Over-Moderation

[sirjon]

Originally Posted by Swift

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.

I am sorry too, sir, if I offended you. But I am just only pertaining is to that section of BAUT, 'against mainstream' and not the whole of BAUT. I know the task is not that easy but my sole purpose in case I will try to post again a new thread in that section is to gain knowledge from others who will participate in the debate. I am an open minded person and accept ideas from other people and I find it helpful to know what others may think of what I presented and draw a conclusion from it. Your forum is still the best!

[sirjon]

I think I'm in a wrong thread. I read the previous threads from 1-6. It's a WAR ZONE. Now I understand why SWIFT seems to be seriously bothered. No offense, but I'm siding no one, I'm in a "neutral" state of shock. I find it funny to see BAUTER's throwing mad to each other. Atleast, I'm trying to be decent.

[geonuc]

Originally Posted by sirjon

I think I'm in a wrong thread. I read the previous threads from 1-6.

Do you mean the first six pages of this thread?

[sirjon]

Yes, especially pages 1 & 2. I'm sorry I just read the thread's title and site a quotation but I didn't read the content thoroughly. Maybe, its just a culture 'shock'. Don't take it seriously, or I might have a heart attack (just joking).

[Swift]

Originally Posted by sirjon

Now I understand why SWIFT seems to be seriously bothered.

No worries sirjon, as our Aussie friends say. I am not seriously bothered, I'm actually pretty used to this. I just wanted some "clarity".

[crosscountry]

Originally Posted by sirjon

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...

that's exactly what I see. If you look at the "banned posters" thread the vast majority are people in ATM who can't answer the questions asked of them.


In fact, what I see is that unless you actually have a new and correct idea, you are a quack and unacceptable to this forum. Instead of promoting new ideas we are stifling them.

[pzkpfw]

So we should promote old ideas that are not correct and for which questions can not be answered?


(Actually I think you mis-characterise the reasons for bannings.)

[Gillianren]

Originally Posted by crosscountry

that's exactly what I see. If you look at the "banned posters" thread the vast majority are people in ATM who can't answer the questions asked of them.

Well, actually, the word you're looking for there is "don't." If they could just say they don't have an answer for that, that would help a lot. If they could say, "I'll have to think about that for a while and get back to you," fine. But "can't"? No one gets banned for that.

[01101001]

Originally Posted by crosscountry

Instead of promoting new ideas we are stifling them.

When did any old new idea become so valuable?

I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast. On good days I do an order of magnitude better than Lewis Carroll's White Queen. Wisely, luckily for you, I do not share my daily flights of fantasy with my fellow BAUT members, some who may think they are so starved for new ideas they would seem to encourage them regardless of quality.

If I and most other BAUT members didn't self-censor and just posted all our new ideas here, this forum would become a worthless fount of gibberish.

I wish every member would have the same sort of discipline to stifle themselves as nearly all members actually do.

Good new ideas, quality ideas, ones backed by firm data and sound reasoning, are promoted and welcome here. I see them all the time. I hang out in BAUT to be exposed to such ideas. It's what smart people like to discuss. It's why most people come here.

The other kind of ideas that aren't ready for BAUT should be polished for presentation here, or abandoned, or just taken to a place that welcomes ideas of low quality, such as godlikeproductions -- pretty much your basic worthless fount of gibberish.

[cran]

Originally Posted by Gillianren

Well, actually, the word you're looking for there is "don't." If they could just say they don't have an answer for that, that would help a lot. If they could say, "I'll have to think about that for a while and get back to you," fine. But "can't"? No one gets banned for that.

indeed:
"I don't know" is a valid answer ...
isn't that in the rules or guidelines somewhere?

I hope so - I've used it myself ...

Originally Posted by 01101001

...Good new ideas, quality ideas, ones backed by firm data and sound reasoning, are promoted and welcome here. I see them all the time. I hang out in BAUT to be exposed to such ideas. It's what smart people like to discuss. It's why most people come here.

The other kind of ideas that aren't ready for BAUT should be polished for presentation here, or abandoned ...

yep - good summation ...

for worthwhile ideas, it's great to get the holes pointed out and the flaws highlighted -
the end result is much stronger and that much closer to the real tests ahead -
even if it hurts to be told, "hey, this bit is wrong because of X, Y and Z ..."

for flights of fancy, or armchair musings, there might still be the odd gem of an idea -
even if the presentation is lacking, and the foundations are torn apart in the first few replies -
but it might not be the idea first proposed ...

moderation, though, doesn't enter into it unless it becomes a roundabout of disagreement,
a slanging match, or in any other way a stubborn refusal to proceed ...

[Swift]

Originally Posted by crosscountry

that's exactly what I see. If you look at the "banned posters" thread the vast majority are people in ATM who can't answer the questions asked of them.

I question that. Looking at the last page of the Banned Posters thread (which starts July 9), here is a summary of the reasons for suspension/banning:

- Rude and/or disruptive in CT - 3
- Not answering questions in ATM - 3
- Religion - 1
- Advertising
- Ad hominen & 9/11 in CT
- Disruptive
- Foul language
- Questioning mod actions in thread in CT

Most of these people had short suspension (a week or less); only a couple were bannings. And while not answering questions in ATM is tied for first, it is hardly a Vast Majority, and there is much more activity in CT.

And none of this counts the swarms of spammers who get banned that we don't bother to report.

[Spoons]

Originally Posted by cran

...it's great to get the holes pointed out and the flaws highlighted -
the end result is much stronger...

So true. It's a pity though, because it seems that a lot of the atm theories seem more about the personal achievement than the advancement of the idea. Maybe it's a lack of commitment, maybe it's disappointment when the realization hits that they may not be on the right track (disappointment would be understandable, but it's how you manage it), but it seems sometimes people get overly defensive and take it as a personal slight.

I love the idea that the next big idea or paradigm shift could come from anyone but rather than taking challenges to the theory as a positive opportunity to hone the concepts, trim the errors or whatever, it is a strong trend that people get angry, aggressive, and attack the moderators (the "evil" establishment, I guess is the thought).

Maybe people who propose the ideas need to consider the atm theory as an external entity more, and try to de-personalize the situation.

I also think that text format is a dangerous forum for such discussions, as it is sometimes easy to get the wrong idea about the writer's intent. At this point people need to take some deep breathes, suspend judgement, and clarify the statement.

[crosscountry]

Originally Posted by 01101001

The other kind of ideas that aren't ready for BAUT should be polished for presentation here, or abandoned, or just taken to a place that welcomes ideas of low quality, such as godlikeproductions -- pretty much your basic worthless fount of gibberish.

I disagree. This is a place where people can come to get answers to their questions and learn. They can bounce ideas off of people that know the mainstream model and rethink what they want to say.

I submit that HERE is the place where ideas should become polished. This is not a scientific journal for mature ideas; this is a place for them to mature.

[slang]

Originally Posted by crosscountry

I disagree. This is a place where people can come to get answers to their questions and learn. They can bounce ideas off of people that know the mainstream model and rethink what they want to say.

And for that, there is the Q&A forum, and the other mainstream sections.

I submit that HERE is the place where ideas should become polished. This is not a scientific journal for mature ideas; this is a place for them to mature.

Yet when your idea of what this place should be directly contradicts what the owners of the place want it to be, it kind of ends the discussion right there. Fraser made it clear that the ATM section is not for developing new ideas, but to defend ideas that have already developed into a defendable theory.

[Jeff Root]

Originally Posted by crosscountry

I submit that HERE is the place where ideas should become polished.
This is not a scientific journal for mature ideas; this is a place for
them to mature.

I agree. BAUT has the potential to serve that function better than
almost anyplace else that doesn't charge tuition.

Originally Posted by slang

Yet when your idea of what this place should be directly contradicts
what the owners of the place want it to be, it kind of ends the
discussion right there. Fraser made it clear that the ATM section is
not for developing new ideas, but to defend ideas that have already
developed into a defendable theory.

Things change.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[sirjon]

But I believe you're not answering my question, "why include 'against' mainstream as a portion" if only to tell us that they are not scientific facts. Maybe if Einstein did'nt went 'against' the mainstream of the old classical science, relativity would be just a myth...

[Tobin Dax]

Originally Posted by sirjon

But I believe you're not answering my question, "why include 'against' mainstream as a portion" if only to tell us that they are not scientific facts. Maybe if Einstein did'nt went 'against' the mainstream of the old classical science, relativity would be just a myth...

The thing is that every idea, mainstream or not, has to agree with "scientfic facts." They must match what is observed and measured, but a lot of ideas proposed in the ATM forum have some part where they don't agree with observation. It would be wrong to coddle every ATM poster when there are holes in their idea. If they're serious about their idea, they should want the holes pointed out. On this board, we give people the opportunity to present their ATM ideas to those who are interested because some will want to. However, this board is about mainstream astronomy and the evidence behind it. Even ATM ideas must have the evidence support them.

Einstein went against the mainstream to a degree, but his theories accounted for observed discrepancies from Newtonian mechanics. They also matched Newton's physics in every case that it worked.

[sirjon]

Originally Posted by Tobin Dax

Einstein went against the mainstream to a degree, but his theories accounted for observed discrepancies from Newtonian mechanics. They also matched Newton's physics in every case that it worked.

I got your point but I think you're not getting mine.

"Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum - Powered by vBulletin
...Against the mainstream, general, Martian chronicles, lunar conspiracies, bad TV and bad movies, the book, and Planet X.
www.bautforum.com/"

That is always appear every time I search your site in google. No offense but my first impression when I was searching a forum I thought 'unique' than others is that, I thought the word 'martian' is that alien from mars. the lunar 'conspiracies' about that controversy that Apollo 11 never really landed on the moon because of Russian's report that it was not safe to land on the moon- the reason why they never sent such expedition and because you clinging on saying it should be based on scientific facts, therefore all sci-fi movies are BAD movies. Ok, I will rephrase my question - what is your purpose in including 'against' mainstream if you think that in the first place, all posts might have no scientific substance?

[BetaDust]

Originally Posted by sirjon

...what is your purpose in including 'against' mainstream if you think that in the first place, all posts might have no scientific substance?

Why didn't you just PM the board owners, the BA or Fraser, and ask them?


--Dennis

[Moose]

This complaint comes up every month or so, and I'm a bit tired of repeating myself. So I'm going to repost (rather than recreate) something I wrote recently.

Originally Posted by Moose

I'm going to relate a very brief history of the ATM forum from its BABB origins to the present time:

In the beginning, at least on the old BABB forum, ATM was unrestricted. And there was a fair bit of abuse as a number of ATMers were hijacking threads with their notions. It got bad enough that the BA added an ATM forum with a "shoot-on-sight" rule for ATMs found outside.

It didn't stop some ATMers from sneaking their ideas everywhere they could get to, but the BA kept banning the worst offenders until the problem was muted.

Then BABB and UT merged, and the ATM forum was recreated.

There was a solid year where most of the ATM-related bannings I've seen were ATMers sneaking ATM outside of the ATM forum.

During this time, Fraser is on record several times as being adamant that BAUT would not permit the ATM forum to be used as an ATM development blog or a promotional agency. There was to be no organized collaboration, and BAUT's primary focus was mainstream astronomy.

So any suggestion that BAUT is primarily (or even secondarily) for ATM is very much in error.

Fraser's stated intention was clear in that the ATM forum was to be modeled somewhat like a (practice) peer-review defense, except fully within the decorum rules of BAUT, and without formal referees (so we're necessarily not equivalent to peer-review by any stretch.)

There were other abuses, where certain ATMers would refuse to defend their ideas. It was causing a great deal of frustration among everybody concerned and was very time consuming for the mods. That pattern of abuse forced a more current form of Rule 13 into place, requiring ATMers to defend their ideas in exchange for visibility.

But there were other abuses, where certain ATMers would keep bumping their threads with contentless posts to keep their ATM threads at the top of the thread list. This caused the 30-day limit to come into effect.

Yet another concern is the amount of effort and time required to moderate ATM. I think my fellow mods would concur that by far, the ATM forum requires the most effort and collaboration to moderate, causes the most stress (such as it is), and provides the least amount of enjoyment to the moderation team (in general).

My point is this: the current ATM rules are the result of a long history of abuses by a number of ATMers too depressing to contemplate for long, and the necessity of reducing the amount of time we need to spend monitoring it.

It's safe to suggest that any proposal to modify ATM rules that does not effectively (and self-evidently) address that long history of abuses is very likely to be rejected out of hand. I also feel very safe in suggesting that it's probably not worth the time of proposing anything that would require additional effort on the part of the mods. I'd further recommend that any such proposal work entirely within the parameters already set out by the site owners.

None of that is with my mod hat on, and I'm speaking entirely from my own perceptions of the situation. I'm not speaking officially in any sense of the word. For now, I'm just sayin'.

[sirjon]

Originally Posted by BetaDust

Why don't you just PM the board owners, the BA or Fraser, and ask them?


--Dennis

or maybe, it is better this way:

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN,

I write you this letter to ask why you include ATM and blah...blah...blah...

NO OFFENSE but your reply seems 'rude'

[geonuc]

Originally Posted by sirjon

or maybe, it is better this way:

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN,

I write you this letter to ask why you include ATM anf blah...blah...blah...

NO OFFENSE but your reply seems 'rude'

sirjon, I think you're taking offense where no offense was intended. BetaDust was just making a very practical suggestion and I don't see it as rude at all. In truth, I think if you read Moose's recent post, your concerns should be answered and this latest chapter of questioning BAUT moderator behavior can come to an end.

[BetaDust]

Originally Posted by sirjon

or maybe, it is better this way:

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN,

I write you this letter to ask why you include ATM and blah...blah...blah...

NO OFFENSE but your reply seems 'rude'

Hi sirjon,

I apologize if offended you, I did not meant to be rude in any way.

IMHO the BA and Fraser are the ones running this site.
And IMHO any problems regarding the rules or structure ot the board,
should be addressed to them via PM.

But that's just me.

-- Dennis

[sirjon]

Originally Posted by Moose

This complaint comes up every month or so, and I'm a bit tired of ...

Sorry for that, sir. I am just concern that people who will 'try' to join this forum and read it that way and later misinterpreted 'that phrase', might do the same questioning I did. Maybe, its the nature of the forum's main title and the phrase following it that makes people curious about this forum. But it is disappointing to realize that this forum are for the few 'elites' only. Pardon for that word but I'm just being true to myself.

[HenrikOlsen]

Because "To whom it may concern" is for situations where you don't actually know who to contact.
In this case you do.

[Moose]

Originally Posted by BetaDust

IMHO the BA and Fraser are the ones running this site.
And IMHO any problems regarding the rules or structure ot the board,
should be addressed to them via PM.

But that's just me.

It's not just you.

Sirjon, bluntly, posting about it here is a colossal waste of everybody's time, including yours.

Fraser and BA are busy with their own projects right now. They're busy enough that I feel safe in saying they are unlikely to so much as glance at this thread. As for the mod team, I'll tell you flat off that we have our instructions. Until and unless those instructions change, you're outta luck.

If you want change, you have to talk to Fraser, and this isn't an effective way to do so.

[sirjon]

Originally Posted by BetaDust

Hi sirjon,

I apologize if offended you, I did not meant to be rude in any way.

-- Dennis

I accept it. I am sorry too. I am not 'used' to that way of expressions (I'm from Manila, remember? Thanks)

[Moose]

Originally Posted by sirjon

But it is disappointing to realize that this forum are for the few 'elites' only.

This is true only if you redefine "elites" to mean "people with evidence for their claims".

[captain swoop]

I think the post by Moose giving the history of the ATM forum should be a sticky at the top of this forum. Call it 'Why we have the ATM rules'

[01101001]

Originally Posted by sirjon

"Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum - Powered by vBulletin
...Against the mainstream, general, Martian chronicles, lunar conspiracies, bad TV and bad movies, the book, and Planet X.
www.bautforum.com/"

That is always appear every time I search your site in google. No offense but my first impression when I was searching a forum I thought 'unique' than others is that, I thought the word 'martian' is that alien from mars.

So?

You seem to make much of a Google description that was entirely lifted from the Open Directory Project (OPD Astronomy Entries), formerly known as DMOZ. From what I know, those entries are each composed by a single independent editor who briefly glances at a site and approves it for inclusion . I'll bet the description was not created by the owners, their agents, or the members -- but by one rather stupid reviewer. (It sounds a little like some of the site's subsection titles at some point in time -- but those were always done tongue-in-cheek, are are not truthful descriptions but too-cute ones.)

(My own personal site's OPD entry, and therefore Google description, describes it as being done by "a computer fan" -- which make me think only of an air-cooling device -- and those ridiculous words came not from me, the site's originator. I don't control the description -- but maybe I could beg the Google empire and OPD for a change. Maybe.)

So, just forget about using that Google description in your argument about what BAUT is supposed to be. If you don't like those words, contact OPD, the creator.

Sirjon, please quit focusing on fluff. If the purpose and methods of BAUT don't meet your approval, ask the moderator agents, or, more directly, ask the owners. Do it in private messages, please. So far you're mostly chatting to other guests about what are the rules for visiting this house, when the people who make the rules, the owners, are in the next room over. Ask them. Then you'll know.