Proposed Forum Changes

[ToSeek]

Originally Posted by NEOWatcher

So; is Q&A Supposed to supercede all discussions when somebody has a question? I'm not quite sure what the issue is on your statement.
I view the Q&A more of a catch all when it might not be as specifically catagorized as elsewere on the board, and maybe the question itself is to determine what the discussion really is.

I consider Q&A a place for questions that have simple, straightforward answers that someone can do a search on later instead of asking the same question again. If it's a question that leads to a broader discussion, then it should go in the appropriate science subforum. (And for those of you who point out potential Q&A threads to the moderators, the main reason I sometimes leave such threads where they are is because I think it's more of a discussion thread than an open-and-shut question-and-answer.)

[mugaliens]

Originally Posted by Neverfly

My dear sir,
Are you trying to persuade us that MugAliens is not a raving lunatic after-all?

It's been pointed out that the "board ain't broke."

AndreasJ, these imponderables must be either figments of your imagination or beyond your understanding.

Perhaps if you had read the FAQ first...

LOL - God bless your tongue-in-cheek approach for brightening up my otherwise lackluster afternoon, Neverfly! Perhaps I need to fight off the chill with a roaring fire...

It seems our 290-post newbie (AndreasJ) put things far more eloquenty in his short post than I did in my longer ones.

Good for him!

[mugaliens]

Originally Posted by NEOWatcher

I agree with that statement, but the way mugs has presented it is rather harsh.

"Harsh?"

That one kind of set me off. How does EBB experience relate to the organization of astronomical informtion?

Some may be aghast to learn the organization of information is not limited space and astronomy, but is instead ubiquitous to all informational venues. I cut my teeth on a dial-up, text-based board. Twenty-two years later, BAUT is predominantly a text-based board, and there are still people who access it via dial-up! Not much has changed, other than the technology behind it.

The next was the clipper ship analogy. I'm not quite sure how to explain it, but that analogy has to do with capabilities of the technology. We still ship bulk items by ship regaurdless of the technology to take them. The board is the technology, how we represent the information in the board is not.

To me; What information goes where has nothing to do with the technology and everything to do about opinion.

My reference to a Yankee Clipper involved it's recent use to transport wine due to rising fuel costs, as was recently noted on BAUT. By 2030, we may be members of a forum we interact with via direct cranial implant, at a rate in excess of 1 TB/s (although I suspect overload would be likely). Yet that information would require the same logical organization as any information requires. I would even venture to say that there would still be a text-based version accessible via dial-up.

My clipper ship analogy also had to do with the fondness for antiquity, "keeping things the same," and "don't change it if it ain't broke." I maintain that change for the sake of change isn't good. I also maintain that change with a valid purpose for improvement is benefitial, and opposing that change on the grounds that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" is not good, and stonewalls improvements which would benefit us all (including those who don't want improvements regardless of the benefit).

If I'm not mistaken, that Yankee Clipper no longer uses canvas sails, but instead employs modern ones make of either polyethylene terephthalate (dacron), which hold their shape well under stretch, or nylon, which doesn't, but which is used for spinnakers due to it's lesser expense and the fact that spinnakers and square rig sails do not require rigid sail cloth.

I have my own ideas based on how it works for me, but I don't see the entire impact of presentation of the site.

"Moving the science and astronomy section to the top," "moving Q&A into the science and astronomy section" as mentioned by some others... You don't see how these slight changes would have a beneficial impact on how BAUT appears both to ourselves and to others?

I think some may insist on keeping their socks in their pants drawer "because that's the way I've always done it."

None of my proposals involves either a new chest of drawers, nor changing the contents of that dresser. Rather, that some of the contents would be better off in a more appropriate drawer, like putting the socks in the socks drawer, instead of mixing them in with one's pants.

[Neverfly]

Originally Posted by mugaliens

LOL - God bless your tongue-in-cheek approach for brightening up my otherwise lackluster afternoon, Neverfly! Perhaps I need to fight off the chill with a roaring fire...

It seems our 290-post newbie (AndreasJ) put things far more eloquenty in his short post than I did in my longer ones.

Good for him!

I have that happen to me all the time.

I'll make this long post explaining everything...

or a series of them.

Then Someone comes along and says the same thing in like three sentences.

I'm left scratching my head and thinking, "I want to learn how to do THAT! Like what he just did done do."

[mugaliens]

Originally Posted by Frog march

I still think that maybe there should be an ATM questions and answers section; where the questions can be as atm as the OP wants, including reasons for the questions; and allowing the development of ATM discussions.

Although this could lead to ATM answers being given to much legitimization---maybe the whole section could just be renamed "against the mainstream-theories, questions and possible answers"

I like this idea, Frog march.

Originally Posted by 01101001

Starting out with About BAUT is perfect. Putting Fun-n-Games second is an abomination. Following it with a new, no-proven-need-for Yarns is more abominable.

Hmm...

More off-focus stuff. The second appearance of a general something. What is this forum about, anyway? Where's the cool astronomy? Where's the marvelous universe? I came here for astronomy, for space science. This serves up off-topic stuff. Where's the space science? In the next section?

Double hmmm...

Criminy! Maybe this isn't a forum for me. Where's the unregister button?

Triple hmmm...

I'm not discounting your comments, 01101001, as you're right - this forum, nay, both forums from which this superforum resulted, are all about astronomy and the universe.

I have to ask you, though, Do you have a water cooler where you work? Are you prohibited from talking about anything other than company issues while you're there? Will non-company discussions at the copier get you fired?

I, for one, wouldn't want to work in such a company, and I think most of us would agree, just as I think most of us not only do not object to non astronomy/universe threads out there, but we welcome them, and derive a considerable amount of enjoyment from them.

As such, BAUT may not be your cup of tea, although I'd hate to see you go, as I've enjoyed your many other off-topic posts here on BAUT, such as The Zeppelin Flies Again, When is Evolution not Evolution?, Scale Model of a Power Plant, and First Pirate From Mars?.

Come on, 01101001, fess up - even you enjoy a little mirth and off-topic exploration from time to time, don't you?

[mugaliens]

My OP proposed elevated OTB to it's own section. While 01101001's comments about yarns, fun-n-games, as well as the comments of others, didn't convince me to change my stance on OTB's status, they have convinced me that a *slight* (ahem) revision to the structure I'd originally posted is in order.

Now, it's time for

Thanks to: (meaning your comments are incorporated into the revision below)

Tobin Dax , for recommending we get rid of the evolution sub-fora.

Chrissy , for seconding Tobin's arguement against the evolution sub-fora.

Argos , for seconding the moving of the Q&A to Space and Astronomy, and for that wonderful reference to Linda Evangelista.

01101001, for suggesting that fun-n-games and other non-S&A topics should not remain in About BAUT.

Henrik Olsen , for seconding several proposals in my OP.

AndreasJ , for reinforcing that Astronomy should be at/near the top.

Frog march , for reinforcing the need for a separate ATM section as it keeps the S&A section free from the flotsam and jetsam.

John Mendenhall , for reiterating the viability of a separate ATM section.

NEOWatcher, for reminding us all how most of us really interact with the board.

ToSeek, for reaffirming the need to keep a "open-and-shut question-and-answer" Q&A section separate from more in-depth discussions in the various science subforums.

And a special thanks to Gillianren, whose recommendations against proliferating subforums kept the following revised proposal much shorter than it would have been without her comments on that point!

Thus:

About BAUT
Space and Astronomy
--Questions and Answers
--Astrophotography
--Space Exploration
--Astronomical Observing, Equipment and Accessories
--Life in Space
--Small Media at Large
Off-Topic Babbling
--Original OTB (includes all current OTB threads)
--Science and Technology
--Human Interest
--Fun-n-Games
--Yarns
Universe Today (no change)
Bad Astronomy (no change)
Against the Mainstream
--Space and Astronomy
--Science and Technology
--Conspiracy Theories
--Unidentified stuff (belongs no where else)

Notes:

1. The Original OTB would include all the current OTB threads. It's would be wide open to responding to posts, so continue posting at your leisure. I'd recommend preventing new posts, here, as it's still the fatest single section (begging for relief). Since the current split is about half science, about half human interest, posting to one of these two categories from now on would relieve it's waistline.

2. The ATM categories are self-defined. That is, they're derived from those categories which don't fit anywhere else, and are against maintstream science. Please note that I've mirrored the two mainsteam categories, Space and Astronomy, and Science and Technology, here, so a mispost in the mainstream sections is a (usually) no-brainer sweep into either of these two.

3. By now, most will have noticed that I've gone to considerable lengths in revising the sections and forums of the OP based on input from most of the posters, and I've given credit to the various ideas of others. Put simply, my OP was simply to get the discussion going, as I knew I wasn't the only one out there with ideas on how to improve the board. Since then, I've merely been sifting through the various comments, trying to work them all (as many as I can) into an amalgam which seeks to both minimize the disagreements while maximizing the organizational integrity of the board as a whole.

This took most of my Saturday. Thanks aren't needed. I simply hope people realize that the results aren't just me spitting out some random thoughts. A lot of work, including your work, went into this revision.

4. I'd included a UFO-logy forum under ATM, but didn't want to give it credence, either as a science or as it's own section, so I merely allude to it with the current Unidentified stuff.

We know what it means.

Hey, I think we're pretty close, but it's still a work in progress, so feel free to continue commenting.

[chrissy]

We aren't pretty close to anything mugs, it shouldn't change, like I have said before in a different thread, why is it you who is wanting to change everything?

[NEOWatcher]

Originally Posted by mugaliens

"Harsh?"

I admit, harsh was a rather rough word to use. I was just a bit upset about how the Clipper analogy worked. But; your further explaination showed that I was missing a few facts an opinions about how it applied.

[mugaliens]

Originally Posted by chrissy

We aren't pretty close to anything mugs...

I said, "I think," not "we are." Thank you for sharing your opinion.

...it shouldn't change...

Again, thank you for sharing your opinion. As noted above, others, including myself, have their own, differing opinions.

...why is it you who is wanting to change everything?

Why are you confusing "a few minor tweaks" with changing "everything?" The vast majority of the board will remain unchanged. Same structure, same look and feel... Same "everything."

If it's not confusion or a misunderstanding on your part, then I would have to ask why you're intentionally making it out to be something that it's not.

Originally Posted by NEOWatcher

I admit, harsh was a rather rough word to use. I was just a bit upset about how the Clipper analogy worked. But; your further explaination showed that I was missing a few facts an opinions about how it applied.

Not at all. My further explanation merely contained info that should have been in my first explanation.

[Gillianren]

Originally Posted by mugaliens

Why are you confusing "a few minor tweaks" with changing "everything?" The vast majority of the board will remain unchanged. Same structure, same look and feel... Same "everything."

But it wouldn't be the same structure, and it would be a new structure that would cause more work (thread shifting is work) for the mods. And seriously. "Yarns"? Isn't that the height of a good BABBle?

[mugaliens]

Originally Posted by Gillianren

But it wouldn't be the same structure, and it would be a new structure that would cause more work (thread shifting is work) for the mods. And seriously. "Yarns"? Isn't that the height of a good BABBle?

No, no, and no.

As for yarns, I simply thought they were special enough they deserved their own section! But if others (most others, not just a few) believe they're best left in the mix, I'm all for that.

[Disinfo Agent]

I agree with moving the Q&A subforum to the Space and Astronomy section. Often, threads are started in Astronomy that really should be in Q&A. Perhaps this wouldn't happen as much if the two subforums were closer to each other.

[Spock Jenkins]

The only two changes I would make are moving Q & A to the top of Space & Astronomy. This would make it clear that the questions are to be about space and astronomy and keep me from making threads asking, "Who played Lumpy on Leave it to Beaver?"

I would move general science in with OTB and F & G since the topics raised there are supposed to be about subjects other than space and astronomy.

At the same time, I'm quite used to the way things are and don't really feel compelled to mess with it.

[mugaliens]

It's been relatively quiet, here, but there have been two more nods for moving Q&A to the Space and Astronomy section, as well as a nod for combining OTB, F&G, and General Science into a section about things other than space and astronomy.

[mugaliens]

Now that we have a new bunch of moderators, I'd like to invite all of you who have not yet commented, to post your own comments on these proposed changes.

And again, congratulations!

[Neverfly]

This here is an interesting thread.

Why is it that when Mugaliens dared to suggest that changes could help the board, that so many people jumped on his back simply for suggesting changes?

I can see with disagreeing about certain changes etc... But many of the commentary in reply to Mugaliens seemed to express discontent that changes were actually offered.

Why is that?



I have a proposed change for the forum. It is not yet about the structure of the forum... I'm still thinking on that and may post on it if I am able to post later.
The proposed change is in all of our attitudes.
Folks like TheHalcyonYear, Myself, Mugalies- we are often chastised by the members of the board for speaking out.
We are treated like there is something wrong with us for actually daring to let loose an opinion.

This board seems to have gotten very complacent in certain areas.

This is an Internet Debate Forum.

This is not a House.

I am not a guest in someones house.

I am paying about a hundred bucks a month to access the internet. It's not free. I am paying.
ANY website I go to or forum I might visit is not going to come with a service fee. That would be impractical.
This forum is not special in that regard. It doesn't come with a service fee either. Just like everwhere else on the net.
We can visit because it is beneficial to those that run it.

We are not guests.

We are contributers. Participants.
As such, we have a duty to speak out.

There's an old saying that was mentioned earlier, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
I would say that the last couple have days have made me more acutely aware that something is broken here.

[HenrikOlsen]

Actually, people don't jump on Mugs for proposing changes, it's for proposing the same changes repeatedly.

[Neverfly]

Originally Posted by HenrikOlsen

Actually, people don't jump on Mugs for proposing changes, it's for proposing the same changes repeatedly.

heh.. ok good point...

[PetersCreek]

Originally Posted by Neverfly

I am not a guest in someones house.

I am paying about a hundred bucks a month to access the internet. It's not free. I am paying.
ANY website I go to or forum I might visit is not going to come with a service fee. That would be impractical.
This forum is not special in that regard. It doesn't come with a service fee either. Just like everwhere else on the net.
We can visit because it is beneficial to those that run it.

We are not guests.

We are contributers. Participants.
As such, we have a duty to speak out.

Well, I'm going to both agree and disagree with you on this one. Let's say I invite someone to a party in my home. He contributes intelligent conversation, entertains us with a well-told joke or two, and otherwise participates in the event famously. He's the hit of the party and up to now, I've benefited from his attendance. We're all having a good time. But is he not still a guest? Can I not expect him to behave as a guest should in my home?

Of course, he can speak his mind...up to a point. If he crosses any line I draw (which I'm perfectly entitled to do) I'll remind him that he's a guest who is out-of-bounds. I don't care how much property tax he pays on his own home, how much his car note is, or how much gas he used to drive to my place. The invitation to be in my home is extended on my terms.

[mugaliens]

Originally Posted by HenrikOlsen

...it's for proposing the same changes repeatedly.

"Repeatedly?" Summarizing others' inputs in response to the OP, with commensurate adjustments in what's being proposed, isn't repetition. It's a revision. Consider it Rough Draft #2. If more inputs from others come along, I'll shuffle things accordingly, and share that revision as Rough Draft #3. And so on.

Revision, not repetition.

[Jim]

In the vein of "revision, not reptition," could you summarize your proposed changes as they now stand?

[NEOWatcher]

Originally Posted by Jim

In the vein of "revision, not reptition," could you summarize your proposed changes as they now stand?

Ditto... But I think post 66 was the last summary and no changes since then.

That list seems rather large to me, but if it suits the purpose, so be it. My only worry would be confusion as to where to put things.

As far as the catagorization, I only have one major comment. (I have plenty of others, but they are just personal opinions)
SML in the space section... I know this fits very well into the Space/Astronomy in the ideal scheme of things. My issue is that it has become more of a discussion of Sci-fi, and some of it doesn't even fit the space/astronomy theme. (Mainly the time travel ones).

With that in mind, I'm thinking OTB. Trying to police it to stay on catagory might be difficult. At the very least, that idea might require an additional sci-fi forum. (like I said though, I think the list is getting long)

One other comment though: Would there be enough unidentified ATM stuff that isn't sci/tech related that would fit within board rules?

[Moose]

Originally Posted by NEOWatcher

My issue is that it has become more of a discussion of Sci-fi, and some of it doesn't even fit the space/astronomy theme. (Mainly the time travel ones).

Yeah. I agree with your assessment.

Thing is, SML is a very small forum. There aren't many interesting threads to be found about media's utter incompetence regarding science stories. And there's only so much new sci-fi to discuss. They've coexisted fairly well together in the past. I don't object to a split in principle, but if they were, would either forum have enough traffic left to justify either of their existence?

I do wonder, though, if the "who's best" polls might be better placed in F&G. I can't say for certain if what I'm observing is real or just the lack of current subject matter, but I've worried that the multiple poll threads may be pushing out what little discussion SML gets.

[Fazor]

Regarding the Small Media section--that's a section I've been confused about since joining. It's in the space/astonomy section, but it includes a lot of other non-space/astronomy/or even scinece discussion about media. That's how I've come to take it over the years (for instance, the new Indy movie had a thread in there). Yet every now and then, I'd see a "This is not space/astronomy related" closure of threads.

I like the idea of it being a section for all media; as many of us read many genres of books and watch many genres of movies, and the last thing we need (IMHO) is to dump more threads into OTB. Particularly threads that cary a chance of an inadvertant spoiler. When their* they're in the Media section, you at least know to look out.

*Edit: That's at least the second such mistake I've made this morning. And this one was post-morning coffee. I think my brain *is* shrinking.

[01101001]

Originally Posted by Fazor

Regarding the Small Media section[/I]

Its foundation was probably the section in the Bad Astronomy Bulletin Board, BABB, before the merger. It was focused on Bad Astronomy:

Bad TV! Bad Movies! No doughnut!
See something in the media that just screams "Bad Astronomy"? Post about it. Maybe it'll find its way onto the main site.

It was paralleled then by a similar section for Bad Astronomy in print, and maybe the retitling upon merger reflects a consolidation to astronomy good or bad in any medium.

I rarely visit. My sense is that the current topics could just as well be babbling, that there is a lot of fluff, but maybe it's large enough to be separated, so as not to overwhelm Babbling. I see by thread count it's about 3:1, Babbling to Media, so it probably does deserve its own section.

[Neverfly]

Originally Posted by PetersCreek

Well, I'm going to both agree and disagree with you on this one. Let's say I invite someone to a party in my home. He contributes intelligent conversation, entertains us with a well-told joke or two, and otherwise participates in the event famously. He's the hit of the party and up to now, I've benefited from his attendance. We're all having a good time. But is he not still a guest? Can I not expect him to behave as a guest should in my home?

Of course, he can speak his mind...up to a point. If he crosses any line I draw (which I'm perfectly entitled to do) I'll remind him that he's a guest who is out-of-bounds. I don't care how much property tax he pays on his own home, how much his car note is, or how much gas he used to drive to my place. The invitation to be in my home is extended on my terms.

This is not a house.
Not a home.
It's an internet debate forum.

[mugaliens]

Originally Posted by Jim

In the vein of "revision, not reptition," could you summarize your proposed changes as they now stand?

Thank you, Jim - I'd be delighted. Rather than repost, however, they're right here, just a few scrolls up, same thread.

Edit: Upon re-reading, I think you may have been looking for a word summary, so:

1. Regroup all Space and Astronomy sections into a Space and Astronomy forum.
2. Regroup all Mainstream, but non S&A sections into an Off-Topic Babbling forum.
3. Regroup all Against the Mainstream sections into an Against the Mainstream forum.
4. Leave UT and BA sections alone.
5. Arrange the forums in order of the most pertinent and most-used towards the top, and the least-pertinent and least used towards the bottom.

Note: The use of the term "forum" is as per vBulletin's definition. For example, BAUT is an internet message board. General is currently a forum. Within the General forum there are several sections, including About BAUT, Questions and Answers, etc. Each of those sections has many threads; each thread has many posts...

[NEOWatcher]

Originally Posted by Neverfly

It's an internet debate forum.

Could you please elaborate on why you think this forum is for debating?

[Neverfly]

Originally Posted by NEOWatcher

Could you please elaborate on why you think this forum is for debating?

I have no idea. I just made that up. We all know I'm just crazy...

[Swift]

Originally Posted by Neverfly

This is not a house.
Not a home.
It's an internet debate forum.

Neverfly,

Of course, it is only an analogy, but one I've used, when explaining the board's rules to people, and I personally like PetersCreek's extension of it.

I am paying about a hundred bucks a month to access the internet. It's not free. I am paying.
ANY website I go to or forum I might visit is not going to come with a service fee.

Ok, but you're not paying Fraser and the BA. They don't get a cut of your IP's money. And they do pay - there is the cost of the server space, their time, etc. They own this website and the forum.

So, the bottom line is that since they pay for it, they get to set how it is used. I am fine with that arrangement.

I'm not sure I completely understand your concern, though I will admit I have not followed the debate in this thread, or some of the other debates going in, in complete detail.