matter what it is.

It's not _quite_ the reality with modding ATM, but there are months it's been pretty close.

[uncommonsense]

This seems like an invitation to game the system! And may be the weakest part of the suggestion.

My appologies, the prose to which the above refered was not a model for the procedure of ATM, rather just an attempt to explain how 2 threads are better than 1.

First off, a public forum with free membership, on the internet, will always be visited by the various types of difficult participants. BAUT, like many sites, is "open admission". While open adission comes with maintenance, it also attracts the highest mumber of congenial members, and high membersip and retention achieves many goals.


The challenge for management is how to deal with the difficult members after they lie, cheat, and steal their way in thru your font door.


Off the cuff, I see at least 2 different ways this model will help reduce all the stuff we see going down in, and because of ATM:

1. reduces the cases where: good, non-scientist people - who have really good scientific explanations about the world (or so they think), ---stayin up late researching these ideas and looking for a place to share them, or proclaim them, who then runs across BAUT on the internet because it has a strong web presence,

and because they are attracted by the irony and informality of the name of the forum, and see it as a safe and receptive community to express what he percieves as his inner genius, and though having read the rules/requirements for ATM ---

he convinces him self he can just "skirt around the math and other proofs the rules say he will need ---"cause this is just such a great idea", and soon after he sticks his neck out, exposing what he percieves as "the greatest accomplisment ever of my intellect", and then.......well we all know the bad things that can happen next when this happens to me back in 2008........I mean......ah.......oops, did I just say that out loud?

moving along.

I am confident many people in this situation would opt for the less formal thread from the start, thereby avoiding non-scientist having to "defend a scientific dissertation". Thereby reducing the bad stuff we see alot of now


2) On the flip side, members who are posing against the idea:

1) will loose the motivation to give such "shocking" disapproval of the Idea itself

2) know straight off an amature presented the idea --therefor loosing motivation to "one up" the amature thru intellectual flexing.

In short , much of the motivation to behave in certain ways that lead to the present dissonance ---will be removed.

I need to conclude due to time conflict.

If amature poster chooses the expert thread,(wrong thread) and then causes conflict, or or does not obviosly have the knowlege to defend His idea , the first move by a mod (holding tank) is quick, decisive, but is also far more innocuous than current methods and so will greatly decrease hostility.

More if needed. gotta bolt

[captain swoop]

Up to date every suggestion to reform ATM always seems to result in something more complicated and difficult to moderate.

[uncommonsense]

Originally Posted by captain swoop

Up to date every suggestion to reform ATM always seems to result in something more complicated and difficult to moderate.

If your impression is that this example of ATM would be more difficult then I am not explaining it well. Reading ovewr my last posts, it appears I did not provide an orderly and concice constuction, as I didn't have it prepared ahead of time. My interest in ATM adopting these particular suggestions is simply that I think it will imomprove the quality of the BAUT experience for everyone. Whether these ideas or some others are utilized means little to me, improving BAUT means alot. It is sickening at times to watch threads trransform into battlezones - even worse to see them started with that intent.

Something needs to change so these situations only happen rarely. Whatever is being done now isn't slowing it down.

IMHO as for ATM, the biggest problem is the dichotomy in ATM regarding amatures pitted against proffessionals - but under the current set up, there is no other choice for an amature who wishesw to share present original ideasw other than than to face the criticisms of the professionals at at thesus defending level, and the professionals have no choice but to attrack amatures ideas if they are wrong, as this is their responsibility as professionals ---- but the site attract many many amatures. Something needs to change

[HenrikOlsen]

Except the one about perma-banning everyone who posts ATM no matter where

[Gillianren]

Originally Posted by uncommonsense

Something needs to change so these situations only happen rarely. Whatever is being done now isn't slowing it down.

You're right--we need a better class of ATM proponents. Ones who are willing to learn and even acknowledge that they've made mistakes in the first place.

[uncommonsense]

Originally Posted by Gillianren

You're right--we need a better class of ATM proponents. Ones who are willing to learn and even acknowledge that they've made mistakes in the first place.

You are right on the mark but....again "public forum". That is impossible under current settings.

[Gillianren]

Originally Posted by uncommonsense

You are right on the mark but....again "public forum". That is impossible under current settings.

Yes. Hence any rules which are in place regarding the ATM section of this board will necessarily make someone upset and cause someone problems. The goal is for it to be the mods as seldom as possible.

[cran]

uncommonsense -

if I'm understanding what you're advocating, then it seems the outcome would defeat one of the strengths acknowledged earlier (here or somewhere else) : that of sharing science and learning from those more skilled.

yes, separating the wheat from the chaff would leave us with a leaner, stronger forum for ideas, proposals, challenges of the mainstream consensus, etc, where participation would be mostly restricted to those who can argue or at least follow the more esoteric lines of evidence ...

and set up a new section which, if ignored by (or excluded from) the more skilled or knowledgeable of us, and/or not bound by the usual rules of evidence*, would become unrestricted speculations posing as scientific (more likely philosophical) discussion - a kind of "on topic babbling" - the chances of sharing science or learning in these situations seem markedly reduced.

*or applicability of relevant laws, or credibility of reference sources, etc ...

....
if segregation of threads is based on the intention of the OP, then it is more along the lines of an earlier suggestion (or two) - that of challenge-ready proposals v free-wheeling discussions - regardless of the skill set or credentials of the OP ...
....

the mandatory holding-pen idea - can the system accommodate an auto lock on ATM OPs for a set time; say for 3 days?, 7 days? - has merit, I think ...

after all, a good idea now should still be a good idea next week ...

and a poorly prepared OP (whether from natural exuberance, or sudden transplant from another section) can be encouraged to catch a breath, read up on the requirements, and gird loins** ...

**the "read" and "gird" suggestions do already occur, but the bell has rung and the clock is ticking ...

[kleindoofy]

Originally Posted by HenrikOlsen

Except the one about perma-banning everyone who posts ATM no matter where

Sounds good.

Not very nice, but ultimately realistic.

[ilja]

Originally Posted by 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.

I have expected that too, but not received any response.

But at least my closed thread about foliations has been reopened. With my answers to the previous threads deleted, so that my problem remains: What to do with the unanswered questions. (I have asked the moderators about this today, let's see what happens.)

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.

The postings I have not been able to answer are
93944-why-quantum-gravity-requires-background-4.html#post1606483 and following.

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.

In some sense, this has happened here too, but only because of the 30 day rule - else, the whole discussion would have been continued in 92447-generalization-lorentz-ether-gravity.html

[Spoons]

So do you now have some calculations (or reasonable answers in some form) to the outstanding questions in that thread?

It would be unfortunate if you don't get the opportunity to post those answers. I don't know how long ago you contacted them, but maybe you just need to be patient while the mods tend to it?

That one does seem strange, being closed without any coment at the end of the thread to explain it.

[NickW]

Originally Posted by Spoons

That one does seem strange, being closed without any coment at the end of the thread to explain it.

I think it got closed because of the 30 day time limit, which the forum does automatically, without a comment to that effect.

[Spoons]

Oh, I see. Makes sense then. Cheers.

[Jens]

I'm sure this has come up a lot before, so I'm probably just restating a question, but when people talk about ATM, I sometimes wonder about why it exists in the first place. I can sort of think of three possibilities:

1. To correct mistaken notions by people who think they have a wonderful new idea that proves Einstein wrong or whatever.
2. To provide the possibility that some advance might come from a perceptive observation by a person who doesn't have proper scientific credentials.
3. To amuse ourselves with the ideas that people manage come up with.

I have to admit that sometimes it's the third that prompts me to look at a thread in ATM. But I assume that it's mostly 1, with perhaps a tiny bit of 2?

[HenrikOlsen]

0. To keep promotion of those ideas out of the rest of the site.

4. To educate random people who'd otherwise just see the promotion of an idea and deserves to see it contested as well.

[mugaliens]

I think door number 2 was behind the original intent.

[HenrikOlsen]

Door 2 came later than door 0.

[Moose]

Much later. 0 was the stated reason for its creation on BABB.