ATM Rules Discussion

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[mugaliens]

Nice compilation across all fronts, Forest!

I concur wholeheartedly with both your analysis, as well as your recommendation for a change in the ATM/CT rules, and especially the last two paragraphs. I think there's been some progress, which is a good sign. For this progress to continue, however, some rule modifications are in order.

[RussT]

Originally Posted by mugaliens

Nice compilation across all fronts, Forest!

I concur wholeheartedly with both your analysis, as well as your recommendation for a change in the ATM/CT rules, and especially the last two paragraphs. I think there's been some progress, which is a good sign. For this progress to continue, however, some rule modifications are in order.

I agree as well. Actually I think it is really pretty simple...Just get everyone, mainstreamer's included, to just cover the material presented, and stop all the 'name calling' and 'charactor degrading' tactics, and everything would go much smoother...

[hhEb09'1]

Originally Posted by forrest noble

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.

We don't have a policy of responding directly to a report. A moderator will handle it if they think it is appropriate, and sometimes they respond to the reporter if they feel there is some sort of misunderstanding. Sometimes, they will express their appreciation for the report, but I think that is rare.

I looked over your reports, for that thread. It would take me some time to analyze everything (even though there are less than a dozen reports), but I do seem to recognize the moderator response you refer to . I'm pretty sure it was in direct response to your complaint. If you want, PM me and I can furnish a couple more details.

[Gillianren]

Originally Posted by forrest noble

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.

And, of course, you have evidence for this declaration of motive.

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.

And, of course, you have evidence that it was understandable and clear to almost anybody and that the question had been answered--instead of, as often seems to be the case, an answer to some question which hadn't been asked.

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.

And, of course, you have evidence that it was their lack of understanding that was the issue, not yours. And that you did your best to put it in the simplest terms possible. And that your terms were being used in a standard fashion.

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.

Yeah, I have no problem there, honestly. The ATM thread is supposed to be about the quality of the evidence, not the positive comments of the people reading it. I've always reported what I consider to be superfluous negative comments, too.

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.

In many cases, it is not a presumption that certain commentators know what they're talking about. It is established fact through prior discussion and, sometimes, knowledge of the person's profession. If someone who works in aerospace tells you that your idea on that subject is wrong, it gives a stronger presumption that your idea actually is wrong. There are other people where that isn't true--you shouldn't take my word about science as gospel, for starters! However, there are also times when the OP's ignorance is so apparent that even I know it--and have since elementary school.

[agingjb]

I do wonder; if I were intelligent enough and knew enough to challenge the mainstream (I'm not and I don't), would I come here? Would I need to?

[kleindoofy]

Originally Posted by agingjb

I do wonder; if I were intelligent enough and knew enough to challenge the mainstream (I'm not and I don't), would I come here? Would I need to?

Being intelligent enough and knowing enough are not the necessary criteria.

You can be as dumb as a loaf of bread, but your theory/proposition/model/etc. has to be valid upon scrutiny and defendable.

That's all.

[Gillianren]

Originally Posted by agingjb

I do wonder; if I were intelligent enough and knew enough to challenge the mainstream (I'm not and I don't), would I come here? Would I need to?

You know, I would. It would be a good place to start. I would learn what the flaws in my work were and what I needed to work on. There's also a pretty good chance that, if I'd forgotten something obvious, someone would point that out, and that's of invaluable assistance.

[agingjb]

Hmm. I just find it hard to imagine what it would be like to have the capacity to make a serious proposal of something that would overturn, for instance, general relativity or quantum physics.

But yes, I suppose those that do have that capacity may be happy to come here - and I suppose this place should make the experience no harder than stringent scientific examination would entail.

[HenrikOlsen]

It would be a good initial exercise to come here to go through a nicer version of what's going to happen later.
To start gently.

[forrest noble]

hhEb09'1,

We don't have a policy of responding directly to a report. A moderator will handle it if they think it is appropriate, and sometimes they respond to the reporter if they feel there is some sort of misunderstanding. Sometimes, they will express their appreciation for the report, but I think that is rare.

I looked over your reports, for that thread. It would take me some time to analyze everything (even though there are less than a dozen reports), but I do seem to recognize the moderator response you refer to. I'm pretty sure it was in direct response to your complaint. If you want, PM me and I can furnish a couple more details.

I appreciate your interest and effort. Instead if you wish, just look at the postings of 'GK' on that thread concerning rule #1. Some of the other posters violated the rule many times but he by far had almost continuous violations of rule #1. I don't get it. Why not just attack what is being said. Several asserted that I was lying, which were all false accusations with no basis. I cannot conceive of a reason to attack a person's character for any reason at all. Of course if they are very rude, nasty, and falsely accusatory one feels like insulting their motives and argument skills which I did on one occasion and was warned of suspension because of it. Of course one well-known strategy is to make someone mad enough to say something that will get them suspended.

Any ideas?

[Spoons]

It's probably silly of me to chime in here, as I am not familiar with the case in point, but I would have to agree that in some cases people do seem intent on shooting down the ATM proponents rather than just assessing the merit of the ideas.

That said, I have been guilty of posting one or two snarky comments in the past.

And it happens on both sides.

One problem is, when people get frustrated in those sections they may not feel at liberty to walk away for a while, particularly the supporting sides, as rules state they must respond to questions in a timely fashion.

It would be reasonable for the person to state they need to cool off before getting suspended, but if someone did that to me in the middle of a discussion I'd be annoyed that they'd "just walked away from the table", in my view.

I don't know if there's a clean solution to that.

[forrest noble]

The evidence for my assertions are the thread itself. I don't expect anyone to read such a long thread but peruse it or just read the last dozen pages and you will see what is there and draw your own conclusion and opinion. I stated mine.

In many cases, it is not a presumption that certain commentators know what they're talking about. It is established fact through prior discussion and, sometimes, knowledge of the person's profession. If someone who works in aerospace tells you that your idea on that subject is wrong, it gives a stronger presumption that your idea actually is wrong. There are other people where that isn't true--you shouldn't take my word about science as gospel, for starters! However, there are also times when the OP's ignorance is so apparent that even I know it--and have since elementary school.

To me, science and logic are gospel! In fact it has been my life, spending maybe 25 years working in aerospace and all of my adult life studying and writing theory.

To me theories are just theories and need to be at sometime proven, such as the world is round, the sun is the center of the solar system, heat is based upon molecular/ atomic vibration, atomic fusion and nuclear synthesis -- just a few of many more "proven" theories.

Until that time all theories should be continuously analyzed and criticized by both advocates and opponents, in my opinion.

regards

[forrest noble]

Nice compilation across all fronts, Forrest!

I concur wholeheartedly with both your analysis, as well as your recommendation for a change in the ATM/CT rules, and especially the last two paragraphs. I think there's been some progress, which is a good sign. For this progress to continue, however, some rule modifications are in order.

Thanks Mugaliens for your comment. I believe this Rules posting thread has remained open for a good reason. It provides a forum for those that believe the BAUT is a cool place to visit, but can also improve concerning the intent of its owners, operators, and users. I've followed Phil's blogs, read his book, and think he is a Bad Astronomer in the best slang sense of the words.

[Moose]

Originally Posted by Spoons

One problem is, when people get frustrated in those sections they may not feel at liberty to walk away for a while, particularly the supporting sides, as rules state they must respond to questions in a timely fashion.

I'll point out that "timely" should never be interpreted to mean that the clock is running; tick tick tick. (Other than the 30-day timer, that is.) The intent of the "timely" rule is to prevent a less-than-ethical proponent from ignoring pertinent questions.

Generally speaking, so long as the pertinent questions are (well) answered (or at least acknowledged) in a reasonably sequential manner, the mod team isn't going to have a problem with slower response times. Whatever works best for the proponent, so long as it's done transparently and in good faith.

Participation is always voluntary. Contribute the time you have to contribute.

It would be reasonable for the person to state they need to cool off before getting suspended, but if someone did that to me in the middle of a discussion I'd be annoyed that they'd "just walked away from the table", in my view.

We _definitely_ want people to walk away for a breather if they feel like they're about to overheat.

It's okay for the proponent to say "I'm overheating. I'm going to walk away for a while until I cool off." It's also okay for a proponent to request a temporary thread closure if they're feeling overwhelmed or over-frustrated.

Ultimately, we want to give a well-prepared ATM proponent every reasonable chance to succeed within the format of a simulated (but decorous) peer-defense.

I don't know if there's a clean solution to that.

As that is something the mod team actively encourages to reduce decorum-related suspensions, you may be out of luck on that score.

[forrest noble]

agingjb,

I do wonder; if I were intelligent enough and knew enough to challenge the mainstream (I'm not and I don't), would I come here? Would I need to?

(bold added)

I have written a long book on Theoretical Physics and Cosmology, entirely my own theories. The book itself is directed toward science minded independent thinkers. In general, except for the equations, it requires only a solid science/ math high school education, or Junior College/ college eduction in a science related field. This, I think, is the common readership of BAUT in general, there being exceptions concerning both more education and less education.

By coming here I hope to hear questions that I haven't thought of or where a different twist, angle or perspective might be realized concerning explanations to improve the book.

[forrest noble]

kleindoofy,

Being intelligent enough and knowing enough are not the necessary criteria.

You can be as dumb as a loaf of bread, but your theory/proposition/model/etc. has to be valid upon scrutiny and defendable.

That's all.

The way that I see some of these ATM proposals is that they are neither right nor wrong. They may contain some good points/ ideas that need to be explored rather than concentrating on those parts which may not make sense. This is what I do. I think more good might be gleaned from the proposal and future science interests by those involved.

[forrest noble]

HenrikOlsen,

It would be a good initial exercise to come here to go through a nicer version of what's going to happen later.
To start gently.

I don't think this Forum is a gentle start for a serious proposal. Few here have the ability to properly propose or respond to a scientific proposal and therefore insults happen frequently. Although this happens in the real world of proposals it generally occurs as a response to a paper and is on a one on one basis, not just an overall persecution/ inquisition of the OP.

[forrest noble]

Hi Spoons,

........but I would have to agree that in some cases people do seem intent on shooting down the ATM proponents rather than just assessing the merit of the ideas.

Re. snarky comments

....it happens on both sides.

One problem is, when people get frustrated in those sections they may not feel at liberty to walk away for a while, particularly the supporting sides, as rules state they must respond to questions in a timely fashion.

It would be reasonable for the person to state they need to cool off before getting suspended, but if someone did that to me in the middle of a discussion I'd be annoyed that they'd "just walked away from the table", in my view.

I don't know if there's a clean solution to that.

My experience is that at least 95% of the snarky comments come from ATM opponents. Those coming from the ATMers are almost entirely provoked by similar or worse comments by the opponent. In my opinion it is almost entirely an ATM Opponent problem

[Gillianren]

Originally Posted by forrest noble

To me, science and logic are gospel! [snip] To me theories are just theories and need to be at sometime proven . . . .

No true scientist would make such a statement. Surely you know that "just a theory" is a foolish statement regarding the scientific meaning of the word and that theories are never proven.

[forrest noble]

Gillianren,
Re: ATM posting to try out an idea

You know, I would. It would be a good place to start. I would learn what the flaws in my work were and what I needed to work on. There's also a pretty good chance that, if I'd forgotten something obvious, someone would point that out, and that's of invaluable assistance.

This is this positive side to it, but does the positive outweigh the negative abuse and insults,

I think in most cases, not.

[forrest noble]

Gillianren,

my quotation:

To me, science and logic are gospel! [snip] To me theories are just theories and need to be at sometime proven . . . .

No true scientist would make such a statement. Surely you know that "just a theory" is a foolish statement regarding the scientific meaning of the word and that theories are never proven.

I agree that your statement is the scientific consensus in today's world concerning theories. It is my opinion, on the other hand, that every theory today will someday be either improved, disproved, or simply lose favor based upon evidence and be replaced. Maybe some may even be proven.

My few examples of proven theories were these: the world is round, the sun is the center of the solar system, heat is based upon molecular/ atomic vibration, the causes of atomic fusion and nuclear synthesis are generally xyz -- just a few of many more what I consider "proven" theories.

I think your example is a good one concerning how the rules should work concerning peripheral discussions. On this matter we can agree to disagree and move on to the subject at hand, in this case a discussion of the rules and how they might be improved.

[Tensor]

Originally Posted by forrest noble

In my opinion it is almost entirely an ATM Opponent problem

Then I suggest you do some research in the ATM forum. Look up quite a few of those ATM proposals and see exactly where the snarky comments started. Did they start right off the bat? Did they start after repeated requests for answers were ignored? Did they start after the ATM poster continued to claim their idea correct, even after it had been shown to be wrong? Did it start after the ATM poster decided to use standard terms in non-standard ways, only to criticized those who were using it in the standard ways? Did they start after the ATM poster started making snarky comments? While it may be your opinion, (based possibly on your experience here) as long as I've been around here (and based on my experience here), it's more the ATM posters who provoke it. Now, there can be individuals (on both sides) who can skew the experience here.

[Gillianren]

Originally Posted by forrest noble

I agree that your statement is the scientific consensus in today's world concerning theories. It is my opinion, on the other hand, that every theory today will someday be either improved, disproved, or simply lose favor based upon evidence and be replaced.

Right.

Maybe some may even be proven.

Wrong.

My few examples of proven theories were these: the world is round, the sun is the center of the solar system, heat is based upon molecular/ atomic vibration, the causes of atomic fusion and nuclear synthesis are generally xyz -- just a few of many more what I consider "proven" theories.

Look, the fact that the world is round is not actually a theory. It is a measurable fact. (Technically, of course, the idea of the world being round is wrong, but let's not be pedantic.) Why the Earth is roundish is not a fact; it is a theory. It's an important difference.

I think your example is a good one concerning how the rules should work concerning peripheral discussions. On this matter we can agree to disagree and move on to the subject at hand, in this case a discussion of the rules and how they might be improved.

You know, we can't, because what you're saying is exactly where the problem in ATM almost always comes from. You are using terminology incorrectly. I have explained to you that it's incorrect. You have said that your use is just as valid, and why don't we agree to disagree about it? The fact is, until people stop trying to make words mean what they want them to, not what they do, there are going to be issues of the sort you're describing, and all the rules in the world won't change that.

[Jeff Root]

Originally Posted by Gillianren

Look, the fact that the world is round is not actually a theory. It is
a measurable fact.

I'm tempted to agree with Forrest. Some time in the distant past,
it had not yet occurred to anyone that the Earth must be finite in
extent, or the stars and planets could not go underneath it. When
it was realized that the heavenly bodies circle under the world,
the theory began to develop that the Earth might be a sphere. The
observations that Earth's shadow on the Moon is always circular,
and that the angle of the Sun varies with latitude on a given day
were strong confirmation that the theory was correct. Nowadays we
can consider the theory that the Earth is roundish to be a fact,
but it wasn't always so.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[Jeff Root]

Originally Posted by forrest noble in post 649

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.

I agree that that is a problem. It is just something ATM proponents
must deal with. Answer the questions as you can, without generating
new questions. When you need to, say that you do not have an answer
to some particular question, or will have to answer it later.

Originally Posted by forrest noble

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 interpretation of such posting as a "strategy" with the intentions
you assert is paranoid. It is disconnected from reality.

Generally, such postings are clearly intended to support the poster's
assertions and counter the assertions of the person to whom the poster
is responding.

Originally Posted by forrest noble

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 ...

I agree that this is a very big problem. However, in my experience,
it is virtually always caused by the poster being questioned not
realizing that he has failed to answer the question he thinks he has
answered. The answers he gives seem completely sensible and to the
point to him, but to those who actually understand the subject, they
are not. I have seen this over and over and over, with many dozens
of different posters here on BAUT, on sci.astro, on the Fidonet
ASTRONOMY and SCIENCE echoes, and elsewhere.

If the person answering the questions would make the effort to learn
why his answers are not satisfactory, this problem would be avoided.

Originally Posted by forrest noble

False Accusations and Insults were the order of the day ...

I have not read the thread in question.

From considerable experience, the accusations are usually pretty
accurate. The ATM proponet generally fails to understand his idea
as well as his critics do. When the proponent fails to respond
rationally to the criticism, the critics get angry at him, and call
him "stupid", "deluded", "deranged", or whatever equivalent fits
the particular case. Those insults are hurtful, but are often
true, and could even be constructive if taken to heart.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[HenrikOlsen]

Originally Posted by Jeff Root

When the proponent fails to respond
rationally to the criticism, the critics get angry at him, and call
him "stupid", "deluded", "deranged", or whatever equivalent fits
the particular case.

And if this happens it should be reported immediately.

[Swift]

Originally Posted by forrest noble

HenrikOlsen,

I don't think this Forum is a gentle start for a serious proposal. Few here have the ability to properly propose or respond to a scientific proposal and therefore insults happen frequently. Although this happens in the real world of proposals it generally occurs as a response to a paper and is on a one on one basis, not just an overall persecution/ inquisition of the OP.

Have you ever done a thesis or dissertation defense, where you have two or three people from your committee grill you about details of your work? Have you ever submitted a paper to a refereed jounral and had two or three reviewers tear it apart?

BAUT is relatively gentle.

[Nereid]

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.

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

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.

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).

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.

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?".

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').

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.

As has already been noted, it is extremely hard to unambiguously determine intent; have you considered the possibility that what you discern to be strategy X may not, in fact, exist (at least in the mind of the relevant BAUT member)?

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.

Ditto, re intent.

Also, again as has already been noted several times, perhaps a repeated question indicates a failure to communicate? Perhaps your readers did not understand your answer? Perhaps you did not understand the question? Perhaps you answered a question quite different from the one asked?

Since you are - presumably - trying to make a strong case for the ATM presented, why not take the opportunity to dig deeper and try to find out why communication seems to have failed?

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.

As above ... and also: how did you determine - objectively and verifiably - that "the answers seemed quite understandable and clear to almost anybody"? In my own experience, this is an extremely difficult thing to do.

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.

Nothing new here ... except that if you don't go back and check your earlier answers, and if you do answer in a different way, and if the challenger does their own homework and discovers the inconsistency, haven't you just made a rod for your own back?

You seem to be saying that BAUT members who challenge ATM ideas, as presented, should not take those ideas seriously ... and/or not challenge them seriously.

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.

Again, as has been pointed out several times, there is a process for reporting rule violations ... the moment you see one, you should report it.

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.

As above, this seems more like a case of communication failure ... which I suggest you might like to consider as an opportunity rather than a burden ...

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.

If you yourself had presented the work of "this or that experimenter" in support of the ATM ideas presented, then surely it is perfectly legitimate* to ask about the details?

If you answer "I don't know", then as night follows day the next question will be something like "well, if you don't know, why did you mention it in support of the ATM idea?"

Upon seeing my response somebody watching the thread looked up the answer and provided them online. They were warned not to do so thereafter.

This gets to one of the most frustrating aspects of a not uncommon behaviour in the ATM section (see below).

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.

Unless there is extensive material cited in support of the ATM idea presented, no one but the BAUT member presenting the ATM idea knows what it is.

It is then - I contend - highly discourteous, presumptive, and worse for any other BAUT member to jump in and 'help defend' (or present) the ATM idea, as presented.

Of course, sometimes this intervention is good - the comment spot-on, the reasoning sound, and the support apt - but sometimes it is bad. The trouble is, no one knows - ahead of time - which is which; worse, challengers cannot tell which among the (usually quite many) new ATM ideas presented in this way are ones the primary ATM presenter is willing to address challenges on (or even knows about!).

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.

In concrete, practical terms, how would you suggest a mod could go about determining if there were "unwanted/ deceitful tactics" in play?

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.

To what extent do you think "favoritism" resembles beauty (existing in the eye of the beholder)?

* direct question, pertinent to the ATM idea presented, as presented.

[Nereid]

Originally Posted by mugaliens

Nice compilation across all fronts, Forest!

I concur wholeheartedly with both your analysis, as well as your recommendation for a change in the ATM/CT rules, and especially the last two paragraphs. I think there's been some progress, which is a good sign. For this progress to continue, however, some rule modifications are in order.

I'm not sure which you consider to the "the last two paragraphs"; perhaps you could elaborate?

In any case, I'm quite curious to know what you think of my point about uninvited defenders*.

In fact, any reactions to the points in my last post would be most welcome!

* per my last post: "Unless there is extensive material cited in support of the ATM idea presented, no one but the BAUT member presenting the ATM idea knows what it is. It is then - I contend - highly discourteous, presumptive, and worse for any other BAUT member to jump in and 'help defend' (or present) the ATM idea, as presented. Of course, sometimes this intervention is good - the comment spot-on, the reasoning sound, and the support apt - but sometimes it is bad. The trouble is, no one knows - ahead of time - which is which; worse, challengers cannot tell which among the (usually quite many) new ATM ideas presented in this way are ones the primary ATM presenter is willing to address challenges on (or even knows about!)."