Over-Moderation

[Tinaa]

Congratulations Ms. President.

[R.A.F.]

I, for one, welcome the benevolent dictatorship of our Madame President.

...it is a "benevolent" dictatorship, right?

Oh, and one "correction"...it's more like junior high school.

[pzkpfw]

Correction is the Presidents job.

[Gillianren]

"President's."

[Tobin Dax]

Did pzkpfw bait the President? I suggest the punishment of double-mod duty. Especially since this will help keep the forum over-moderated.

[mugaliens]

What clique? What'd I miss?

[Spoons]

Post #144, page 5, says it all really.

The views expressed with post 144 do not represent the views of management.

[mugaliens]

Originally Posted by Spoons

Post #144, page 5, says it all really.

The views expressed with post 144 do not represent the views of management.

Aha! That clique! A notable quote: "In fact, all mods are in The Clique."

And this little gem: "mugaliens would be allowed into The Clique, but he's got to get his mind right first."



They're coming to take me away, ha-ha, hee-hee, to the funny farm, where life is happy and...

Here's an interesting book: ISBN 0-306-45784-9.

[Spoons]

Yeah, I wasn't sure whether to find that insulting (on your behalf) or just humorous. It seems you must've touched a nerve.

For what it's worth (not that I visit other forums - I'm forum-monogamous) I think this place is run brilliantly. I wouldn't say there's any elitism, and the moderators seem very even-handed. If I had the chance I wouldn't change a thing.

That book looks fantastic - I'm going to set a reminder in my phone to order that one on pay day. Cheers for the tip off!

[mugaliens]

Any time.

[Warren Platts]

Originally Posted by Henrik

Warren read this post again and this time actually take the time to understand what it means.

That there's space involved will not save you from suspension if you continue posting political statements that are intended to provoke discussion that is not about the space aspect of the statement.

Thank yous to the rest of you for not taking Warren's bait.

(A.1.): The fact is that others did respond to my post: you should thank me for not rising to their bait. I cast my vote for what little it is worth. Jon says it's not worth anything. I'm OK with that.

(A.2.): Nor did I intend to provoke a discussion about any non-space political topic whatsoever. Next time, I respectfully request (i.e., I'm not demanding) that instead of trying to read my mind and then erroneously accusing me of having the wrong reasons, ideas, thoughts, or intentions, please just ask me instead: "Hey Warren, you're not intending to provoke a non-space political discussion are you?" In which case, I'll either answer, "No Sir!", or "I guess I can see why you would say that", in which case I will happily delete or edit the problematic post.

(A.3.): I respectfully suggest that the sentence "Overly nationalistic posts are inflammatory and therefore will not be allowed despite the space politics exception" be added to the rules because most people are not psychic. And while you guys are at it, please think about defining the word "overly".

That's the key word, isn't it?

For example, we now know that it is overly nationalistic (although it wasn't the past) for anyone to suggest that the USA should claim the entire Moon for itself. But is it overly nationalistic to assert that national sovereignty over small parts of the Moon might speed up lunar development? Or that the national interests of the USA and other space-faring nations WRT to their respective space programs might be at cross purposes? Or that international partnerships like those entailed by the ISS are not in the best national interest of the USA?--if those topics are off limits, then don't set traps: let us know what the official position is so that we can steer clear of the boundaries. I can't read minds.

[Gillianren]

You know, Warren, it might add to the strength of your case if you'd bother to spell Henrik's name right.

[Warren Platts]

Originally Posted by Gillianren

You know, Warren, it might add to the strength of your case if you'd bother to spell Henrik's name right.

You're quite right! Sorry about that Henrik! I'm really bad with names!

ETA: I just wrote Hynrik. Is that Freudian or what?!?

[captain swoop]

If you have a problem with a Moderator then use the Reporting Triangle, you know this so why are you posting this here?

Also with regards to your comment you designate A.3. Please read Rule 0

0. The Spirit of the Law.

The purpose of all of these rules is to ensure that this forum remains a law-abiding, civil, and congenial place to engage in discussion. That a post complies with that spirit is a greater consideration than whether it can be defended as being within the rules.

[sirjon]

Originally Posted by crosscountry

we ask people to defend their ATM ideas and ban them when the don't answer the questions - now we ban them when they do answer the questions. This is ridiculous.

Do you think it's self-contradictory? Why you put a portion w/ the category "against mainstream" when you keep saying it is not what "commonly observed" or "not according to facts" when the new threads are in fact "against", that as far as I comprehend it, "unconventional" ideas. The fact that it should be discussed or debated w/limited moderation, for it is where new wierd ideas pop up. Years ago, when Einstein suggested that matter contain enormous energy, people thought he was crazy. But now he is considered "the greatest genius". You are too conservative. Why be more "adventurous"?

[captain swoop]

Einstein had something that the majority of people who post 'ideas' in ATM dont have. Evidence and support for his theory.

[Robinson]

Not at first. In fact, he never did a single experiment himself.

[sirjon]

Now I get it. the science community consist of three groups- the conservatists, who're protecting what they learned from schools and read in text books. The adventurists, who try to do unconventional ideas to prove that the former ideas we learned are either wrong or inadequate and the confirmists to back up that such theory is true or false through experiments and explorations. Einstein owe it to Enrico Fermi who confirmed that indeed, matter contain enourmous energy. Today is Aug. 6, a day to remember in world history.

[Swift]

I think that is too simple a view of science. Science is constantly changing and the vast majority of scientists not only recognize that, but actively participate in it. Sometimes the changes are huge, big leaps. But most are slight adjustments, small changes.

And always, these changes are based on actual measurements. The only reason we recognize General Relativity, for example, is that it does the best job in explaining actual observations. The acceptance of GR as a mainstream theory took many observations, many publications, many years, and a lot of work.

[sirjon]

Originally Posted by R.A.F.

Indeed...however presenting an unconvincing argument, then declaring "I won" is not acceptable.

I agree on that. I started a thread in 'against mainstream' (remember the existence of a 5th dimension?) I was not that equipped to defend my case but now I learned to research more in the internet, I became more confinced
that my "self" theory is possibly correct. I wish to present it back here but I am having doubt that the "conservatists" would just tell me it doesn't conform to what we commonly observed. I believe that each one of us, who love science have our own views we call "my theory". Why afraid? Maybe in discussing an issue through a debate we might come up with the right answers to questions we thought not possible. I wish that the staff of BAUT be more lenient to people who want to present their petty theory in 'against mainstream' as long as there are evidences qouted from books or other articles related to the case. Thanks in advance.

[Spoons]

I think as long as there are forms of evidence people are generally going to be quite interested in any, or at least many, against the mainstream theories.

It's just that some evidence that points towards a particular answer then invites further proofs of that theory, and it's rather rare that a "pet" theory (no offense intended in using that term) does end up standing up to the rigourous assualt that is necessary to test the veracity of it.

[HenrikOlsen]

Originally Posted by captain swoop

Einstein had something that the majority of people who post 'ideas' in ATM dont have. Evidence and support for his theory.

And a degree in physics and peer reviewed published papers.

[geonuc]

Originally Posted by sirjon

I wish to present it back here but I am having doubt that the "conservatists" would just tell me it doesn't conform to what we commonly observed. I believe that each one of us, who love science have our own views we call "my theory".

I have to think that a failure to 'conform' to common observations would be a serious flaw.

I believe that each one of us, who love science have our own views we call "my theory".

Perhaps, but it's better to use the term 'hypothesis'.

[sirjon]

Originally Posted by captain swoop

Einstein had something that the majority of people who post 'ideas' in ATM dont have. Evidence and support for his theory.

So why maintaining a portion 'against' mainstream if majority is not having that "high caliber mind" of Einstein? The truth is, what made me attracted in your forum is because of that main title itself, "BAD" Astronomy and Universe. My first impression of this forum is that people discuss questions about science such as 'the conflicting ideas of attracting gravity against an expanding universe'. I thought there is a free exchange of ideas. My impression now is like I'm inside a classroom where my science professor keep telling me 'to shut up' and turn the book on page 9...

[Gillianren]

Originally Posted by sirjon

Now I get it. the science community consist of three groups- the conservatists, who're protecting what they learned from schools and read in text books. The adventurists, who try to do unconventional ideas to prove that the former ideas we learned are either wrong or inadequate and the confirmists to back up that such theory is true or false through experiments and explorations. Einstein owe it to Enrico Fermi who confirmed that indeed, matter contain enourmous energy. Today is Aug. 6, a day to remember in world history.

I think any good scientist is an adventurer. I think the evidence for that is the great, much-desired trip to Sweden. I think that, in general, people who think they're being suppressed by "conservative" or "conformist" scientists are in fact being thwarted by their own lack of evidence and, frequently, their own failure to understand why the lack of evidence is important. Does it take science a while to change? Yes, and a good thing, too. Do you really want scientific ideas to whip 'round without anyone putting proper diligence into it, or is it that you're upset that your ideas aren't immediately accepted?

[aastrotech]

Originally Posted by Spoons

rigourous assualt

Don't you mean vigorous assault? The assaults I see are far from rigorous.
From Merriam Webster
vig·or·ous

1 : possessing vigor : full of physical or mental strength or active force : strong <a vigorous youth> <a vigorous plant>
2 : done with vigor : carried out forcefully and energetically <vigorous exercises>

rig·or·ous
1: manifesting, exercising, or favoring rigor : very strict
2 a: marked by extremes of temperature or climate b: harsh, severe
3: scrupulously accurate : precise

[Spoons]

Well, I'm meant to type "rigorous" but now I'm thinking the word I probably was actually looking for is vigorous.

A strict assault on a possible theory doesn't quite sound right.

Although the requirement for the in depth analysis is strictly required. I'm trying to save face like emergency plastic surgery.

[geonuc]

Originally Posted by Spoons

Well, I'm meant to type "rigorous" but now I'm thinking the word I probably was actually looking for is vigorous.

A strict assault on a possible theory doesn't quite sound right.

Although the requirement for the in depth analysis is strictly required. I'm trying to save face like emergency plastic surgery.

Heh. Too late for face-saving.

With respect to rigorous, it would be that third definition that would apply to analytical work.

[Swift]

Originally Posted by sirjon

I wish to present it back here but I am having doubt that the "conservatists" would just tell me it doesn't conform to what we commonly observed. I believe that each one of us, who love science have our own views we call "my theory". Why afraid? Maybe in discussing an issue through a debate we might come up with the right answers to questions we thought not possible. I wish that the staff of BAUT be more lenient to people who want to present their petty theory in 'against mainstream' as long as there are evidences qouted from books or other articles related to the case. Thanks in advance.

I think there is an important thing you need to keep in mind. BAUT is not all of science. Just because something might be good or bad or right or proper for "science", doesn't mean it is good for BAUT.

The Administrators and Moderators here are not paid staff - believe or not, we do this for fun. And the ATM section is actually only a very small part of the overall mission and purpose of BAUT. Even given that, the moderation team spends a lot of time making sure that it remains an acceptable part of BAUT.

Quite frankly, what we allow in ATM is a privilege, a small "space" we have carved out so that people with such ideas can have an opportunity to present their ideas and get feedback. Eliminating ATM completely has been seriously considered over the years, when it has become just too much to deal with.

I'm sorry if you find our methods and rules too constricting. As much as reasonably possible, I would like to make BAUT a place that is open to everyone. But that is obviously not possible. If BAUT doesn't work for you, I hope you find someplace else on the Internet that works better.

[sirjon]

Originally Posted by Gillianren

...or is it that you're upset that your ideas aren't immediately accepted?

No, I am aware of that. But what I am trying to tell is that without a discussion or debate in a not so formal or rigid tradition (that is, as a gesture of possibility), a person who posted a new 'hypothesis' at the end, if he realizing that he cannot be able to defend his case, I believe he will accept his defeat automatically. But to tell him at the very beginning that he is wrong, that " initial rule" will violate the very essence of the category "against" the mainstream. I hope you got my point although my english is not that easy to grasp. In my case, I thanked those who participated in my former thread, I able to re-check my blog and made some corrections.