ATM Rules Discussion

[Gillianren]

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Is this the kind of ATM forum BAUT wants?

You know what kind of ATM forum I want? I want one where the proponents actually think in advance about the sort of questions which might be asked and have answers ready. I want one where the theory is able to be presented clearly and with all appropriate math already in place. I want one that doesn't degenerate into complaints that the people questioning the theory aren't being fair because they're questioning the theory.

[Nereid]

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Van Rign

This is the rules discussion area so I will be brief in my answers to anything else.

Remember this was completely different from a normal ATM thread. I proposed nothing. [...]

If so, then how does your experience inform us wrt possible rule (and guideline) changes?

Btw, the ATM thread you referred to is 'about' two quite distinct constellation of ATM ideas, only the first of which is different* ... from around post #279 (or perhaps #286) onward it is much more normal (that's just under 65% of all posts in the thread, and a similar proportion of its total 30-day life). FWIW, I have been considering your comments - and suggestions - more wrt the latter part.

Oh, and it's Rijn (not Rign).

Other questions involving my own theory were only courtesy answers since they did not involve the OP. How to express yourself in such a way that your answers are clear and unambiguous, always takes effort.

I think you've put your finger on a key aspect: the status quo (which you seem to have been unaware of until very recently) is that all ATM ideas introduced are open to being questioned and challenged.

No claims were made concerning any detail other than "some mainstream theories are probably wrong for the most part." When I was answering a question out of courtesy, which I did not have to answer since it was unrelated to the OP, in this case concerning my own theories -- then repeated questions concerning the ATM answers are also unrelated to the OP. This is all they wanted to talk about since most questions did not involve the OP directly.

All of your comments have been good ones. But this was a very different ATM proposal. I don't think it was an ATM proposal at all, at least by my definition, and should not have been in the ATM section in the first place if proper definitions of what an ATM proposal is, according to the rules. That being said, peripheral questions in this case involved my own theories which were not part of the OP and which I did not volunteer except by direct questions and therefore should not be an avenue of unending questions -- whereby my book is 350 pages long, entirely my own theory. Questions could be asked without repetition for years.

So Van Rijn's comments are pertinent to the second part of that particular ATM thread then?

* there have been other 'nature of science' ATM ideas, and threads, so the first part was not unique (but certainly unusual)

[Nereid]

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Nereid,

As I said before that the Chief Editor of my book, who is well versed in the mainstream model, can paraphrase anything that I write indicating he understands nearly everything I write. Some editors have had more problems but all are unpaid editors because they relate to the theories and generally have no problem understanding any part of it upon study. For this reason I don't think that my writing skills or theory are the main problem.

That may be so ... but it is also irrelevant (to the point I'm trying hard to make here).

If one accepts that the four criteria I described can be used to determine if a question (about an ATM idea, in the ATM section) is valid or not (for the purposes of deciding if it must be answered in a timely fashion), then - logically - the only material any such valid question can use is that presented by the BAUT member proposing the ATM idea.

One problem, I think, is that many of those who reply are not knowledgeable about many things that they are discussing based upon their short-term research.

That's a quite general problem, and one that will always be with us I suspect.

Another problem may be that all of my comments and theories are based upon logic where mainstream theory may not be.

As already noted - by others - this points to a possible, extremely deep, disconnect; namely, that your worldview is so radically different from that of contemporary astrophysics as to make almost all ATM threads on ATM ideas you propose extremely frustrating. FWIW, towards the end of the second part of the ATM thread you refer to some of those aspects seemed to begin to come into the open ...

I believe I have observed this to be a big stumbling block for some questioners. Those asking for links obviously don't understand a logical proposal, which is often simple.

Judging by at least some of the examples of this in the ATM thread referenced, what no doubt seems like a simple, logical proposal to you is an extremely confused, highly idiosyncratic mess of badly understood (and/or applied) physics to others.

Although the mainstream keeps changing I usually know the latest since I have read many mainstream papers, articles, and news reports concerning the latest interpretations. Not tooting my horn here but this may be another problem of discussion -- a difference in knowledge level. When somebody is talking at high levels nobody asks for confirmation of background info since everyone knows what your talking about. I make no such assumptions in the ATM section but expect that the simplest explanations should be readily understood.

FWIW, this - to me - is surreal (for a specific example, I suggest any interested reader look up the posts, in the referenced ATM thread, on Verschuur/Verchuur).

[Nereid]

Originally Posted by Gillianren

You know what kind of ATM forum I want? I want one where the proponents actually think in advance about the sort of questions which might be asked and have answers ready. I want one where the theory is able to be presented clearly and with all appropriate math already in place. I want one that doesn't degenerate into complaints that the people questioning the theory aren't being fair because they're questioning the theory.

Well said!

[slang]

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Question Flooding limits by one person, based upon my experience is the biggest problem that I can think of which could be improved by a new rule for the ATM section. A limit in the number and extent of the questions should be generally determined.

And once again, I'll say that I see no need for such a rule change at all. You control how quickly you answer the questions, and you control how many new claims you add in your response. You decide which and whose questions you answer first. You decide when you answer them, as long as it's in a timely manner. There is no requirement to answer questions immediately, and nobody will mind if a careful, well thought out, adequate response takes more than a few hours, or a day.

BUT... when you do decide to engage a question, read it carefully, and answer what is asked, not what you think may be implied, and not what might be the reason for asking. Do not just respond with conversation on the same topic as the question, at least not without actually answering the question.

A frustrating example of this, (and it's in the last pages of the thread, that you suggested people should read) is the claim you raised in post #662 in response to me, that someone has published two more papers on a certain topic. Being published has a very specific meaning in science, it means the paper is accepted and published by a respected, peer reviewed, journal. This distinction was made clear almost immediately.

Thus in #663 you were asked "Please give the title, journal, and journal reference (e.g. year, volume/issue, page number) of each (of at least two papers).". At no point in the thread did you give the information asked for, nor did you retract the claim that there were two more published papers on the topic mentioned. The only answer we got was that a paper was no longer available online.. which is irrelevant, since if it is published in a journal, it will still be listed in the index of that journal, and other indexes (even online), and that journal itself is always available through the proper channels.

Despite several replies, at NO point did you actually answer the question, leading to the question needing to be repeated, at least in: S #712, S #718, GK #720, S #722, GK #731, S #740, N #747, GK #768, and N #772. In at least five of those posts an explanation was given why answers up to then were not acceptable. It was not just three posters repeating the questions, there were also FOUR warnings/remarks from a moderator (in mod color) to answer this question properly (#719, #752, #762, #777). At no point did you ask for clarification why the answers given were not adequate (unless I missed it). It remains unanswered.

You call it flooding, I call it not answering a direct question. And as mentioned so often: the valid answer "I don't know" (perhaps somewhat rephrased) would have prevented all those repeats.

[Swift]

I'm going to call a general timeout here.

This thread is for the purpose of a general discussion of the rules. It is turning into another debate about how specifically ATM should be run, and even more specifically, forrest noble's use of ATM.

I think everyone has more than said their piece. I personally think there is no more to discuss. I suspect I will shortly be proved wrong.

I'm not going to close this thread, but if this discussion does continue, I'm going to split it off into a separate thread.

[Nereid]

While waiting for PipeDream's comments on what the root cause(s) of question flooding are, I'd like to suggest this: READ THIS THREAD FIRST. This is very important. Then, if you still want to post your idea, you will do so politely, you will not call people names, and you will defend your arguments. Direct questions must be answered in a timely manner.

And what is "THIS THREAD"? Why it's Advice for ATM theory supporters.

Now many will recognise these words, and the thread ... yep, this is exactly what the BA wrote, many years ago, and which form a key part of 'the ATM rule'.

My take on this: it is the responsibility of those who choose to present an ATM idea to do their homework before they put fingers to keyboard and write the OP of a new thread in the ATM section.

In almost all cases, the preparation will take many, many, many hours.

In addition to a lot of work on the content of the ATM idea, the preparation will include a lot of work on its format, how it is structured, etc.

Key parts of the preparation include things such as:
* preparing references
* checking the accuracy of references, their pertinence, whether links work, etc
* anticipating likely questions
* planning how to deal with likely questions (e.g. address them in the OP, prepare boilerplate to be used if they arise).

Some corollaries:

- if a post of yours containing an ATM idea is split from an existing thread, forming the OP of a new thread in the ATM section, you should ask for at least a week's grace (i.e. have the thread closed for that long), or abandon it entirely ... why? because you almost surely will not be prepared, and will likely be hit with a flood of questions which you are totally unprepared for

- if, within the first page of the new ATM thread, you face a flood of questions, this is an almost certain sign that you have done a poor job of preparation ... why? you should have anticipated exactly such a flood

- even if you are well-prepared, you will almost certainly have to devote dozens, if not hundreds, of hours to answering questions and addressing challenges to the ATM ideas you have presented, over the 30-day life of the thread ... if you cannot make such a time commitment, your ATM idea is not ready for BAUT time (much less prime time).

Bottom line: pace forrest noble, "question flooding" is not an abuse (or a bug), it is a symptom of inadequate preparation (i.e. a feature).

There is one caveat: a flood of invalid questions is an abuse ... but the abuse is that the questions are not valid (per my suggested four criteria).

[Jeff Root]

I have not read the thread that prompted the current discussion.

Having been involved in many other threads on ATM subjects, I am very
familiar with both the problem of the ATM proponent being overloaded with
questions, and the problem of the ATM proponent responding to questions
without answering them, but believing that he has answered them.

The example of the latter problem that slang provided in post #713 just
above is exactly what was needed to answer the complaint about question
overload made in this thread. Very good work and entirely appropriate and
helpful, in my opinion.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Edit: This thread was just extracted from a much longer thread.
My reference to post #713 is now a reference to post #65.

.

[pipedream]

Originally Posted by Nereid

Out of curiousity, what percentage of the questions asked of fn do you think meet the four criteria I gave in an earlier post*? To what extent is there a difference in this percentage when questions are broken down by questioner?

Finally, what do you consider the root cause of "question flooding" - in general, not just in that thread - to be?

I didn't see a problem with irrelevant questions in this thread, so I'll throw out 80% relevant. There were some comedy turns from certain well-known posters but I didn't mind that as I felt it was a welcome diversion from the grim intensity of the main event. As to breaking it down by questioner, I think that's best answered by reading the thread and making one's own mind up. Each poster knows how much s/he conributed to the discussion, there were some who contributed much, some, not so much, and yes, there was a marked difference in the quality (by your four criteria) of individual posters output.

As to question-flooding, in most ATM threads, almost entirely due to evasion by the OP. In FN's thread, do we agree in the first instance that it probably was occurring, at some points at least? Given that it was , I attribute cause evenly to both sides. Firstly, fn wasn't answering the questions in spirit in which they were asked, and it bears repeating that in the eyes of the general reading public, it doesn't fool anyone, it is noticeable and you get marked down as a result. Credit, though, in that he didn't evade all relevant questions and made irregular attempts to clear the black-log (and he was still going at the end of 30 days - many a lesser man would have fled).

So, the other 50%? Lordy, these eggshells are loud. OK, I felt sometimes you knowingly weren't helping the situation by, for example, the deadly repeated use of the dreaded 'Triple Post' full of pertinent, relevant direct questions. My heart would sink for forrest. I'd scoll up and down 8 foot of post trying to make sense of it (the fault being mine, obviously) and picture the poor guy coming home from a hard day to face that. You say that it is part of the harsh reality of scientific debate, I say that in essence I agree with you but sometimes it was kicking a man when he was down.

[Nereid]

This post is not specifically for PD ...

Originally Posted by PipeDream

[...]

The main proponent (there were others) of the mainstream position argued strongly, forcefully, factually, scientifically and any other -ally you care to think of, but was also ruthless, vicious, and relentless. [...] I can think of no other poster here who I would want least to be on opposite sides of an argument.

FN was unlucky in coming up against such an awesomely strong opponent, and at times, he should have been given more protection by the mods. [...]

Given the BAUT ATM section's 'mission', if you really, truly believed you had developed a really good ATM idea, would you consider yourself unlucky 'to come up against' a BAUT member such as PD describes*?

If you ever found yourself in such a position, what 'more protection by the mods' would you expect? wish for?

Those who've been around a long time, and have at least read some of ATM threads where such 'opponents' have been very active, will know that there seem to be some BAUT members - apparently with strongly held beliefs in the validity of ATM ideas they propose, as good astrophysics - who most strenuously do consider having such an opponent unlucky in the extreme.

I've never understood why, and am genuinely interested in learning why ...

* sans the "ruthless, vicious" part

[Nereid]

Originally Posted by PipeDream

I didn't see a problem with irrelevant questions in this thread, so I'll throw out 80% relevant. There were some comedy turns from certain well-known posters but I didn't mind that as I felt it was a welcome diversion from the grim intensity of the main event. As to breaking it down by questioner, I think that's best answered by reading the thread and making one's own mind up. Each poster knows how much s/he conributed to the discussion, there were some who contributed much, some, not so much, and yes, there was a marked difference in the quality (by your four criteria) of individual posters output.

As to question-flooding, in most ATM threads, almost entirely due to evasion by the OP. In FN's thread, do we agree in the first instance that it probably was occurring, at some points at least? Given that it was , I attribute cause evenly to both sides. Firstly, fn wasn't answering the questions in spirit in which they were asked, and it bears repeating that in the eyes of the general reading public, it doesn't fool anyone, it is noticeable and you get marked down as a result. Credit, though, in that he didn't evade all relevant questions and made irregular attempts to clear the black-log (and he was still going at the end of 30 days - many a lesser man would have fled).

So, the other 50%? Lordy, these eggshells are loud. OK, I felt sometimes you knowingly weren't helping the situation by, for example, the deadly repeated use of the dreaded 'Triple Post' full of pertinent, relevant direct questions. My heart would sink for forrest. I'd scoll up and down 8 foot of post trying to make sense of it (the fault being mine, obviously) and picture the poor guy coming home from a hard day to face that. You say that it is part of the harsh reality of scientific debate, I say that in essence I agree with you but sometimes it was kicking a man when he was down.

Thanks very much!

Back on 'question-flooding'.

In general.

First, as a matter of good 'response management' (shall we say), how effective do you think a response like the following would be "I acknowledge the questions in posts n, m, and x {or quote the actual questions}; I will try to address them in turn {or some other indication of order}, hoping to have done so by {date}. However, I will need clarification on {list}, and am also concerned that {list2} are beyond the scope of the ATM ideas, as presented."?

How often would you say a response (by an ATM idea proponent) which is a non-answer would have been better as a request for clarification? IOW, there most certainly are misunderstandings, by every BAUT member who participates in such threads, failures to communicate, etc; where the ATM proponent feels this may be happening, isn't it better to ask for clarification (than give a non-answer)?

FWIW, a general principle I try to stick with (I don't always do so ) is that if the response to one of my questions is a non-answer, I assume my question was insufficiently clear, and have a go at providing a more detailed context (including lots of material from the ATM idea, as presented), approaching the question in a different way, or re-wording it (or some combo, including all three).

Finally, to what extent do you consider it possible for valid questions (per my four criteria) to be irrelevant (comic relief aside!)?

[Swift]

I have split the most recent discussion about ATM rules and modifications to them out of the general Rules Discussion thread, and into their own thread (this one).

[forrest noble]

Nereid,

Surely the only concern here should be: are the questions valid?

The word valid is OK. I prefer the word pertinent.

The intent of the ATM section, with its rules, is very clear; if you are aware of the intent, and familiar with the rules and how they apply, then in preparing for the day when you post the OP of a new ATM idea presumably you will have considered the likely questions and have already addressed them (in the OP) or be prepared to do so.

Agreed, but the way questions are applied, question flooding for instance is unacceptable. Antagonistic questions like "are you prepared to answer questions ....................." are also unacceptable.

I'm not sure about questions such as "are you sure you want to present this ATM idea? are you prepared to address challenges to it" - asked out of concern for the ATM proponent, and politeness - perhaps everyone should just assume every ATM idea presented is open (and that the proponent is prepared).

As I said, I consider these questions as attempted intimidation. You must assume the ATMer is ready to answer questions without asking.

IMHO, there are four ordered criteria for judging whether a question - one that must be answered in a timely fashion - is valid or not:

* is it direct?
* does the question concern an ATM idea presented by the proponent?
* can the question be tied directly to the ATM idea, as presented?
* is the question pertinent to the ATM idea presented, as presented?

If the question unambiguously meets all four criteria, then answer the question you must.

Agreed. But often these criteria are not met.

Of course, you can always answer something like any of these: "I don't know", or "I acknowledge the question, but it will take me some time to answer it", or "I don't understand the question, could you please clarify?", or "I can't see how the question relates to the ATM idea I have presented, as I presented it; could you elaborate please?".

Why do you keep repeating comments like questions, that have already been responded to/ answered. I have already agreed with your paragraph and comments above.

One important thing many ATM proponents fail to realise is that every ATM presented, by them, in the ATM thread, is automatically open to being questioned and challenged (it seems some feel that only those ATM ideas presented in the OP are 'on the table').

Obviously, but there is a limit to how far the peripheral questions can go. Since everything is related to everything else in this universe, you can't go from galaxy formation as the OP, to quark theory by progressive steps of questioning. There must be a limit. The OP should always be the primary basis for all questions. Try to understand that ATM proposals often require many ATM answers but questioning of the answers progressively can only go so far otherwise the presentation of many ATM proposals would become impossible since it might require the explanation of much new physics, as it would for my theories for instance. Ten years might not be enough time to get through all the questions if there was no limit.

[Moose]

Originally Posted by forrest noble

You must assume the ATMer is ready to answer questions without asking.

Believe me when I say we "must" assume no such thing. Quite the opposite, in practice.

Have you ever considered why we've had to codify Rule 13 at all? It wasn't for larks.

Painfully unprepared and here solely for the personal perception of street cred (by getting banned by "the establishment"), the Martyr-ATMer is by far the most time-consuming enforcement issue the mod team faces. (Spam is considerably more common by incident, but individual cases can be handled very quickly.)

[Tensor]

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Tensor,
You are one of the exceptions concerning knowledge and behavior. Everything you say, that I recall, concerning an ATM proposal has relevance, is insightful, and you generally respond with a respectful demeanor. If everybody had your knowledge and social skills the ATM forum would be a far better, and more productive forum, in my opinion.

You give me far too much credit. I can, and have, been snarky and rude with the best of them (usually as sarcasm). Now, it may be that it happened before you were here, as I now post less than I used to(not due to anything here), although I continue to read almost everything every day. But, and I know it's no excuse, it's usually in response to one of the examples I gave.

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Regarding the rules: That being said, I disagree with your opinion concerning snarky, rude, insulting comments. I certainly have not been a part of BAUT as long as you have but for the 1 1/2 years that I have it appears to me that almost all of the abuses concerning the rules, in the present day, come from the ATM opponents.

Moose's post above contains a link to a short history of the why's of the ATM forum and the rules of such. The problems I listed, while not specifically addressed by Moose's link, are in large part the reasons for the way the ATM rules ended up the way they are. Which may account for your experience here.

I will tell you that in my experience, that the types of posters the rules have been designed for (or in reaction too) far outweigh those who may have a valid idea and the wherewithal to defend it.

[Jeff Root]

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Antagonistic questions like "are you prepared to answer questions ...."
are also unacceptable.

As I said, I consider these questions as attempted intimidation.

I doubt that anyone else would consider them to be attempted
intimidation. Your interpretation of them as attempted intimidation
surprises me. I'm quite sure it would surprise almost anyone who
doesn't know you.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[korjik]

Originally Posted by forrest noble

ATM abuses:

I just finished a very long ATM thread and these were the very clear abuses that I experienced. I believe some changes in the rules could stop some of the abuses which I and others experienced on this and other threads, as described both above and below.

Question Flooding discussed above. One person asking 10 to 15 questions all in one day (as many as 40), sometimes on just one posting. Some of these questions individually required very long answers allowing much less time for other questions.

'Question Flooding' is a straw man as has been dicussed above. The rules allow answering questions at what ever rate that the ATMer wants.

Thread Flooding also discussed above. This does not happen often but the strategy is to flood the thread with alot of quotations, sometimes three of four long postings of quotations, to keep the reader away from relevant/ valuable comments by the OP, pushing their reply to the top of the page or to a prior page.

The only ones that I have seen do this are ATMers. Frequently, the quotes actually disprove the ATMers point.

Based upon my experiences I feel that those asking the questions do not really want to hear answers and often do not even read them since they keep asking the same questions over again repeatedly. It would seem that their sole purpose is to defeat the OP without having any real interest in their own questions or the answers given.

Nice little backhanded ad-hom. My experience is that the questions keep getting asked because the answer was trivial, non-applicable, or just plain wrong, and the error is pointed out and further information is desired. No one who spends time shooting down ATMs is there just to opress the ATMers. We are ususally there to educate and to prevent the perversion of knowledge by bad ATM ideas. No one simply tries to stifle the ATMer.

Repeated questions by the same person: Many questions were asked over and over again even when the answers seemed quite understandable and clear to almost anybody. This was a very big problem and I feel certain that those doing it understood what they were doing, i.e wasting my time to reply to unanswered questions. I could not go back hundreds of postings to find out on what posting I answered their question before, even though I told them I already answered their question they always listed it as an unanswered question. It was easier to answer the same question multiple times when asked by the same person, rather than get warned to answer the questions by the moderator -- a strategy of intimidation by the questioner.

What you consider understandable and clear, is usually trival and incorrect. The problem isnt that the answer wasnt understood, but that the ATMer dosent understand the explanation of why the given answer was incorrect and worthless.

False Accusations and Insults were the order of the day and continued on an ongoing basis rather than addressing the answer, I was repeatedly attacked personally. This of course is the worst problem and should be stopped in its tracts every time, by the moderators without hesitation. There could never be an excuse for allowing such behavior. If this abuse is not stopped it always escalates. I made a number of complaints to moderators on this matter but none were answered. One time the moderator warned a poster concerning rule #1 but I don't know if it was in response to my complaint or not. When I commented online concerning continuous insults, I was told to push the triangle and warned concerning such online discussions-- whereby nobody ever answered my complaints, a catch 22.

I'll admit that I get snarky, but any accusation I have made hasnt been false, and I havent even come close to being insulting. You can tell that by how I can still post here

Lack of understanding: Many of those asking questions could not understand sometimes simple concepts and answers. This, in some cases, may have been a reason why the same questions were repeatedly asked. In frustration I suggested that maybe somebody else reading my answers could help explain them to the questioner, after my answering the same question using different wording. The questioner complained to the moderator and I was warned concerning suspension. For this problem I don't know how new rules could help. But maybe somebody else might have an idea.

It isnt the responders who do not understand, it is the ATMers. I have yet to see an ATM poster that has a good enough understanding of physics to pass a Jr level physics class. I dont mean this as an insult, but as an observation. The problem is that alot of the subjects that ATMers bring up are quite sophisticated and the explanations that show the ATM idea wrong are way over the ATMers head.

A number of questions were unrelated to the OP. Some involved how this or that experimenter performed his analysis. I told the questioner to ask this in the Q & A section since it did not involve any ATM idea or assertion. I was warned by the moderator to stop trying to moderate the thread myself and to answer the questions. I answered the questions by simply saying I don't know -- which was true unless I would have looked up the answers. Upon seeing my response somebody watching the thread looked up the answer and provided them online. They were warned not to do so thereafter.

Several persons had favorable comments concerning the OP and gave, what I considered very valuable comments. They were told not to partake in meta-discussions, and warned of suspension.

Moderators seemingly are biased against the OP, regardless of what the subject is. Some moderators, I believe, think they are doing a service by favoring opponents of the OP. This favoritism is based upon presuming some commentators know what they are talking about, and the OP does not. Other moderators may not even be aware of their own bias. I also feel that moderators seldom recognize those deceitful tactics described above. I'm not sure anything can be done about some of these tactics and the rules other than this posting, and moderators becoming aware of some of these unwanted/ deceitful tactics.

On a positive note: maybe it's just my imagination but it appears to me that some moderators may be improving to some extent concerning obvious favoritism.

Sorry, but if the moderators were truly biased against the OP, then none of them would ever make it off the first page.

What you consider bias is probably one of the other people in the thread trying to get you to provide and answer that actually answers something, or trying to get you to realize that the answer you provided wasnt good enough to be considered a response, much less an actual answer.

I participated in your thread for a while, and lurked occasionally once I was satisfied that you were not interested in learning from your mistakes. The only problem that thread had was that you have some pretty fundamental misunderstanding in physics, and a misunderstanding on how science in general works. Most of your responses were ambigous or just plain wrong, and you never understood any of the reasons why. People kept trying to get you to see the light, but that is just 'question flooding' to you. The problem you had was never the people who were answering you, or the moderators.

[Gillianren]

Originally Posted by korjik

No one simply tries to stifle the ATMer.

After all, wouldn't it be easier to just ignore them completely? No, some threads don't get much response, because they don't draw interest, but a lot of threads grow very quickly from interested responses. Not paying attention is more effective at keeping an idea from gaining momentum than actually actively suppressing it.

[captain swoop]

I have never understood the complaints about repressing threads or censoring. If we wanted to repress ATM we wouldn't have the forum.

[forrest noble]

Gillianren,

After all, wouldn't it be easier to just ignore them completely? No, some threads don't get much response, because they don't draw interest, but a lot of threads grow very quickly from interested responses. Not paying attention is more effective at keeping an idea from gaining momentum than actually actively suppressing it.

I agree 100%.

[forrest noble]

Korjik,

Question Flooding' is a straw man as has been dicussed above. The rules allow answering questions at what ever rate that the ATMer wants.

The problem with question flooding is not the number of questions, it's the continuous complaint the the questions have not been answered. The effect is that often one person dominates the thread and questions.

RE: thread flooding.

The only ones that I have seen do this are ATMers. Frequently, the quotes actually disprove the ATMers point.

I believe I've seen this on a number of occasions but only on high-profile threads.

questioners not particularly interested in answers would rather see a wrong/ incorrect answer than a right answer:

Nice little backhanded ad-hom. My experience is that the questions keep getting asked because the answer was trivial, non-applicable, or just plain wrong, and the error is pointed out and further information is desired. No one who spends time shooting down ATMs is there just to oppress the ATMers. We are usually there to educate and to prevent the perversion of knowledge by bad ATM ideas. No one simply tries to stifle the ATMer.

In high profile cases I think this is one of the many strategies when all else seems to be failing. On long posting to them, they often miss answers.

What you consider understandable and clear, is usually trival and incorrect. The problem isnt that the answer wasnt understood, but that the ATMer dosent understand the explanation of why the given answer was incorrect and worthless.

I understand and know that many ATM threads are impossible to follow. As to my own explanations, if someone has a little background knowledge I think my explanations are not difficult to understand.

I'll admit that I get snarky, but any accusation I have made hasnt been false, and I havent even come close to being insulting. You can tell that by how I can still post here

Anyone who admits to being snarky from time to time has to be one of the good guys.

It isnt the responders who do not understand, it is the ATMers. I have yet to see an ATM poster that has a good enough understanding of physics to pass a Jr level physics class. I dont mean this as an insult, but as an observation. The problem is that alot of the subjects that ATMers bring up are quite sophisticated and the explanations that show the ATM idea wrong are way over the ATMers head.

I think there is a wide divergence between the quality of ATM threads/ postings as you suggest.

Sorry, but if the moderators were truly biased against the OP, then none of them would ever make it off the first page.

Being biased has many faces.

What you consider bias is probably one of the other people in the thread trying to get you to provide and answer that actually answers something, or trying to get you to realize that the answer you provided wasnt good enough to be considered a response, much less an actual answer.

No, my definition of bias here is for a moderator(s) to consider beforehand that an opponent is most likely correct and the ATMer is most likely at fault concerning accusations.

I participated in your thread for a while, and lurked occasionally once I was satisfied that you were not interested in learning from your mistakes. The only problem that thread had was that you have some pretty fundamental misunderstanding in physics, and a misunderstanding on how science in general works. Most of your responses were ambiguous or just plain wrong, and you never understood any of the reasons why. People kept trying to get you to see the light, but that is just 'question flooding' to you. The problem you had was never the people who were answering you, or the moderators.

I've been writing theory for 50 years and am well educated in math and astronomy. I'm a retired teacher. Few on that thread could understand basic principles. Go back and look at Bob Angstrom's postings where he was trying to explain the simple stuff to them after I already explained it, sometimes twice.

Thanks for your comments, regards forrest

[slang]

Originally Posted by forrest noble

The problem with question flooding is not the number of questions, it's the continuous complaint the the questions have not been answered.

Changing goal posts. If the problem is that questions are considered to be unanswered, while you personally think they have been answered, why not ask why the answers given so far do not in fact answer the question?

If I ask you what the color of your car is, a 1000 word response detailing which colors sell the most, and which colors are good for the soul, and which colors promote peace, and bicycles are better than cars anyway, and explaining that some people are color blind, does not answer my question on what the color of your car is, even if every one of those 1000 words are true.

[forrest noble]

Moose,

RE: assuming the OP/ or someone else is prepared to defend:

Believe me when I say we "must" assume no such thing. Quite the opposite, in practice.

Have you ever considered why we've had to codify Rule 13 at all? It wasn't for larks.

I believe that it is a valid rule that has properly evolved but it also has been abused by moderators, in my opinion.

You took part in this thread.
Modern Cosmology: Science or Folktale?

The title of the thread was Cosmology, science or Folklore. It featured an article by the astronomer Michael Disney concerning what's wrong with the standard model.

In complete agreement with the OP I said the following. referred to in posting #139 back to a previous posting.

The standard model, I honestly think, is on its way out and I would bet it will be gone, or out of favor, in 20 years or sooner because of the reasons Disney has explained -- and because I believe it will be contradicted by continuous observations of more distant galaxies far beyond what has been observed to date.

Nereid said the following: posting #135

..........Well, I think it's time for a mod to step in provide clarification ...
... until then, as I understand it, there is no 'adhere to' requirement, nor that the ATM idea (or ideas) being presented be one's own.

As I have said, repeatedly, the key requirement is that if an ATM idea is presented in a thread in the ATM section (whether in the OP or subsequently), the default is that the BAUT member posting it is required to answer questions on it, and address challenges to it (the usual caveats apply)...........

My quote: posting #144 same thread I said:

To agree with something contrary to the mainstream model doesn't mean that you are in favor of anything in particular. I'm supposed to defend what I think is wrong with the standard model? That's not a hypothesis or proposal, its just an agreement with a criticism. Even criticism itself is not a proposal, if so everybody criticizing the OP would be making proposals.

In other words what do you expect me to defend. I'm not the OP. I was in complete agreement with the OP proposal when I said "I honestly think" and "I believe" -------- these are not ATM proposals, in my opinion. This was my only "ATM proposal" and on posting #148 I was suspended for three days for supposedly rule 13, not supporting my ATM claim.

The closing thread read:

"As you seem determined to ignore your responsibilities under rule 13 I am going to suspend you for 3 days to consider your position.

As Forrest seems to be the only active proponent of the ATM Idea I am going to lock the thread. If anyone wants to continue let me know"

(bold added)

Some say that the mods misunderstood the thread or what was being said. That may be true but it is not a valid excuse for abusing rule 13, in my opinion, and suspending somebody for asserting nothing. You can't even say "I honestly believe" xyz in the ATM section without having to defend it as a new thread in the ATM section? Of course I was not prepared to defend such a frivolous proposal such as "I honestly believe" as a separate ATM thread as Nereid proposed. This thread would have been nearly identical to the Cosmology, Science or Folkore? with me defending a similar statement to Disney's prefaced by "I honestly believe." A truly ridiculous proposal/ decision which was enforced by the mods based upon rule 13.

I understand and appreciate that a mods job is difficult at times but I expect better than this from them, especially since I was the object of their rath .

[forrest noble]

Slang,

Changing goal posts. If the problem is that questions are considered to be unanswered, while you personally think they have been answered, why not ask why the answers given so far do not in fact answer the question?

(bold added)

I did something similar to this but admittedly not as good. I said "why do you keep asking the same questions when I've already answered them before. No response follows other than "you still have not answered questions postings x, y, & z.

Your approach is better since it is a more straight forward question without the possibly antagonistic statement "I've already answered that." It requires their response in a more compelling way, with a better sounding request.

[mugaliens]

Originally Posted by Swift

I have split the most recent discussion about ATM rules and modifications to them out of the general Rules Discussion thread, and into their own thread (this one).

Excellent move, and as we're already on page three, that took some time, Swift - thanks!

[forrest noble]

Here's a funny thought, Or is it?

In the ATM section or another I might say in agreement with the OP that "I think xyz standard model is wrong because of abc reason" The mods step in and say you must retract this statement or you will be suspended. You've already had your 30 days

[HenrikOlsen]

Originally Posted by Gillianren

Not paying attention is more effective at keeping an idea from gaining momentum than actually actively suppressing it.

Deleting the thread and banning the poster would be even easier, and much less work for the moderators, but, in spite of repeated accusations of censorship, that doesn't actually happen here.

[HenrikOlsen]

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Here's a funny thought, Or is it?

In the ATM section or another I might say in agreement with the OP that "I think xyz standard model is wrong because of abc reason" The mods step in and say you must retract this statement or you will be suspended. You've already had your 30 days

99.99%¹ of the situations where this happens, the argument from ATM2 quoted to support ATM1 doesn't actually support ATM 1, ATM2 often contradicts ATM1 on several points and the discussion becomes seriously confused because people have to keep track of which ATM they're arguing with in what posts.
It doesn't help ATM1 and if ATM2 has already failed to be demonstrated in another thread, it's not valid as supporting evidence anyway.



1) 87% of statistics on the internet are invented on the spot.

[Nereid]

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Here's a funny thought, Or is it?

In the ATM section or another I might say in agreement with the OP that "I think xyz standard model is wrong because of abc reason" The mods step in and say you must retract this statement or you will be suspended. You've already had your 30 days

To get an appreciation of what Moose (and Tensor, and ...) have been referring to - re the history of the ATM section, grotesquely misapplied intellect*, etc - take a gander at some of the "electric universe" ATM threads.

IIRC, this particular tactic (the one you write in your post) has been used, many times, in several guises ... (and yes, some BAUT members were, in fact, banned for persisting with such tactics, despite repeated warnings).

* i.e. devising ever more clever ways to circumvent the rules, in order to give visibility to pet ATM ideas

[Tensor]

Originally Posted by HenrikOlsen

1) 87% of statistics on the internet are invented on the spot.

But, 74% of that 87% are actually valid(within ~10%). Of course the other 26% or 22% of all statistics on the internet are imaginary. So, if you multiply that 22% by i, you will have 100% real statistics.