Censorship here excessive?...

[nauthiz]

Personally, I rather like BAUT's moderation. It's a lot heavier than any other forum I frequent, but in turn the quality of the discussion tends to be a lot higher. I think that has a lot to do with the culture that the refereeing fosters. Sure, it means I can't really speak freely about certain topics on this site, but therein lies the beauty of holding an account at multiple forums.

[Neverfly]

Originally Posted by hhEb09'1

Ah, I was responding to this post:So, I was looking for examples of posters who were discussing normal, average things and were brought up by moderators for rule violations.

I suspect that there is no such examples of posters discussing mainstream astronomy without profanity, right? Here, that's normal, average conversation.

Added stipulation: that the discussion was brought up by moderators as violations?

Again- I could keep my eyes peeled...

But I think that's not quite as relevant.

The point had been made that staying within the rules is easy. My counterpoint that it's not that easy is based on examples that demonstrate when it seems to be difficult to see the blurry lines.

That Moderators do or do not address those times is not really relevant to whether or not they exist.

When Mods don't address them, it may be as Moose pointed out; That they had not seen it or that they did not feel it was strong enough to warrant a warning or other action.

[antoniseb]

Originally Posted by Neverfly

... My counterpoint that it's not that easy is based on examples that demonstrate when it seems to be difficult to see the blurry lines. ...

This is only important if you want to do things anywhere near the blurry lines. I'd say that it shouldn't be necessary for anyone to get into doubtful territory here.

In the blurry zone, it might be comparable to driving between 10 and 19 mph over the speed limit on rare occasions. You *probably* won't get pulled over, but if you do, you can't successfully argue that it was unfair.

[captain swoop]

AT the end of the day if you want to discuss topics that get you warned on BAUT there are plenty of other forums for those topics. Keep BAUT for what BAUT is for.

[hhEb09'1]

Originally Posted by Neverfly

The point had been made that staying within the rules is easy. My counterpoint that it's not that easy is based on examples that demonstrate when it seems to be difficult to see the blurry lines.

Yes, your examples are testimonies that claim that it is difficult for those users. I'm interested in examples of that, a post where it illustrates the difficulty. Those testimonies don't seem to give examples either.

That Moderators do or do not address those times is not really relevant to whether or not they exist.

When Mods don't address them, it may be as Moose pointed out; That they had not seen it or that they did not feel it was strong enough to warrant a warning or other action.

I don't think that Mods not addressing violations, in and of itself, blurs the lines. Certainly, users may see those violations and try to get away with violations of their own, but that's up to them.

antoniseb's speed limit scenario is appropriate: just because someone next to you is going thirty (or three) miles per hour over the speed limit doesn't mean the line has been blurred, right?

[Neverfly]

Originally Posted by antoniseb

This is only important if you want to do things anywhere near the blurry lines. I'd say that it shouldn't be necessary for anyone to get into doubtful territory here.

In the blurry zone, it might be comparable to driving between 10 and 19 mph over the speed limit on rare occasions. You *probably* won't get pulled over, but if you do, you can't successfully argue that it was unfair.

Why over?

I think it would be more accurate to say that it's like driving between five under and five over the posted speed limit.

And, yes, I have said that the only way to avoid the blurry zone is to just remain silent a lot of the time. It helps that individual to avoid getting 'pulled over,' but they also end up contributing a lot less to the board as well.

[Neverfly]

Originally Posted by hhEb09'1

I don't think that Mods not addressing violations, in and of itself, blurs the lines.

Nor do I nor did I ever claim anything remotely like that. You later stated you wanted examples to contain Moderator action as well.
I merely pointed out that it was not very relevant to whether or not the examples accurately portrayed times that a poster may be confused as to where the blurry line is drawn.

Originally Posted by hhEb09'1

antoniseb's speed limit scenario is appropriate: just because someone next to you is going thirty (or three) miles per hour over the speed limit doesn't mean the line has been blurred, right?

Again, as I pointed out to Antoniseb, the analogy is flawed.

You are both automatically claiming the blur occurs well over the posted speed limit. It does not.

If the posted speed limit is Fuzzy or Blurry, then the blurring occurs both below and above- Not Well Over it as you two are trying to claim.

[grant hutchison]

Originally Posted by Neverfly

And, yes, I have said that the only way to avoid the blurry zone is to just remain silent a lot of the time. It helps that individual to avoid getting 'pulled over,' but they also end up contributing a lot less to the board as well.

Presumably a lot less politics, religion, and personal remarks.
It's difficult for me to see how contributions relating to science, astronomy and technology would be significantly impaired by this awful enforced silence.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

If the posted speed limit is Fuzzy or Blurry, then the blurring occurs both below and above- Not Well Over it as you two are trying to claim.

Not if the cops give you considerable leeway above the speed limit, and never jump on you if you're below the speed limit. That's certainly the way our cops work in the UK.

And the mods have already described how they sometimes let a dodgy post or two go by if they don't look like they'll get out of control. Antoniseb's analogy looks pretty tight to me.

Grant Hutchison

[Neverfly]

Originally Posted by grant hutchison

Presumably a lot less politics, religion, and personal remarks.
It's difficult for me to see how contributions relating to science, astronomy and technology would be significantly impaired by this awful enforced silence.

This is not accurate and as long as you have been here, I'm surprised at you.

Science, advancement and events are often deeply influenced by politics, religion and to say that Personal Remarks should be refrained from is not only nonsensical, but completely different from how any board operates.
Grant, you make personal remarks all the time. We all do. That's what forums are For.

Now, I could misunderstand what you mean by personal remarks- but the rest- accept it or not- exists and is influential on science and they are a part of discussions about science, space exploration and various issues on the board.
That is why there are shades of gray and that is why some people are pointing out to how moderators at times, leave the discussion alone as long as it's not a problem- regardless of the "rules."

Originally Posted by grant hutchison

Not if the cops give you considerable leeway above the speed limit, and never jump on you if you're below the speed limit. That's certainly the way our cops work in the UK.

And the mods have already described how they sometimes let marginal posts go if they don't look like they'll get out of control. Antoniseb's analogy looks pretty tight to me.

Grant Hutchison

This assertion is incorrect for the same reason I have said to hheb.

Whether or not the cops take action is irrelevant to whether or not the rules, or laws, are stated such and whether or not the "perp" falls in the blurry zone. The blurry zone will be a bit below and a bit above- THAT is where blurry zones are. Between allowed and not allowed by the laws or rules.

[antoniseb]

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Why over?

I think it would be more accurate to say that it's like driving between five under and five over the posted speed limit. ...

In Texas, where you currently reside, you will not get a speeding ticket if the police think you're going less than ten mph above the posted limit. In New York it is a fifteen MPH grace zone. In Colorado, five.

In the US, it is pretty much as Grant describes for the UK.

[hhEb09'1]

Originally Posted by Neverfly

You are both automatically claiming the blur occurs well over the posted speed limit. It does not.

I did say "three" also. And, actually, I thought the point was that the blur doesn't occur at all. The speed limit is posted, there is no blurring of the line itself. If you exceed it by two miles per hour, you're in violation. Whether or not you get stopped for it.

[Neverfly]

Originally Posted by antoniseb

In Texas, where you currently reside, you will not get a speeding ticket if the police think you're going less than ten mph above the posted limit. In New York it is a fifteen MPH grace zone. In Colorado, five.

In the US, it is pretty much as Grant describes for the UK.

Originally Posted by hhEb09'1

I did say "three" also. And, actually, I thought the point was that the blur doesn't occur at all. The speed limit is posted, there is no blurring of the line itself. If you exceed it by two miles per hour, you're in violation. Whether or not you get stopped for it.

The flaw in this is that a speed limit sign consists of : 50 (ex)
Not a lot of blur there.

In the Wording of the Rules, however, it's not that cut and dry. I should not have to explain this to intelligent people.


Secondly, in Texas, Oklahoma, Arizona and California (Only places I can vouch for) I have been informed by Highway Patrol and State Troopers that tickets can be given on the grounds of "Lack of Speed."
Granted- that is if someone is moving very well below the speed limit.
It creates a hazard.


Shifting the goal posts to an unreasonable example well over the 'speed limit' to support your claim does not actually support your claim. The blurry zone will be a bit above and a bit below- that is where things are not clearly definable.

[Neverfly]

Let me add:
Define, in clear terms that I can find no flaw in where the Clear Line is on what is politics and what is not. Define it well enough that I cannot claim I see a 49 or a 51.

[grant hutchison]

Originally Posted by Neverfly

This is not accurate and as long as you have been here, I'm surprised at you.

It's entirely accurate. It is difficult for me to see how the discussion of science and technology could be significantly impaired by avoiding religious, political and personal remarks (which, in my part of the world, are unwelcome comments about someone's character, appearance or behaviour). The fact that this trims a little around the edges of some topics just doesn't strike me as a significant impairment.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

This assertion is incorrect for the same reason I have said to hheb.

Nope, it's entirely accurate.
You're complaining that sometimes you break the rules and get away with it, and sometimes you don't. That's like protesting in court that the last time you went at 40mph in a 30mph zone, you got away with it. It cuts no ice, and the jury might reasonably wonder if you properly understood the problem.

Grant Hutchison

[grant hutchison]

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Secondly, in Texas, Oklahoma, Arizona and California (Only places I can vouch for) I have been informed by Highway Patrol and State Troopers that tickets can be given on the grounds of "Lack of Speed."
Granted- that is if someone is moving very well below the speed limit.
It creates a hazard.

Puh-leez. That's a separate violation.

(Nit-picking the analogy is seldom a good argument, by the way.)

Grant Hutchison

[Neverfly]

Originally Posted by grant hutchison

It's entirely accurate. It is difficult for me to see how the discussion of science and technology could be significantly impaired by avoiding religious, political and personal remarks. The fact that this trims a little around the edges of some topics just doesn't strike me as a significant impairment.

In your opinion?

Originally Posted by grant hutchison

You're complaining that sometimes you break the rules and get away with it, and sometimes you don't. That's like protesting in court that the last time you went at 40mph in a 30mph zone, you got away with it. It cuts no ice, and the jury might reasonably wonder if you properly understood the problem.

I have made no such complaint and this is the second time I have been applied to claims I have not made in less than thirty minutes by the opposing argument.

The opposing argument also has shifted goal posts- having claimed the blur occurs in a place where it does not.

And to make this further interesting: I have read many posts in this subforum for a very long time- Made By Moderators- expressing frustration at how to clearly word the rules and clearly enforce the rules with so many shades of gray.
Suddenly, in this topic and at this time, I'm hearing the exact opposite from a Moderator and an Admin who seem to be claiming that the rules are very clear - as clear as a speed limit sign.
That's an interesting change in tune.

These three factors add up to a stronger suggestion than that I mistakenly nitpicked an analogy ( an analogy that was flawed and I pointed out the flaws, not nitpicked.)
The suggestion is that the Mods are aware that there are shades of gray.
That the mods are frustrated by it as they have often expressed.
That the rules are difficult to clearly define and that, as such, my assertion that it's not as "easy" to never cross the line as you claim is, in fact, correct.

[Neverfly]

Grant -
I wonder... If I were to go and review all the posts you have made on the forum, how many examples I would find of times when you expressed a post within the shades of gray or even have crossed a line- and from then until this day, you have been unaware that you had done so?

I do not know because I have not reviewed all of your posts.

[grant hutchison]

Originally Posted by Neverfly

In your opinion?

Quite clearly stated as my opinion, from the outset: "It's difficult for me to see ..."

Originally Posted by Neverfly

I have made no such complaint ...

It looks remarkably like the whole foundation of your argument, to me.
I think I'll leave you to it at this point.


I applaud the entire moderation team for their fortitude in being prepared to discuss this one as long (and as frequently) as they already have.

Grant Hutchison

[grant hutchison]

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Grant -
I wonder... If I were to go and review all the posts you have made on the forum, how many examples I would find of times when you expressed a post within the shades of gray or even have crossed a line- and from then until this day, you have been unaware that you had done so?

I do not know because I have not reviewed all of your posts.

You must feel free to review them. Let me know what you find.

Grant Hutchison

[Neverfly]

Since hHeb brought the topic back into thread, I'll post this example here rathter than PM. hHeb, let me know if that's a problem.

Here is another example:
opinions: state (motorcycle) accident insurance

This post is discussing a politically related topic. The post is not bad, it does not make aangry assertions, it does not cross any lines I can see...
And yet, it does discuss a politically related topic.

How clearly can this be defined? The thread itself is politically related. Is it therefore forbidden by the rules?
Are they discussing politics or a politically affiliated topic?

It's not quite so clear- is it?

[PetersCreek]

Let me throw another analogy in the mix. I admit driving a bit over the posted speed, trying to take advantage of that 5, 8, or 10 mph 'blurred line'. There have been a couple-few occasions when I came upon an officer who briefly flashed his lights but did not pull me over, just to let me know I'd been caught at it and to slow down. I slowed down.

If I'd decided otherwise and received a citation, I'd have no one to blame but myself. I know what the rules are. Arguing some 'blurred line', that 'everyone else was doing it', or 'why didn't you pull that other guy over?' would just be a case of me trying to rationalize my behavior.

[Neverfly]

Originally Posted by grant hutchison

Quite clearly stated as my opinion, from the outset: "It's difficult for me to see ..."

Then it seems not quite as clear as you thought.

Originally Posted by grant hutchison

It looks remarkably like the whole foundation of your argument, to me.
I think I'll leave you to it at this point.

Thank you. By leaving me to it, I no longer need to worry about you putting words in my mouth, then claiming the foundation of my argument is based of refuting your claims when you put words in my mouth.

Originally Posted by grant hutchison

I applaud the entire moderation team for their fortitude in being prepared to discuss this one as long (and as frequently) as they already have.

I do not see how applause is necessary. A volunteer is just as responsible for the responsibilities they agreed to take on and that includes their discussing them among themselves or with us as they seem fit to do.

[Swift]

Originally Posted by grant hutchison

And the mods have already described how they sometimes let a dodgy post or two go by if they don't look like they'll get out of control.

I think the now closed "Can I have my own day" (Harvey Milk) thread is just such an example, gone wrong. I let it go, hoping that it could stay polite and within acceptable bounds. We got multiple Reported Posts about why were we allowing this discussion to go on, how offensive it was, it should be closed. We have now decided to close it. I tried not to "over-moderate", not to censor, to allow people some leeway, and .... well, it didn't work out well.

[Neverfly]

Originally Posted by PetersCreek

Let me throw another analogy in the mix. I admit driving a bit over the posted speed, trying to take advantage of that 5, 8, or 10 mph 'blurred line'. There have been a couple-few occasions when I came upon an officer who briefly flashed his lights but did not pull me over, just to let me know I'd been caught at it and to slow down. I slowed down.

If I'd decided otherwise and received a citation, I'd have no one to blame but myself. I know what the rules are. Arguing some 'blurred line', that 'everyone else was doing it', or 'why didn't you pull that other guy over?' would just be a case of me trying to rationalize my behavior.

This analogy was previously put forth by hHeb : "What if you saw someone next to you doing such and such over..."

Again, if you are clearly over the limit, you cannot claim that is where the blurring occurs.

For the third time: The Blurred Line is the shade of gray a bit above and a bit below.

It is not placed well over the limit based on justifications or shifting goal posts.

[Swift]

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Let me add:
Define, in clear terms that I can find no flaw in where the Clear Line is on what is politics and what is not. Define it well enough that I cannot claim I see a 49 or a 51.

I don't quite know who you were asking to do this, but I will say I can't. The only way I can think of making an absolutely clear rule is what I explained to THY, a no-tolerance, it can't even make me think a little like its politics rule. I suspect that is not what people want (THY didn't like the idea).

If you have ideas about how to phrase such a rule Neverfly, I am open to suggestions, though I don't think it can be done.

[Neverfly]

Originally Posted by Swift

I think the now closed "Can I have my own day" (Harvey Milk) thread is just such an example, gone wrong. I let it go, hoping that it could stay polite and within acceptable bounds. We got multiple Reported Posts about why were we allowing this discussion to go on, how offensive it was, it should be closed. We have now decided to close it. I tried not to "over-moderate", not to censor, to allow people some leeway, and .... well, it didn't work out well.

Thanks Swift, you make a good point.
In that case, it appears to not have.

However, in many current threads on:
Insurance
NASA Funding
Moon Landings
Space exploration
The LHC
Nobel Prize winnings
Evolution
Biology
Global Warming
Food Regulation

...many open threads discuss the ramifications of politics, religion and personal views on the scientific topics at hand calmly and well and without the need for moderator action.

[antoniseb]

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Define, in clear terms that I can find no flaw in where the Clear Line is on what is politics and what is not. Define it well enough that I cannot claim I see a 49 or a 51.

You want something clearcut? You cannot discuss politics in any way shape or form except in the very limited case that it involves spaceflight or astronomy. If you get away with discussing it, you got lucky, but you may not curse us for your lack of luck when you get caught... So the number for us is zero.

[Neverfly]

Originally Posted by Swift

I don't quite know who you were asking to do this, but I will say I can't. The only way I can think of making an absolutely clear rule is what I explained to THY, a no-tolerance, it can't even make me think a little like its politics rule. I suspect that is not what people want (THY didn't like the idea).

If you have ideas about how to phrase such a rule Neverfly, I am open to suggestions, though I don't think it can be done.

I completely agree with you.

And this is why I strongly refute the claim that the rules are so very clear and that it's so easy to never break one. Aside from staying very quiet- people will likely fall within the shade of gray or even cross a line without realizing it.

It's for this reason that Mods discuss things and warnings are given in PM and such. Oftentimes, people can be shown where it crossed a line.

Over-all, I would think that across the board, most Moderators seem to demonstrate an understanding of this (Part of why I am baffled to suddenly be confronted with a claim of clarity on the part of the rules to the point of irrefutability).

Claiming, "A rules a Rule!" and "All you have to do is follow the rules!" is a very general statement, but on closer examination, is not a solid an argument as it may first seem to be.

[Neverfly]

Originally Posted by antoniseb

You want something clearcut? You cannot discuss politics in any way shape or form except in the very limited case that it involves spaceflight or astronomy. If you get away with discussing it, you got lucky, but you may not curse us for your lack of luck when you get caught... So the number for us is zero.

Sigh...

When have I claimed that I am cursing either my lack of luck or the Moderators?
When have I claimed that people are getting away with something?

This is now the forth time that I have been accused of making a claim or argument I have not made.

Secondly, I just listed a list of examples above your post of many topics covered in open threads that are not problem threads.
At no time have I complained about the discussions within those threads nor expressed any desire to see them closed.
I have presented the list to demonstrate that the rules are not so perfectly clear.

I'm honestly utterly baffled as to why this is being argued.

ETA: Also, please define the Clear lines between when politics is being discuss on relation only to spaceflight and astronomy and when it is not- is there room for shades of gray there? I assert that there is and there would be great difficulty in eliminating those shades of gray.

[Swift]

Originally Posted by Neverfly

And to make this further interesting: I have read many posts in this subforum for a very long time- Made By Moderators- expressing frustration at how to clearly word the rules and clearly enforce the rules with so many shades of gray.
Suddenly, in this topic and at this time, I'm hearing the exact opposite from a Moderator and an Admin who seem to be claiming that the rules are very clear - as clear as a speed limit sign.
That's an interesting change in tune.

I have certainly said it is gray. I think the problem is the speed limit analogy is probably not a great analogy for this situation. I'll let other mods say if they have changed their tunes, but I suspect not.

That the rules are difficult to clearly define and that, as such, my assertion that it's not as "easy" to never cross the line as you claim is, in fact, correct.

I wouldn't say all the rules are difficult to define, but some are.

There is an "easy" way never to cross the line, don't go anywhere near it (and there are posters here who do that). But if one wishes to live near the line, yes, you will risk crossing it. I don't have an automatic solution to avoid doing that.

But, as I said to THY, the consequences of crossing the line are really not horribly dire in most cases. Particularly for a first offense, or if it is a long time since your last ticket, you'll get a warning, at worse a 24 hour suspension.

Here, maybe the speed limit analogy is good. I usually drive 5 or so over the limit. I very rarely have gotten a ticket. But when I do, or even just a warning (and even if not for speeding), I find that for the next several weeks I drive a little more slowly.

Now, I don't know if this will work for everyone. And, if you are convinced the cops are crooked, or out to get you, you will find it an unsatisfactory answer.

Sorry, I don't have a better one.

As I said, if someone has an iron-clad wording for a completely clear rule, please present it.