ATM Rules Discussion

[Nereid]

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Nereid & Kwalish Kid,

[...]

The discussion on this thread is possible changes in ATM rules for the benefit of BAUT, its owners and members, as well as a benefit for the moderators, in my opinion.

Indeed.

But I'm sure you'll agree there's no point discussing a possible rule - or guideline - change to address a problem which does not exist.

And that's where we are ... as far as I can see, there is no such thing as "question flooding" (at least, ATM proponents have a great deal of control over the pace of questions, within the current rules and guidelines, if only they choose to exercise it, and manage their participation in the ATM thread wisely).

[Nereid]

Originally Posted by Bob Angstrom

This is the first week of a long thread where the questions got to be too much.

POAMS: The New World Synthesis by Viv Pope et al.
18-January-2007


Removed ATM Content

Reproducing large tracts of questions and responses from an ATM thread in the way you have seems to me more like promoting an ATM rather than giving examples of question flooding. Provide a link to the specific examples you mean. I have removed the ATM content. This is not the ATM Forum

Thanks.

I'll take a look at this later, and refresh my memory of the thread.

[antoniseb]

In the large, the ATM area can serve the same purposes as open discussion, but it is much more controlled. In each thread, an ATM-supporter presents an idea, which hopefully is thought-through enough that they can explain it, and defend it as it relates to observations.

In some cases the ATM-supporter has repurposed words we depend on to mean something specific in science, and the discussion reveals the person's meanings. In some cases, the ATM-supporter is working with some misinformation. In some cases the ATM-supporter misunderstands Relativity (and in that they aren't alone). In some cases the ATM-supporter actually identifies un- or under-reported biases in a particular field, and how this meshes with mainstream science teaches us all something. Sometime, we hope, one of these ideas will stand the clarifications and tests of scrutiny.

[Nereid]

Originally Posted by forrest noble

[...] I've agreed. Where's your agreement (PM or otherwise) to debate on that venue?

Any time you wish to start a new thread - in JREF's Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology section - I will notice it (probably within a day or so), and will join in.

[Nereid]

Originally Posted by Bob Angstrom

This is the first week of a long thread where the questions got to be too much.

POAMS: The New World Synthesis by Viv Pope et al.
18-January-2007


Removed ATM Content

Reproducing large tracts of questions and responses from an ATM thread in the way you have seems to me more like promoting an ATM rather than giving examples of question flooding. Provide a link to the specific examples you mean. I have removed the ATM content. This is not the ATM Forum

Some basic info:

Thread started 05:29 PM, 18 Jan, 2007
Within the first week there are 55 posts (54, not counting the OP; #56: 06:10 PM, 25 Jan, 2007)

Participants, and post count*, for this week:
CC: 5
LM: 3
Ex: 1
F: 2
CM: 6
hh: 1
BA: 1
N: 1
C: 5
mm: 1
A: 2

Would someone please confirm my tallies?

* whether there are questions or not; OP not counted at all

[forrest noble]

Nereid,

I'm not discussing the content of the questions, responses, or anything else; I'm trying to show that the 'prime example' of 'question flooding' has, as a major cause, non-answer responses. I'm also trying to show that the pace of the questions was largely within your control, fn.

Neither of these statements are true. 25 questions by you in one day was too many, period. They are only non-answers in your eyes because you could not understand them, prime example below -- your own example. And that was the best example you could find in the whole thread.

Again, it seems there is an impasse: you assert there exists "question flooding", yet when I do a detailed analysis, there seems to be none.

Your thinking that 25 questions by one person in one day is OK, is a prime example of seemingly non-nonsensical logic.

And what is your response to my analysis? It seems to be that you do not wish to discuss it.

Is this your example of a good analysis? I don't think you have made any valid points. All of your examples shown below, indicate otherwise.

So may we conclude that the existence of "question flooding" cannot be established, objectively, and verifiably?

I think that few would agree with you that 25 questions by one person in one day would not be a problem. Three questions by one person in one day would certainly be easy to verify, especially if all questions were embolden as I have suggested.

Concerning an alternative venue: I already suggested JREF (did you miss that post of mine?).

A venue of discussion why you do not understand the answers given. The prime example was your own, discussed below.

Bob Angstom's deleted postings are the best example of question flooding I can imagine. But your 25 questions in one day, as explained on this thread in posting #128, is also another very good example.

Concerning an alternative venue: I already suggested JREF (did you miss that post of mine?).

The discussion should be between you and I only, since the purpose would be to iron out reasons for misunderstandings concerning your questions and my answers. For such a discussion both parties would have equal rights of questioning as I suggested above. This is if you really want to know the root cause of what you assert to be unanswered questions. My contention was that neither the questions you gave as an example, were logically phrased, as in your posting # 167 and my response posting # 173, which was your prime example of non-answers. My explanations on posting #173, suggest that you have a problem asking logical questions and understand accurate answers when you read them -- again same example.

Re: Question Flooding:

There is a very big difference in our opinions. Yours that 25 questions by one person in one day is OK on a ATM thread, and my proposal that 3 should be the maximum number of questions asked by one person in one day. With five participants that still would be a potential of 15 questions per day or more with more participants on high profile threads. Even that could sometimes be a large number of questions to provide in-depth answers (depending upon the questions). Also no single opponent could dominate the thread. In any case there should be a limit put on the number of questions allowed based upon the requirement that all questions must be answered.

Again, this would not limit the amount of discussion in any way, to the contrary I believe, it would increase discussion time by allowing more time for discussions of comments and less time spent answering trivial questions, since the quality of both questions and answers would certainly improve in many cases.

[forrest noble]

But I'm sure you'll agree there's no point discussing a possible rule - or guideline - change to address a problem which does not exist.

And that's where we are ... as far as I can see, there is no such thing as "question flooding" (at least, ATM proponents have a great deal of control over the pace of questions, within the current rules and guidelines, if only they choose to exercise it, and manage their participation in the ATM thread wisely.

The Question Flooding by you, discussed in posting #128 of this thread, was my prime example. Bob Angstrom's example (a moderator deletion) was an undeniable example of the mechanics of question flooding.

[Swift]

I think this has gone around in circles long enough.

The take away rule change proposed seemed to be to limit the number of questions someone could ask per day. I see no interest in the moderation team to enact this rule and it seems to go against the intent of the owners for the ATM forum.

I am closing this thread. If someone thinks they have a very good reason to reopen this thread, please Report this post.