Proposed Forum Changes

[Moose]

Actually, that raises something I'd missed before. I wholeheartedly approve of splitting BA in the Media into a more tightly focused forum, while simultaneously relaxing SML into the general interests section. Relieves some of the purpose-tension that forum was under. I would count that as a tangible, genuine improvement in the "compelling argument" category.

I'd also observe that both of ToSeek's criteria for improvement seem to be met by that list.

If we do end up "rearranging the deck chairs", that configuration (adding Astronomy just below Q&A) would be fine as far as I can see.

And to respond to your query, Grapes, my instinct suggests leaving the UT and BA sections the way they are in Jim's list. There might have been an argument for that shortly post-merger, but I'd argue that BAUT is now it's own community and entity, and that I think we BAUTers deserve to keep the top bunk.

[hhEb09'1]

Originally Posted by Moose

And to respond to your query, Grapes, my instinct suggests leaving the UT and BA sections the way they are in Jim's list. There might have been an argument for that shortly post-merger, but I'd argue that BAUT is now it's own community and entity, and that I think we BAUTers deserve to keep the top bunk.

I'm with you on that one Moose ! (**duck cower snivel whimper**)

Maybe the first forum should be Websites, with About BAUT leading off, followed by the two Universe Today subforums and the three Bad Astronomy subforums.

[BillyG]

It would be good if we could (somehow) avoid the "welcome to the classroom, creative-thinking will be confiscated" mentality that lurks within these hallowed halls. Modifying the meta-attitude of the uberlords may serve better than renaming the threads.

[Van Rijn]

Originally Posted by Jim

Against the Mainstream
--Space and Astronomy
--Conspiracy Theories

If this change was made, I think either CT would need to be opened back up to general conspiracy theories, or it should be clearly stated in the title that it is about space and astronomy CTs only.

On the general subject of layout changes, the two I'd like to see would be to have SMAL moved to general interest and Q&A moved under space and astronomy. In practice, SMAL already covers more than just space and astronomy media topics. And, Q&A, I think, should be focused on space and astronomy.

[BillyG]

Well that's cool.
But hey! There should be some nifty way for curious loonies to get a hearing. Not every simpleton is dense, Einstein was a patent examiner after all. How could we engineer a format that encourages intelligent questions?
Not necessarily well-educated dialectic, but an environment that encourages good thinking? Could the forum be designed to do this?

[Ara Pacis]

Originally Posted by ToSeek

To reopen the discussion, the two issues I'd like to resolve are:

- Q&A is currently under "About BAUT", which gives the impression that it's about the forum more than about science - we moderators are often having to move posts from "Astronomy" and "General Science" to "Q&A", probably for just that reason. It should be in the science area. But it should also be close to the top so that it's easily visible.
- It rankles a bit that "General Science" is under a larger heading entitled "Space and Astronomy." At the very least, I'd like to change the forum title to something like "Science and Space Exploration."

So those are the two changes I'd definitely like to see, though I'd be comfortable with Jim's proposal with a few minor tweaks.

I agree. Change the name of that forum to Space and Science (or Space and Other Sciences is people want to be particular about it). Space comes first because it's an astronomy-focussed board and science, because it contains sub-fora about other sciences.

On a side note, maybe we should have a special forum for Fazor and it can be admined by Tommac and we can restrict it so that only those two have access. Everyone's happy! (That's a joke, folks.)

[geonuc]

I agree with ToSeek's opening statement about the two issues he mentions.

With Jim's proposal, one thing that concerns me is the ATM forum. Correct me if I'm wrong, but we seem to get a fair amount of ATM that might be more properly classified as 'physics', not space or astronomy. Is it the policy of BAUT to restrict ATM to only those two fields, albeit loosely defined?

[HenrikOlsen]

Originally Posted by geonuc

I agree with ToSeek's opening statement about the two issues he mentions.

With Jim's proposal, one thing that concerns me is the ATM forum. Correct me if I'm wrong, but we seem to get a fair amount of ATM that might be more properly classified as 'physics', not space or astronomy. Is it the policy of BAUT to restrict ATM to only those two fields, albeit loosely defined?

Currently that restriction only applies to CT.

ATM, almost by definition, is about aspects of physics and as such is relevant to astronomy since the consequences will be observable in space(and here).

[geonuc]

Originally Posted by HenrikOlsen

Currently that restriction only applies to CT.

ATM, almost by definition, is about aspects of physics and as such is relevant to astronomy since the consequences will be observable in space(and here).

That was my impression. I would advocate renaming the 'Space & Astronomy' subsection to something that reflects that broader scope. Just to be clear.

[mugaliens]

Originally Posted by Tobin Dax

...changing around subfora locations has been proposed before and nothing came of it. (This was noted above.) You're wasting your breath, mugs.

So when people in a community propose cleaning it up, but apathy causes their concerns to fall on deaf ears, that somehow renders it not a worthwhile endeavor???

Spring cleaning and taking out the garbage are always worthwhile endeavors. If that hasn't happened for a while, that only makes it more of a necessity, not less of one.

Your arguement is nothing more than an excuse to continue living in substandard conditions "because that's what we've always done." That's shantytown thinking, nothing more.

EDIT: Ooops! I pulled up a way earlier post. Sorry, Tobin! My bad.

[Tobin Dax]

Originally Posted by mugaliens

[snip; see above post]

My post was made in October, mugs. The reason behind it (that Phil and Fraser said they weren't going to change things) was accepted by you months ago. What are you trying to do by bringing this up again?

[mugaliens]

Originally Posted by Tobin Dax

My post was made in October, mugs.

Quite right! My bad. See Edit in my earlier post.

[Tobin Dax]

Originally Posted by mugaliens

Quite right! My bad. See Edit in my earlier post.

In that case, please pardon my question.

[ToSeek]

Originally Posted by hhEb09'1

Jim's list, with my comments in purple:

Oh, okay. I was thinking this was news stories about the BA, but you're seeing it as closer to how I think SM@L was originally intended. These seems like the only real split in the new proposal - everything else is just a rearrangement.

[mugaliens]

Given the prolific warnings given in recent days to a number of people who appear to be determined to test the rule limits of the board (if not just flagrantly violate them, knowingly or otherwise), I propose the following:

vBulletin has a nice feature which allows admins to tie notices to "User belongs to usergroup "Banned Users."

Additional usergroups can be created, such as "Termporily Banned Users," and anyone who is temporarily banned can easily be added to that group.

The announcement can include something along the lines of:

You have been temporarily banned for not following the rules. We will unlock your account when you have demonstrated to us, via e-mail, that you acknowledge which rule you and broken and what actions you intend to take to prevent that from happening again.

This is your Xth warning...

Just a thought, but it's worked very well elsewhere...