What to do about 'Jerry posts'

[Nereid]

Such as this one.

Of course, I am not referring to any particular BAUT member, rather to two kinds of persistent postings:

1) Oblique (and sometimes not so oblique) references to concerns over mainstream astronomy or space science (or astrophysics, or cosmology) that have been raised, many times, in many threads, in several BAUT sections, before. In this particular case, it is 'gravity behaving badly'.

Sometimes the post does seem to have direct pertinence to the thread; many times its pertinence seems to be perceived only by the BAUT member who posted it.

2) Rehashing of papers, or ideas, that have been discussed, in many contexts, in several threads, in several BAUT sections, before. Examples include *quasar proper motions; *(lack of) time dilation in quasars; *Pioneer 6.

What concerns me is that there's nothing new introduced, as could be seen by copying and pasting from earlier threads. It gets tiring to have to keep responding to this, over and over again, yet if someone doesn't do it, folk reading these new instances for the first time may form the impression that there's something unaddressed, some big question that is going unanswered.

And for avoidance of doubt, my concern is over the repetitious posting of the same material by the same BAUT member(s) (not a new member posting such material for the first time).

Note too that most times there is not an explicit ATM idea being presented (such presentations are easily handled within BAUT's rules), or even hinted at or implied.

Is anyone else concerned about this?

If so, what to do about it?

[01101001]

Originally Posted by Nereid

Is anyone else concerned about this?

Sure. It's tiresome. It's unnecessary. It's abusing the forum for viewpoint promotion ad nauseum. It's disruptive of normal flow.

Originally Posted by Nereid

If so, what to do about it?

First: Warn 'em.
Second: Temporarily ban 'em.
Third: Permanently ban 'em.

I won't miss 'em.

[Fazor]

Well, I think we discussed the idea of an astronomy or science wiki a while back in the "Astronomy class on BAUT?" thread (OTB).

I know a lot of this information is out there on various sites, including the infamous wikipedia. But is there some kind of free private wiki site we could use? That way topics that intertwine can be documented in reference format. That way when a thread brings in parts of things already discussed, a simple "see x reference" link could suffice; allowing those (like myself) who need caught up to check out the reference, and those who do not can continue the discussion with less derailment/interuptions.

[Moose]

Originally Posted by Nereid

1) Oblique (and sometimes not so oblique) references to concerns over mainstream astronomy or space science (or astrophysics, or cosmology) that have been raised, many times, in many threads, in several BAUT sections, before. In this particular case, it is 'gravity behaving badly'.

Sometimes the post does seem to have direct pertinence to the thread; many times its pertinence seems to be perceived only by the BAUT member who posted it.

Where it's pertinent and not promoting ATM, leave it be. A challenge to a point covered by a mainstream theory probably isn't in itself ATM.

If the challenge has an "if not this, then my idea succeeds by default, even if I don't explicitly name it", it's ATM. If it's ATM, it's adequately covered by the procedures related to rule 13 and should be restricted to its own ATM thread, open or closed, as normal.

If it's not ATM but is disruptive to the topic, it falls under rule 14 and an official direction to stay on topic is warranted. If it's sufficiently aggressive, rule 14 is there to deal with it. If it's not disruptive, or no more disruptive than an ordinary inadvertent hijack, leave it be.

2) Rehashing of papers, or ideas, that have been discussed, in many contexts, in several threads, in several BAUT sections, before. Examples include *quasar proper motions; *(lack of) time dilation in quasars; *Pioneer 6.

What concerns me is that there's nothing new introduced, as could be seen by copying and pasting from earlier threads. It gets tiring to have to keep responding to this, over and over again, yet if someone doesn't do it, folk reading these new instances for the first time may form the impression that there's something unaddressed, some big question that is going unanswered.

This one is really already covered by the rules. Rule 6 points out that the term spam really has two meanings (over and above the trademarked meaning): unsolicited promotion (commercial or not), and repeated flooding to the point of disruption.

That it's done within ten minutes or throttled over the space of months or years really doesn't change the effect. That it's ATM or not isn't really important either. If it's not too blatant, warn on rule 6 and/or rule 14. Merge new threads to existing ones to get the message across. If it's blatant enough, sanction as normal.

[parejkoj]

I rather like Fazor's idea. If there is an interesting discussion in a thread, but it eventually tapers off and gets buried, it can be hard to dig it up again. Yes, there is a search function, but there are a lot of threads to dig through, even for complicated searches.

[Tensor]

I'll second the idea of the ones and zeros guy. It should be rather obvious from the rules. I wouldn't miss those posters either.

[Doodler]

Is it possible to assemble a small library of the "Greatest Hits" that hash an issue out in detail?

If you see a new trainwreck threatening to happen, drop a link to the old discussions, then lock the thread. If its someone new, give'em a quick summary of why its considered a dead issue, and if its someone who makes a habit of revisiting previously defeated points, without something new to bring to the table, then there's already a list of procedures in place.

I'd only consider leaving it unlocked if the revisit to the issue has something new to say.

Added: In the event of a highjack, which I believe is also covered in existing rules, let'em have it with the appropriate caliber of response.

[Fazor]

I didn't gather the OP was necessarily addressing only those who abuse threads to re-open worn out ATM debates. Yes, this happens and is frustrating; but as a relative new-commer to BAUT I can say that often I find myself lost when a conversation starts to discuss something that's related to one of these dead theories. Some of them can be searched easily enough; others either return so many different threads or threads that are thousands of posts long that cannot be easily read.

This leaves someone like me with few options: either forget about it and not follow the current conversation (no fun), or ask about it and risk derailing that current conversation. Also, asking about it opens the door for the proponents of said "dead" discussions to come flying back in.

Granted, the idea of a wiki or library of such topics would be a huge undertakig. It's something that I think would be *nice*, but not necessarily feasable.

[Fortunate]

From my own perspective as a reader and poster, I find some posts uninteresting, annoying, or tedious. No problem - I can skip on by them. I can skip whole threads or avoid entire fora. But in order to maintain the integrity of the site, the moderators must deal with a number of the comments. It is really unfair to them to persist RELENTLESSLY with the same tired old many-times-debunked ideas.

[Warren Platts]

Give Jerry a break! There's so much off the wall wasted bandwith on this forum regarding any subject whatsoever; my vote is to let anyone say anything they want when it comes to dark matter.

Here's a proposal: any post on bautforum.com that has nothing to do with astronomy or space science or science in general or perhaps even philosophy shouldn't be be added to a poster's "post" count. Really, of the people with 10,000+ posts, how many of those posts have to do with any kind of science? 50%???

[Fortunate]

Warren,

I have nothing but respect for Jerry, and, maybe, using his name in the title of the thread to describe a certain type of post was a mistake. I struggled with the wording of my previous post, and maybe I entered it too quickly because at that moment I had to attend to something else at work. I hope that I did not injure anyone's feelings - I definitely do not wish to. I very much enjoy the collegial and respectful tone of the site.

But I also sympathize with the moderators. They should have as much fun as the rest of us. They are among the most scientifically informed users of the site and have a tremendous amount of insight to contribute to many of the threads. My remarks in post #9 were intended to support the moderators, and I am sorry if anyone else felt criticized.

[antoniseb]

Originally Posted by Warren Platts

Really, of the people with 10,000+ posts, how many of those posts have to do with any kind of science? 50%???

That would be ToSeek (perhaps twice), Myself, Maksutov, and Nicolas. For myself, I'd have to guess that a quarter of my posts are moderation efforts (but still science related in many cases) and another quarter were from a stretch when I was doing Fun & Games. Aside from that the rest are pretty science-oriented. I think you'll find ToSeek with similar numbers. Mak might have a higher percentage than me if you count CT debunking as science. I don't really know Nicolas' posting habits. Interesting question though. What fraction of your posts are science?

[R.A.F.]

Originally Posted by Warren Platts

Give Jerry a break!

Jerry has a problem reacting in a "way" that is respectable particularly when he is shown to be wrong.

Example...

Jerry got it into his head that the Huygens probe was going to crash due to "variable gravity". When the probe didn't crash, he "could" have simply admited that he was wrong, but no...he had to go on and on about how the descent was not "as it should be" in an effort to "save face" with his "variable gravity" idea.

That's the way a pseudo-scientist, reacts...not a scientist.

[Warren Platts]

Originally Posted by antoniseb

I don't really know Nicolas' posting habits. Interesting question though. What fraction of your posts are science?

I can say with confidence since I just flipped through all my posts that 95%-98% of my posts on this forum have had something to do with science.

[Van Rijn]

Originally Posted by Warren Platts

I can say with confidence since I just flipped through all my posts that 95%-98% of my posts on this forum have had something to do with science.

Odd. I would have said much lower.

[davidlpf]

Originally Posted by Van Rijn

Odd. I would have said much lower.

Me too.
added I know most of my post do not have a lot to do with science but once and while do step into a debate.

[davidlpf]

Originally Posted by 01101001

First: Warn 'em.
Second: Temporarily ban 'em.
Third: Permanently ban 'em.

I won't miss 'em.

Totally agree, I do not have much interaction with Jerry but there are others who do this tactic. One of the seems to be able generate more sock puppets then I have socks.

[Ari Jokimaki]

Originally Posted by R.A.F.

When the probe didn't crash, he "could" have simply admited that he was wrong, but no...he had to go on and on about how the descent was not "as it should be" in an effort to "save face" with his "variable gravity" idea.

Jerry has been admitting his mistakes many times. How do you know that this particular case was "in an effort to "save face"" rather than case of Jerry genuinely seeing possibility for his hypothesis to survive? Did Jerry tell you this, or are you a mindreader?

Theories don't usually get abandoned at the sight of first trouble without thinking of possible ways the theory could still work or ways to correct the theory in order to make it work. That has been done many times to mainstream theories such as Big Bang theory, but perhaps that has also been only in an effort to "save faces".

[Nereid]

Originally Posted by Warren Platts

I can say with confidence since I just flipped through all my posts that 95%-98% of my posts on this forum have had something to do with science.

Just out of curiosity, what proportion of your posts would you say had direct relevance to astronomy and space science?

[Nereid]

Originally Posted by Fazor

Well, I think we discussed the idea of an astronomy or science wiki a while back in the "Astronomy class on BAUT?" thread (OTB).

I know a lot of this information is out there on various sites, including the infamous wikipedia. But is there some kind of free private wiki site we could use? That way topics that intertwine can be documented in reference format. That way when a thread brings in parts of things already discussed, a simple "see x reference" link could suffice; allowing those (like myself) who need caught up to check out the reference, and those who do not can continue the discussion with less derailment/interuptions.

There are some good ideas here, and I'd encourage you to explore them further.

I'm not sure how well this would work to address the two kinds of concern I outlined in the OP ... maybe a Q&A thread devoted to the MacMillan 'quasar apparent proper motions' paper (and all those which have subsequently cited it), for example*? This may serve to reduce the repetitious use of this one paper, and also put it into context. It would also likely go a long way to addressing my second concern, as I think there are actually only a small number of such 'recycled papers'.

More generally, perhaps a request that more use be made of BAUT's Q&A section? Or one to start an ATM thread and stop "the spamming approach to scientific inference" (as one BAUT member recently put it, in question form)?

*This is how one of the main sections of cosmocoffee works, for those familiar with it.

[01101001]

Originally Posted by Nereid

More generally, perhaps a request that more use be made of BAUT's Q&A section?

That's a solution I never imagined being proposed. Could you expand on your vision of how that would succeed?

My own bleaker vision of that would be: instead of having to continuously follow up on the perpetrators' articles challenging their viewpoint and asking them not to rehash a topic, we'd have to continuously follow up on the perpetrators' articles challenging their viewpoint and asking them to rehash the topic in Q&A. So, how would their behavior actually be modified? Or, is the rehashing just moved to a different forum? Is there some magical property of Q&A that would mean there would be one final rehash?

[Fortunate]

Diverting such comments to Q & A would compromise Q & A, a very valuable forum. If the current rules seem insufficient, maybe you need to formulate and codify a new one. We want everyone to have a good time here. The whole point of any change should be to further that end.

[Nereid]

Originally Posted by 01101001

That's a solution I never imagined being proposed. Could you expand on your vision of how that would succeed?

My own bleaker vision of that would be: instead of having to continuously follow up on the perpetrators' articles challenging their viewpoint and asking them not to rehash a topic, we'd have to continuously follow up on the perpetrators' articles challenging their viewpoint and asking them to rehash the topic in Q&A. So, how would their behavior actually be modified? Or, is the rehashing just moved to a different forum? Is there some magical property of Q&A that would mean there would be one final rehash?

An example: BAUT member "J" writes a post - in the Astronomy section, say - ostensibly based on a preprint (let's say), a post which includes all sorts of misunderstandings, distortions, wild leaps of logic, and (let's be blunt) just plain old nonsense*.

The preprint may be very interesting, or dull as dishwater, or anything in between; several BAUT members may be able to put it context, to answer questions on it, etc.

Having the preprint in the OP of a Q&A thread, with a question such as "what does this have to do with quantum gravity?" - an open question (not yes/no, not a wild assertion) - may generate more questions, and a good discussion. So where, hithertofore, lots of misunderstandings, distortions, wild leaps of logic, and just plain old nonsense polluted the Astronomy section, a 'please ask questions first' policy may lead to a substantial reduction of pollution, and an increase in interesting Q&A threads.

A somewhat pertinent example: Is the value of the Hubble constant locked down?; another, more pertinent: Breakdown of relativity? (also MAGIC delayed photon) ("I'm not clear on why these results imply the effects of quantum gravity").

(more later)

*There are quite a few of these

[parejkoj]

I still like the idea of a wiki-like system. Somewhere where potentially useful threads can be summarized, or copied or referenced for future use.

A wiki seems like the best format, but I don't know who would post there.

[John Mendenhall]

Someone did touch on behavior modification previously. In chess circles, there is a player condition known, AIR, as 'sacchaista', or chess blindness, the characteristic being that an otherwise good player keeps playing a line that is known to be weak, and getting thumped, and then doing it again, despite the advice of others. Does this sound like some of our ATM'ers?

I think I would have to side with digital man (01101010). Enough is enough. You have to be able to say you're wrong. If you can't, and you keep beating a dead horse, then go do it somewhere else.

[galacsi]

Originally Posted by Nereid

Such as this one.

Of course, I am not referring to any particular BAUT member, rather to two kinds of persistent postings:

1) Oblique (and sometimes not so oblique) references to concerns over mainstream astronomy or space science (or astrophysics, or cosmology) that have been raised, many times, in many threads, in several BAUT sections, before. In this particular case, it is 'gravity behaving badly'.

Sometimes the post does seem to have direct pertinence to the thread; many times its pertinence seems to be perceived only by the BAUT member who posted it.

2) Rehashing of papers, or ideas, that have been discussed, in many contexts, in several threads, in several BAUT sections, before. Examples include *quasar proper motions; *(lack of) time dilation in quasars; *Pioneer 6.

What concerns me is that there's nothing new introduced, as could be seen by copying and pasting from earlier threads. It gets tiring to have to keep responding to this, over and over again, yet if someone doesn't do it, folk reading these new instances for the first time may form the impression that there's something unaddressed, some big question that is going unanswered.

And for avoidance of doubt, my concern is over the repetitious posting of the same material by the same BAUT member(s) (not a new member posting such material for the first time).

Note too that most times there is not an explicit ATM idea being presented (such presentations are easily handled within BAUT's rules), or even hinted at or implied.

Is anyone else concerned about this?

If so, what to do about it?

No I am not concerned at all . And there nothing to do about it.

IF an idea has already been talked about , is not really a concern.And If it is the case and a thread is referenced I go to it and read it. And thank you for the reference.

As about the persistence I think it is a quality. And Nereid you have been very persistent explaining us that one falsification is not enough to kill a theory , so why somebody should stop promoting an idea just because of a failure to answer every imaginable question ?

So as says Warren Platts , please give Jerry a break !

[Jerry]

I don't mind being reigned in a little, but you really need to look closely at your motivations in doing so. I will always see things from a different prospective. (I am probably the only knowledgable person who was NOT surprised that Iapetus APPEARS to be white on black, rather than black on white.) There is much that I see as being tied together, that is just flapping-in-wind from other prospectives. One persons spam is another person's pet rock.

I also need a little latitude for age: More than once I have thought through a posting while otherwise occupied and somewhere during the night 1)think I submitted something I did not 2)submitted something to the wrong thread 3) Submitted something twice to the same or different threads, 4) Omitted part of the though process that logically connects the dots.

I have said since before Huygens launch, this Cassini-Huygens mission will help redefine the physical universe as we know it. This is happening. I expect important clues from Messenger, New Horizons, Phoenix, LIGO, Chandra, Spitzer, James West, and the entire array of adaptive optical telescopes. While others expect the changes to be on the nanoscale, I think it will be a revolution.

Watch and see

[01101001]

Originally Posted by Jerry

Watch and see

Just in case we needed an example?

[Fazor]

More generally, perhaps a request that more use be made of BAUT's Q&A section? Or one to start an ATM thread and stop "the spamming approach to scientific inference" (as one BAUT member recently put it, in question form)? from Nereid's post

Well, maybe if there were a dedicated BAUT "reference section" with Q&A threads for any major topic overviews. I'd imagine to keep the information coherent and civil you'd want these threads locked, and maintained by one (or a few) dedicated editors. That way, if some paper comes out and brings the resurgance of, say, the EU claims, someone like me that wasn't arround for round one can quickly(er) catch up.

Of course, this still has the major drawback of requiring a lot of time and energy from someone.

[Serenitude]

I want to be on the record as being completely uncomfortable with, and officially against, public discussion of a poster's habit or tendencies. I do not like the precedent set of opening threads expressing dislike of a community member, or critiquing a community member, for any reason, and then the community chiming in. These are issues best left to PMs with moderators wrt individuals. I think this issue could have been handled as a generic example, without singling out a specific forum member.