Rule changes and updates

[Moose]

There are two overriding problems that moderators have to consider when deciding whether or not to intervene in these cases:

1) The original poster has 30 days, no more, to make a case for his/her ATM. It's not fair to that poster if another ATMer comes along and co-opts his ATM defense with an idea that's only vaguely similar in topic, but detectably different in execution. In these cases, we require the second ATMer to start his/her own thread, and defend their own claims there.

2) The other issue we consider is that the second ATMer may already have had his/her 30 days to defend his/her claim. Our mandate permits us to grant 30 days, no more (exceptional cases notwithstanding). It's not fair for an ATMer to nick someone else's time.

Either case would be handled as disruptive hijacks and would be covered by Rules 14 and 0.

Barring any additional complications, a post saying "I agree with the OP's claim, and here's some relevant data that supports his claim that has yet to be presented" would tend to be fine.

[Robinson]

So you can't find it either?

[hhEb09'1]

Originally Posted by Robinson

So you can't find it either?

I think he's made a stronger statement than that. He said that there are no such rules.

Originally Posted by Robinson

OK I give up. Where is the rule that says, something to the effect of, "In ATM threads only one person can defend an ATM idea"?

And the other one like it. "Nobody but the thread starter can answer questions"?

I looked at all the rules I could find, and I don't see it. I know I read it once, but where?

[Nereid]

Originally Posted by Robinson

OK I give up. Where is the rule that says, something to the effect of, "In ATM threads only one person can defend an ATM idea"?

And the other one like it. "Nobody but the thread starter can answer questions"?

[...]

As has already been stated, there is no such rule.

There is an important practical aspect to consider; namely, what is the ATM idea?

If there is an external source, or if the ATM has been clearly stated and explained (preferably in the OP or shortly afterwards), then anyone who has read and understood that material could answer questions on that ATM idea, and possibly defend it too.

However, in my experience, there are very few ATM ideas like this, making it close to impossible for anyone except the person presenting the ATM idea to answer questions on it, or defend it, accurately ... and answering questions on (or, worse, defending) inaccurately creates confusion, leads to thread-jacking, and so on.

Further, in the few cases where the ATM idea being presented does have the features above, it is rare indeed that the person presenting it keeps the scope unchanged for long. You see, it nearly always becomes quickly obvious to the one presenting the ATM idea that its initial scope is too broad for a mere 30 days' of questioning and defending, so they redefine the scope ...

[Robinson]

Originally Posted by hhEb09'1

I think he's made a stronger statement than that. He said that there are no such rules.

Well, I read the reply and don't see "there are no such rules" in it. If there is no rule about this, then say so.

If there are rules to that effect, where are they stated? It's a simple question.

Originally Posted by Moose

There are two overriding problems that moderators have to consider when deciding whether or not to intervene in these cases:

1) The original poster has 30 days, no more, to make a case for his/her ATM. It's not fair to that poster if another ATMer comes along and co-opts his ATM defense with an idea that's only vaguely similar in topic, but detectably different in execution. In these cases, we require the second ATMer to start his/her own thread, and defend their own claims there.

2) The other issue we consider is that the second ATMer may already have had his/her 30 days to defend his/her claim. Our mandate permits us to grant 30 days, no more (exceptional cases notwithstanding). It's not fair for an ATMer to nick someone else's time.

Either case would be handled as disruptive hijacks and would be covered by Rules 14 and 0.

Barring any additional complications, a post saying "I agree with the OP's claim, and here's some relevant data that supports his claim that has yet to be presented" would tend to be fine.

Here, let me give an example of a reply to a question.

Robinson,

Answer to question --> There are no such rules as you describe. You did not read them anywhere. That is why you can't find them.<--answer is now over.

See? Obviously I got the impression there ARE rules about this, but I did not read them in the posted rules.

That this is an issue is obvious from the Moderator reply.

Originally Posted by Moose

There are two overriding problems that moderators have to consider when deciding whether or not to intervene in these cases:

Which brings us the question, what cases?

Originally Posted by Moose

1) The original poster has 30 days, no more, to make a case for his/her ATM. It's not fair to that poster if another ATMer comes along and co-opts his ATM defense with an idea that's only vaguely similar in topic, but detectably different in execution. In these cases, we require the second ATMer to start his/her own thread, and defend their own claims there.

So, it is unfair to the person who is under the gun to support them, or to help them, or to answer questions meant for them.

Is that correct?

Originally Posted by Moose

2) The other issue we consider is that the second ATMer may already have had his/her 30 days to defend his/her claim. Our mandate permits us to grant 30 days, no more (exceptional cases notwithstanding). It's not fair for an ATMer to nick someone else's time.

So, let me get this straight, somebody who supports or explains an ATM concept may have already talked about it, in which case they are cheating somehow.

Is that right?

Or, they are stealing time from the ATM defender by helping them out?

Until one thinks about it, this ATM stuff doesn't seem that complicated. But upon reflection, keeping track of every ATM discussion every member ever had must be incredibly complicated. Then you have to make sure they don't say anything about it ever again, after the 30 days is up. As well as deciding if it is a prior thought, or a new thought, in which case it is OK for them to express the thought, but only if they start a new thread, not express it in a thread that is already going.

I'm starting to understand why Mods seem frustrated and tense sometimes. That is madness. Nobody should have to be under that kind of pressure. Every day, every minute.

You would have to read every topic, every post, AND remember what every person ever said, going back years.

I don't know how you do it.

[hhEb09'1]

Originally Posted by Robinson

Well, I read the reply and don't see "there are no such rules" in it. If there is no rule about this, then say so.

If there are rules to that effect, where are they stated? It's a simple question.

There are no rules to the effect that you stated. The comment Moose made clearly says that more than just the OP can defend the ATM idea.

Originally Posted by Moose

Barring any additional complications, a post saying "I agree with the OP's claim, and here's some relevant data that supports his claim that has yet to be presented" would tend to be fine. [/color]

So, it is unfair to the person who is under the gun to support them, or to help them, or to answer questions meant for them.

Is that correct?

No, he didn't say that. He said it was not fair to the OP to try to push some other ATM in the OP's thread.

I don't know how you do it.

Just another superpower.

[Robinson]

(edit) The following was posted at the same time as the previous post, hence part of it is no longer true)

Originally Posted by Nereid

As has already been stated, there is no such rule.

Actually, No Mod stated that, and the one Mod who answered described two situations where Moderation is required, even when this is not stated in the rules for posting in ATM.

Originally Posted by Nereid

There is an important practical aspect to consider; namely, what is the ATM idea?

When discussing the rules, especially specific questions about them, it is best to discuss the rules, or lack of rules, rather than going into "what is an ATM idea" or other philosophical areas.

Originally Posted by Nereid

If there is an external source, or if the ATM has been clearly stated and explained (preferably in the OP or shortly afterwards), then anyone who has read and understood that material could answer questions on that ATM idea, and possibly defend it too.

You assume that there is something called "the ATM", and that it can be stated. I don't know where this comes from, but that is absurd.

The current discussion I am following is about objections to a theoretical concept, so there is no "ATM" to be stated. There is a hypothesis/theory/something that some people have proposed, and people questioning that, saying it is wrong, or pointing out errors in it.

Which brings up the original question.

Is there a rule that says only the first person to post in an ATM topic (or first person to propose something that is labeled ATM) can challenge, question or object to a mainstream idea?

Is there a rule that says "Any ATM topic is limited to one person on defense"? Is that the rule?

I am not challenging any rule, I support the right of the owner of this site toi make and enforce any and all rules. I am just asking where the rules are written down so I can read them.

If the convoluted situation Moose described, as well as the answer to it, is a rule, then shouldn't it be explained somewhere? In the rules? or at least the "Read this first" topic?

[Robinson]

Originally Posted by hhEb09'1

There are no rules to the effect that you stated. The comment Moose made clearly says that more than just the OP can defend the ATM idea.

Odd, I read what he said as:

Originally Posted by Moose

Barring any additional complications, a post saying "I agree with the OP's claim, and here's some relevant data that supports his claim that has yet to be presented" would tend to be fine.

Which looks like he is saying one post saying "I agree" and posting some data is OK.

It is obvious that ATM stuff is vastly complicated, the stated rules, as well as all the ramifications of them, makes it very complicated to know what is allowed.

For example, there is nothing in the rules or "read this first" thread that says what Moose said. The obvious thing most people do when reading a thread is respond to something.

But, responding to almost anything in an ATM thread means you might be labeled ATM, a thread started, different rules enforced, time limits set, as well as the huge issue of "did you ever say anything like that before because if you did it is a violation of the rules".

Isn't that correct?

[Moose]

Originally Posted by Robinson

See? Obviously I got the impression there ARE rules about this, but I did not read them in the posted rules.

That is because you are mistaken on two key points:

1) That there are rules prohibiting an ATMer from advocating for the OP's ATM. (There aren't.)
2) That we intervene to prevent an ATMer from advocating for the OP's ATM. (We don't.)

I've listed in my previous post the two major circumstances where we'll intervene. Both have to do with hijacking: where a secondary ATMer is advocating his own, superficially similar but identifiably distinct ATM in a thread not his own.

I don't know how you do it.

We don't, mainly.

Where we do have to track someone*, we only need to make occasional notes. Between that and the search facility, we have no trouble. It's a simple system and an effective one.

*The serial-promoters (most likely to hijack threads) often make themselves stand out like a marching band. It would be hard not to be aware of their activities, truth be told.

[Nereid]

Originally Posted by Robinson

[...]

So, it is unfair to the person who is under the gun to support them, or to help them, or to answer questions meant for them.

Is that correct?

IMHO, yes that is correct, in almost all cases (for reasons I gave in my previous post).

So, let me get this straight, somebody who supports or explains an ATM concept may have already talked about it, in which case they are cheating somehow.

Is that right?

IMHO, yes.

Or, they are stealing time from the ATM defender by helping them out?

IMHO, if "the second ATMer" is, objectively*, "helping them out", then no time is being stolen; however, the situations in which there is, objectively*, 'helping out' are rare indeed (for reasons I gave in my previous post).

Until one thinks about it, this ATM stuff doesn't seem that complicated. But upon reflection, keeping track of every ATM discussion every member ever had must be incredibly complicated.

In practice, it's not that complicated ... the members who present ATM ideas are relatively small in number, and the BAUT search tools powerful ...

Then you have to make sure they don't say anything about it ever again, after the 30 days is up. As well as deciding if it is a prior thought, or a new thought, in which case it is OK for them to express the thought, but only if they start a new thread, not express it in a thread that is already going.

If you approach the study of ATM ideas in BAUT this way, you will indeed very likely end up with a headache.

Fortunately, the reality of ATM ideas in the ATM section of BAUT has common features that enable one to get a good handle on things very quickly.

I'm starting to understand why Mods seem frustrated and tense sometimes. That is madness. Nobody should have to be under that kind of pressure. Every day, every minute.

You would have to read every topic, every post, AND remember what every person ever said, going back years.

I don't know how you do it.

The BAUT mods can, of course, speak for themselves ... however, when I was a mod - and I was then one of a very few who tried to moderate the ATM section - it was much, much more straight-forward than your description ...

* if you'd like to know how one can establish such a thing, objectively, just ask; I'd be glad to try to explain it to you.

[Robinson]

Originally Posted by Moose

That is because you are mistaken on two key points:

....

I am starting to get a better idea of what you are trying to do now. Thanks.

[Robinson]

Whoops, somehow I lost the color there.

[Nereid]

Originally Posted by Robinson

(edit) The following was posted at the same time as the previous post, hence part of it is no longer true)

It might be interesting for you to expand on that ... but thanks for noting it.

[...]

When discussing the rules, especially specific questions about them, it is best to discuss the rules, or lack of rules, rather than going into "what is an ATM idea" or other philosophical areas.

In an earlier post you used the word "madness"; I think it's an apt word to describe a discussion about rules concerning ATM ideas without going into "what is an ATM idea" ... just my opinion of course.

You assume that there is something called "the ATM", and that it can be stated. I don't know where this comes from, but that is absurd.

Actually, I didn't ... I simply omitted the word "idea" (as in "... or if the ATM idea has been clearly stated and explained ..."

The current discussion I am following is about objections to a theoretical concept, so there is no "ATM" to be stated.
[...]

My bad; I assumed that "ATM ideas" was central to the discussion.

Which brings up the original question.

Is there a rule that says only the first person to post in an ATM topic (or first person to propose something that is labeled ATM) can challenge, question or object to a mainstream idea?

I think this has already been answered ("no"), but I also think you may not have expressed yourself very clearly ... for example, you seem to be conflating three quite separate things: "questioning a mainstream idea" is what the Q&A section is all about (modulo differences over "questioning"); "objecting to a mainstream idea" is beyond the scope of this forum (it is avowedly science-based, and vanilla objecting is antithetical to science); "challenging a mainstream idea" is what the ATM section is for.

Is there a rule that says "Any ATM topic is limited to one person on defense"? Is that the rule?

I am not challenging any rule, I support the right of the owner of this site toi make and enforce any and all rules. I am just asking where the rules are written down so I can read them.

If the convoluted situation Moose described, as well as the answer to it, is a rule, then shouldn't it be explained somewhere? In the rules? or at least the "Read this first" topic?

I'm struggling to understand what part of Moose's posts (and others') you seem to find ambiguous ...

[Robinson]

Originally Posted by Nereid

I'm struggling to understand what part of Moose's posts (and others') you seem to find ambiguous ...

Maybe that is because you are the only person to use the word ambiguous in this discussion.

[hhEb09'1]

Originally Posted by Robinson

Maybe that is because you are the only person to use the word ambiguous in this discussion.

Exactly why you can't find the rules!

[Robinson]

I just realized the "read this first" thread in the ATM section is not general advice. The thread is called " Advice for ATM theory supporters."

[Moose]

Originally Posted by Robinson

But, responding to almost anything in an ATM thread means you might be labeled ATM, a thread started, different rules enforced, time limits set, as well as the huge issue of "did you ever say anything like that before because if you did it is a violation of the rules".

Not so much.

Sometimes we do wind up having to move an unsupported (or insufficiently supported) claim to the ATM forum, and yes, new rules apply and a time limit set...

... But only once the poster in question has chosen to take up a defense of that claim in the ATM forum. The ATMer is equally free to not defend his claim and to simply walk away from it, no questions asked (pun acknowledged). Here's an example of this situation in case you're curious.

[Robinson]

Speaking of, the ATM advice thread, which is locked, has a link to another thread, the discussion thread about the advice thread, which is also locked. At the end of it, it has a link to another thread, which is locked. Fortunately there is no link at the end of that thread.

[Moose]

I'm very tempted to go there and add a link to the first thread.

[geonuc]

Originally Posted by Moose

Here's an example of this situation in case you're curious.

That might seem to be a good example, but in that case, the OP hasn't even logged on to BAUT since making that, his first and only post.

Not that I have any problem with how such matters are handled. I don't - the BAUT mod team does an excellent job in ATM.

[Moose]

Originally Posted by geonuc

the OP hasn't even logged on to BAUT since making that, his first and only post.

Heh. Nobody's perfect.

[Robinson]

Originally Posted by Moose

I'm very tempted to go there and add a link to the first thread.

Well, the thread New Policies Regarding Against the Mainstream section also links to the locked thread.

[Robinson]

A sticky thread in the ATM section with a link to the JREF forums might help out the bautforums.

Many of the banned members from here are there, still discussing the issues that are considered ATM here, and the threads are not locked, and nobody is stopped from talking forever about stuff.

So instead of saying "If you don't like it here, leave", you could say, "if you don't like it here, you can go over there and discuss it all you like".

Of course this may be unfair to over there, but it is more polite.

[mugaliens]

Originally Posted by Moose

I'm very tempted to go there and add a link to the first thread.

Here we go again... Or, "Attack of the killer do-loops." "About the about the about it thread?"

"Mugs hasn't woken up yet and is trying to be funny thread?"

[Robinson]

Originally Posted by Moose

Sometimes we do wind up having to move an unsupported (or insufficiently supported) claim to the ATM forum, and yes, new rules apply and a time limit set...

... But only once the poster in question has chosen to take up a defense of that claim in the ATM forum.

That little fact somehow never made it into the rules.

[geonuc]

Originally Posted by Robinson

That little fact somehow never made it into the rules.

What? Are you being deliberately difficult? What Moose has said is quite clear and is a natural reading of the written rules.

[hhEb09'1]

Originally Posted by Robinson

That little fact somehow never made it into the rules.

Which little fact?

I think the time limit starts when the post is posted (the software is relentless on closing ATM threads as I've found out), but other than that I don't see anything else open to interpretation.

[HenrikOlsen]

Originally Posted by Robinson

That little fact somehow never made it into the rules.

That's because the rules don't cover every possible case imaginable and because it's explained in a comment in the thread when a thread is moved.