Over-Moderation

[captain swoop]

That entire thread is a perfect example of how not to start and continue an ATM thread.

[Swift]

Originally Posted by captain swoop

That entire thread is a perfect example of how not to start and continue an ATM thread.

I want to elaborate on that, because I see this as an on-going problem in the ATM forum.

I am referring to ATM threads with comments like this (Robinson, I picked yours as a readily available example):

Originally Posted by Robinson

I am not proposing, I am pointing out that current theory may be wrong. They are not the same thing.

I've seen several posters recently who try to avoid supporting the ideas they bring up in ATM by claiming they are not proposing or advocating them. They say they just want to discuss them, or just want to point this out as an example of how mainstream theory is wrong.

That may be 100% true (that they just want to discuss them). Or, it might be that they believe the ATM idea with all their heart and soul and are just trying to present it without defending it. The problem is that the rest of us, particularly the moderation team can't tell the difference.

If we allow these un-defended discussions, it will completely undermine the rule in ATM that you must defend your idea, by giving advocates a backdoor to avoid the rule. The only way we can prevent that is to make it a very sharp division.

Might this suppress some discussion, where people might want to discuss non-mainstream ideas without supporting them - yes. But until someone comes up with a way to do that (and I'm open to hear how), we have to keep it this way.

[Spoons]

If there was a theory, or some sort of idea that you had which you wonder about, would an acceptable way of discussing this be to bring it up in Q&A in the way of asking whether it is a possibility, rather than asserting it to be a truth?

For instance, if I were to wonder whether dark matter were possibly able to just be huge amounts of free roaming neutrons or something (just trying to pick a highly speculative idea - this isn't based on any knowledge or proposal I have) I could just ask in the Q&A section?

I ask because it often seems people are asking a question which could possibly move in the direction of an ATM proposal, and so it goes in the ATM section rather than Q&A - thus bringing a lot of possibly unnecessary heat on the person asking the question.

(I admit, these do often end up being strongly held pet theories, but seemingly not always).

None of the above relates to Robinson's thread - I won't question his motives, I haven't even read all the thread - just reminded me of something I was wondering about previously.

[agingjb]

Would a question, in the Q and A section, posed as "what is the best evidence against this ATM" be acceptable?

(And I see that Spoons asked the same question in an overlapping post.)

[Spoons]

Great minds, agingjb... great minds.

(Mars meteor conspiracy, while in the CT section, appears to be a prime example)

[Swift]

Originally Posted by Spoons

If there was a theory, or some sort of idea that you had which you wonder about, would an acceptable way of discussing this be to bring it up in Q&A in the way of asking whether it is a possibility, rather than asserting it to be a truth?

The answer is a solid maybe.

There certainly have been discussions in Q&A along these lines, though the Q&A rule is that the answers have to be mainstream answers. But for topics that are on the cutting edge (dark matter, dark energy, string theory, for example) it might be acceptable. Here is a good example of such a current discussion - note that the idea came up in mainstream journals (though I will also tell you that the acceptability of this thread was discussed among the mods).

General Astronomy or Science and Technology might also be acceptable forum, but with the same guidelines.

It would highly advisable to state your exact goals of the discussion, and be prepared that you may get moderators watching it carefully, and might even close it down or move it to ATM.

And if it is moved to ATM, and you do not want to defend it per ATM rules, then you can just ask that the thread be closed.

[NEOWatcher]

Originally Posted by agingjb

Would a question, in the Q and A section, posed as "what is the best evidence against this ATM" be acceptable?

I would say that is a question that is hard to answer.

It would require that there be previous knowledge of the ATM idea itself to properly address it. That's not something that would be readily available.

Therefore; to be able to answer the question with mainstream science, there would need to be a discussion of the ATM idea. That's where the concept goes wrong. It instantly turns into an ATM discussion whether it's a defense or not. Thus; it is not appropriate in Q&A which is (in part) there to help educate people in accepted science.

[Spoons]

If people find the ATM rules too constrictive, I suppose at that point it might be acceptable for them, prior to having the thread locked, to invite anyone else who reads it and wishes to, to discuss it further in PMs or by some other method?

If so, and their intention is to attempt to fine tune their theory that might appease those members. Just wondering because I don't remember seeing that sort of thing much at all.

[Robinson]

Originally Posted by slang

#13 and #52.

#13 is not a warning. In fact, it is a response to my post #11, where I said:

Since an abundance of Mods are reading here, I am not going to report your post. Claiming somebody is "being evasive" about answering questions in an ATM thread is a serious charge.

And against the user agreement and forum rules. Even if it was true, which obviously it isn't.

Not liking the answer to a question isn't the same as not getting an answer.

I made an important point, one of many in that thread. The response, which was swift and sure

The number of mods is irrelevent[sic], if a post needs reporting, report it. Though I find nothing particularly terrible with Wizard From Oz's post.

ATM is a perfectly acceptable place to post challenges to current theories, even if you are not proposing a replacement. But you still need to follow ATM rules and address questions put to you about how you interpret current theory and what you think is wrong with it.

See? You label that a warning? More undermoderation!!

[Robinson]

#52 is simply
Yes answer now if you can.

Again, that is supposed to be a warning?

As I said, no warnings. No PMs. Classic undermoderation at work.

[Robinson]

Originally Posted by HenrikOlsen

You ignored the warnings, failed to follow the rules and was punished for it.

Again, you are wrong. Because there were no warnings. That you describe a three day vacation from Baut as punishment is pretty funny.

[PetersCreek]

Why do you not consider those comments to be warnings?

[Robinson]

Originally Posted by HenrikOlsen

This time you're mad because you got a warning and actually noticed it.

The misunderstandings online are numerous. That you mistake me laughing for being mad, is one of them

Originally Posted by HenrikOlsen

Can you see why it's getting difficult to care when you get mad?

Your lack of understanding brings me more humor.

[Robinson]

Originally Posted by PetersCreek

Why do you not consider those comments to be warnings?

Let me ask you a question instead. Why do you consider them warnings?

And, are you serious? I keep thinking somebody is pulling my leg.

[Spoons]

Maybe it should be a bit of a standard, and I know it is often said this way:

"This is a warning: etc"

Since it's come up, that would be a good way to remove any ambiguity. However, I don't presume to tell you how you should do things, just a thought. I think it generally seems clear enough in most cases whether it is or isn't a warning.

[Robinson]

Because there probably really is a huge misunderstanding going on, I should clarify here, I think it's funny.

I guess I am not using enough emoticons or something.

We need the laughing dog.

[Spoons]

A good laughing dog never goes astray.

ETA:

[HenrikOlsen]

Originally Posted by Robinson

The misunderstandings online are numerous. That you mistake me laughing for being mad, is one of them

Ok, so when you report a post it's because you're laughing at it. Check. Will remember for future reference.

[Robinson]

Oh, you're still mad about being reported? That had nothing to do with the current topic, or even Moderation.

[Moose]

Robinson, since you need it spelled out for you, this absolutely is a warning: you will knock off the trolling... now... or face another suspension.

[BetaDust]

Originally Posted by Spoons

Maybe it should be a bit of a standard, ...<snip>

It is. It's the Font Color .
Like in the above post. (#320)

--Dennis

[Spoons]

No, I appreciate that.

[NEOWatcher]

Originally Posted by Robinson

Again, you are wrong. Because there were no warnings. That you describe a three day vacation from Baut as punishment is pretty funny.

Officer: You were exceeding the speed limit.
Driver: But there was no warning.
Officer: There was a speed limit sign a half mile back.
Driver: But how is that a warning. It's just some information.

In other words, a mention of the rules should be enough to warn you to to check to see if you are in compliance.

Or; do we get mad at the moderators for being polite?

[Moose]

I'm thinking everything that's needed expressing has been said two or three times now. It's clear the temper of this thread has been deteriorating for a while, and there's probably no real point in waiting for the inevitable blowup(s) and bad feelings. Months of constant circus in public threads like this tends to wear on everybody's nerves. And so I've closed this thread to give everybody a good breather.

I'd also like to remind everybody that the best way to air a grievance with the mod team is through the report post button. We all see it, and we do give everybody fair consideration.

If anybody has some especially compelling reason to have this thread reopened, PM a mod, one of the admin, or use the report post button.

Thanks for your feedback, everyone.