PDA

View Full Version : Order of Moderation in ATM



Green Destiny
2010-Dec-01, 04:05 PM
Yes, indeed, it is an area probably riddled with discust and rejection. But is this really the reason why threads in there seem to be automatically-closed down maybe after a few posts?

Why entertain an ATM subforum if practically nearly every thread existent in there will get shut down? Also, why are certain mods compelled to read things incorrectly, no matter whether you tell them that is not what is meant? I was asked to make myself clear in a thread and I did so, but the mod I sent the work to completely ignored all the points and still made the same mistakes even when I sent him a new draft.

What is this nonesense all about? Yes, maybe a cheap remark on the fact I am talking about ATM moderation, but still, why even bother with an ATM subsection if

A) Moderators will not atleast take an open view
B) Threads created have a chance for the OP to adress all questions sufficiently
C) That threads are not closed because of one disruptive member
D) They are not closed because of dogmatism

If D is not conserved here, then what is the point of giving the option to members to express ATM views? It seems already that the very nature of ATM are basically shunned before anyone else can get a turn in expressing a point. Atleast the posters have the decency here to keep pet theories in the ATM, so why not do them justice and allow them to have their posts opened? You do not see this kind of behaviour in any of the other subforums, so I think an explanation is due.

NEOWatcher
2010-Dec-01, 04:25 PM
I've got two questions:
1) What do you mean by Order of moderation? Is something out of sequence?
2) How can you tell if it's a moderator mistake rather than a problem explaining some things that seem obvious to yourself?

Green Destiny
2010-Dec-01, 04:32 PM
Yes indeed, something is out of sequence, and that is the nature of why posts are just being closed by the second day of being made. What is the point at all if that be the case, just get rid of ATM if it bothers so many people here and save the moderators a great deal of time, because afterall, the amount of time they must be spending partially-moderating then closing down must add up.

As for whether a moderator made a mistake or me, that is up for debate... but wait, we can't do that with threads closed can we?

Green Destiny
2010-Dec-01, 04:41 PM
I mean, it's complete and utter madness. In the light of the site having the magnaminity of giving people the opportunity to express their own idea's, whether intuitive, quantitative or neither of the above, is in complete contradiction with the service being provided, or not, as the case is.

Green Destiny
2010-Dec-01, 04:48 PM
A thread below this one, seems to find approval recently in moderator behaviour


I haven't gone to this forum before except for complaints. In the last month it appears to me that moderation has greatly improved concerning their best considerations in the ATM section. I just finished a long thread in the ATM section. A number of times in the past I have complained concerning totally ridiculous behavior and continuous insults by respondents in this section whereby my complaints to moderation were rarely if ever answered. This time what was obvious concerning my complaints was responded to quickly. Also since my last complaint in this section there was only one open thread in the ATM section. Now it has varied between maybe one-third and one half open threads. This I think is a very big improvement and not a small consideration/ improvement by moderation. Much of their work often involves complaints in the ATM section which makes their job more difficult. My opinion is that their present judgments (which make their job more difficult) is a sign of their efforts to do a great job. Thanks moderation, regards forrest.

Here an important point is made. I have very little history so I cannot make any claims on the validity of non-moderatorship in the past, however, it seems that if a disruptive behaviour is exhibited, there isn't really a moderation being performed - the thread is simply locked. That is a very easy, non-educative way of performing their modships.

(Mod note: I have added proper attribution and a link to the post being quoted.)

baric
2010-Dec-01, 05:34 PM
I mean, it's complete and utter madness. In the light of the site having the magnaminity of giving people the opportunity to express their own idea's, whether intuitive, quantitative or neither of the above, is in complete contradiction with the service being provided, or not, as the case is.

This is a mainstream science website. Even though a special area have been set aside for "against the mainstream" arguments, all of the standard rules of mainstream science apply. It's not a "what if?" area. You will be expected to support your position with data and reasoning just like anything else.

Threads are generally closed when the poster stops responding or when he is clearly repeating points without addressing questions.

Trust me, this site is NOT the place to post if you want uncritical, open-ended discussion of ATM theories.

Green Destiny
2010-Dec-01, 05:54 PM
You must misunderstand my contentions of the OP here. My arguement of closing threads is in direct contradiction to allowing an ATM to exist. If you expect to open an ATM then you must realize this is an invitation for purely against the mainstream arguements. If there are rules which state this is in violation of the site, then why is there an ATM? It seems like an oxymoron to allow one thing when another is restricting it's purpose. More to the point, if there are threads which could develop further through an explanation, then why close them? And you take one look at the subforum and maybe several (not a lot) have been left open, the rest are locked to the eternity of never-posting again. In my case, I certainly had no intention of stopping posting, nor was I finished correcting ''incorrect assumptions'' about variables involving equations.

I work well with criticism - I WILL OPENLY say only one person made that too difficult with aggressive responses which resulted in my thread being closed, coupled with the fact there was some debate as to whether I made the OP clear enough. In an attempt to make the OP clearer by addressing all the issues brought forth, I wrote a second document on the thread in which I then sent to the moderator responsible for the closure, however, he made all the same mistakes as before, even with my corrections, and there was many of them.

I am very willing to support my claims, but that cannot be refuted that I would have considering the thread is now closed and I am unable to make the necessery arguements.

NEOWatcher
2010-Dec-01, 06:42 PM
Yes indeed, something is out of sequence, and that is the nature of why posts are just being closed by the second day of being made. What is the point at all if that be the case, just get rid of ATM if it bothers so many people here and save the moderators a great deal of time, because afterall, the amount of time they must be spending partially-moderating then closing down must add up.
I'm still unclear how that fits the use of the word "order", but since that's a matter of semantics. It's clear what your beef is, so I'm going to let that go.


As for whether a moderator made a mistake or me, that is up for debate... but wait, we can't do that with threads closed can we?
But you went ahead and posted a flaming thread with the assumption that you are right. That doesn't sound very open minded to me.

Did you try to contact the moderator involved to work out the problem or misunderstanding? Or did you just go straight to publicly insulting the moderation?

Green Destiny
2010-Dec-01, 06:52 PM
I'm still unclear how that fits the use of the word "order", but since that's a matter of semantics. It's clear what your beef is, so I'm going to let that go.


But you went ahead and posted a flaming thread with the assumption that you are right. That doesn't sound very open minded to me.

Did you try to contact the moderator involved to work out the problem or misunderstanding? Or did you just go straight to publicly insulting the moderation?

What flaming thread? Do you mean this, because, this is not a flame thread.

You mean my other thread? I think even though I did reply to many of that posters questions with prosperity and confidence, it was very clear even to the moderator that many of his questions was simply stupid - in so many words. I think anyone who followed that thread, even the moderator who closed it, would understand my uncivil attitude at times towards a constant bombardment of unecessery questions and aggressive behaviours.

It is by no wonder it may have looked to an outsider as a flame thread - that poster made sure of that. However I think the true facts of what happened and who started what really lies in the truth of why the thread was closed and why macaw was for a second time in one of my threads warned...

So in light of the evidence, I have no understanding what flaming thread you are talking about.

Did you try to contact the moderator involved to work out the problem or misunderstanding? Or did you just go straight to publicly insulting the moderation?

Of course I messaged the moderator, do you think I'd be capable of something like that without being fair? He did afterall take on overall view of both behaviours. However, I must admit I found his second reply to me a bit more... aggressive himself in the nature of his replies to my modified post which I sent him a draft of. He also made the same misconceptions as he did in the last presentation, even though it had been sufficiently explained to him.

Strange
2010-Dec-01, 07:09 PM
He also made the same misconceptions as he did in the last presentation, even though it had been sufficiently explained to him.

Then, by definition, it hadn't been sufficiently explained.

PetersCreek
2010-Dec-01, 07:12 PM
Green Destiny,

Calling out a member for behavior in another thread is not appropriate. If you continue, this thread will be closed.

Green Destiny
2010-Dec-01, 07:21 PM
Green Destiny,

Calling out a member for behavior in another thread is not appropriate. If you continue, this thread will be closed.

I apologize, I felt the other poster was getting specific. I will change the sentances.

Green Destiny
2010-Dec-01, 07:22 PM
Then, by definition, it hadn't been sufficiently explained.

That ''sufficiently explained'' is reference to the modified work which addressed his issues.

Strange
2010-Dec-01, 07:27 PM
That ''sufficiently explained'' is reference to the modified work which addressed his issues.

But it sounds like it still didn't "work". The explainer has to take some (at least) responsibility when that happens. (This is just intended as a general comment; I had a look at some of your ATM threads and didn't have a clue what you were talking about :) But I am happy to take at least some of the responsibility for that!)

NEOWatcher
2010-Dec-01, 07:31 PM
What flaming thread? Do you mean this, because, this is not a flame thread.
This one. In particular, the following statements give me that impression.

... why are certain mods compelled to read things incorrectly, no matter whether you tell them that is not what is meant? [...] What is this nonesense all about? Yes, maybe a cheap remark on the fact I am talking about ATM moderation...

ETA: Maybe if it was talking about the ONE mod who you are having issues with rather than making it a general statement about overall moderation, then the impression would be different. It's the generalizations that make it hard for me to swallow.

forrest noble
2010-Dec-01, 07:41 PM
Green Destiny,

My opinion is that your threads are limited in scope being solely math based. You are not proposing something that is of broad interest to many people even though a number might be able to follow along with the math they may not be interested. Instead if you have a bigger verbal proposal that might be supported by your theoretical physics which would be of broader interest, then many may be interested in commenting or questioning verbally. If you can I suggest you try to attract a larger audience with such a proposal so that you don't have just one or two ornery or unreasonable responders. There will always be those that think the mainstream model must be defended at all cost even if their postings sometimes involve nothing of substance, just personal insults, subtle or otherwise, and/ or numerous generally trivial questions. Proposals that are of little interest may not get shut down but there may be few good comments or questions. The proposal aside, some just like to argue for argument's sake. In a broad scope ATM proposal there may be many good questions asked by a number of competent responders.

Gillianren
2010-Dec-01, 08:09 PM
Then, by definition, it hadn't been sufficiently explained.

Exactly. My rule of thumb is, if only one person can't understand what you're saying, the problem is probably them. If several people can't, the problem is probably you.

grapes
2010-Dec-01, 08:13 PM
He also made the same misconceptions as he did in the last presentation, even though it had been sufficiently explained to him.If we took that approach, we'd just say the BAUT position on ATM has been sufficiently explained, then :)

slang
2010-Dec-01, 11:15 PM
I think anyone who followed that thread, even the moderator who closed it, would understand my uncivil attitude at times towards a constant bombardment of unecessery questions and aggressive behaviours.

Frankly, no, I don't. "Fighting back" with rudeness just isn't what is expected on BAUT, instead use the report button.

As for closing threads, even temporarily, where tempers flare and rudeness comes from many directions, the mods have a choice. Crack down hard, on everyone being rude, whether it was provoked or baited or not, and issue lots of suspensions and bans. Or, choose to close (rather: pause) a thread so everyone can cool down, before it gets even more out of hand. Issue severe warnings, and hope things will go a little bit better when reopened.

The function of a forum is to have conversations. Banning and infracting should serve the purpose of facilitating conversations. Coming down like Thor with a ban-hammer on steroids on every slight rule breaking or bending should never become the purpose of moderating. Sadly, on several forums I've been on, that is exactly what happens. The rules no longer serve the purpose, the rules become the purpose. I'm glad they do it differently here.

tusenfem
2010-Dec-02, 08:03 AM
Me being the moderator who is not convinced by the reworked post, I am still not convinced, even after several PMs with the OP.
Indeed, there is still an error by the OP (as far as I can see) that I left in my answers, that the OP has not found.
However, any other mod, some of them have been CCed on the discussion, could be asked to intervene or re-open the thread.

Green Destiny
2010-Dec-02, 06:07 PM
Frankly, no, I don't. "Fighting back" with rudeness just isn't what is expected on BAUT, instead use the report button.

As for closing threads, even temporarily, where tempers flare and rudeness comes from many directions, the mods have a choice. Crack down hard, on everyone being rude, whether it was provoked or baited or not, and issue lots of suspensions and bans. Or, choose to close (rather: pause) a thread so everyone can cool down, before it gets even more out of hand. Issue severe warnings, and hope things will go a little bit better when reopened.

The function of a forum is to have conversations. Banning and infracting should serve the purpose of facilitating conversations. Coming down like Thor with a ban-hammer on steroids on every slight rule breaking or bending should never become the purpose of moderating. Sadly, on several forums I've been on, that is exactly what happens. The rules no longer serve the purpose, the rules become the purpose. I'm glad they do it differently here.

When the person in question has had a respectful history with the site, and knowing his behaviour his singling you out, it is hard not to believe there is not a personal overtone.

As for most of your comments though, this is not addressing the OP. This is not about rule-breaking, or mind [redacted] on moderation, it's simply the attitude towards an ATM subforum. There is no point telling posters to to get their beef out on something, but in total contradiction have written rules telling them such posts are not tolerated. (Atleast that is the just from a poster here in this thread).

One arguement led to the idea that eventually posters stop responding so they are closed. Well, considering how many posts haven't been answered for in a year in the science subforum and hasn't been closed is a grand testiment that closure of posts are reserved strictly for ATM purposes, whatever those purposes are. It more than too obvious that there is a stigma and this doesn't seem right considering the site is creating such a trap for posters.

Green Destiny
2010-Dec-02, 06:08 PM
Green Destiny,

My opinion is that your threads are limited in scope being solely math based. You are not proposing something that is of broad interest to many people even though a number might be able to follow along with the math they may not be interested. Instead if you have a bigger verbal proposal that might be supported by your theoretical physics which would be of broader interest, then many may be interested in commenting or questioning verbally. If you can I suggest you try to attract a larger audience with such a proposal so that you don't have just one or two ornery or unreasonable responders. There will always be those that think the mainstream model must be defended at all cost even if their postings sometimes involve nothing of substance, just personal insults, subtle or otherwise, and/ or numerous generally trivial questions. Proposals that are of little interest may not get shut down but there may be few good comments or questions. The proposal aside, some just like to argue for argument's sake. In a broad scope ATM proposal there may be many good questions asked by a number of competent responders.

Noted.

NEOWatcher
2010-Dec-02, 06:13 PM
Well, considering how many posts haven't been answered for in a year in the science subforum and hasn't been closed is a grand testiment that closure of posts are reserved strictly for ATM purposes, whatever those purposes are.
So are you saying that the purpose for the difference in handling shouldn't matter?

If so; I disagree strongly. By definition, ATM is for opposing views of science. The others discuss ongoing research and details of the views of the science. Yes; there are disagreements there, but usually on the details rather than the topic. The opposition is what creates the issue, and unresolved conflicts.

Green Destiny
2010-Dec-02, 06:22 PM
Then if I agreed, why does all the evidence point to a certain dogma of closing threads down? I should have been allowed to continue, even if I told not to talk to other poster ever again, I would have been quite happy not to. And all the other threads too?

NEOWatcher
2010-Dec-02, 06:50 PM
One word answer: History.
ATM has had a history of getting out of control quickly. Other areas don't.

PetersCreek
2010-Dec-02, 06:52 PM
Why entertain an ATM subforum if practically nearly every thread existent in there will get shut down?

One arguement led to the idea that eventually posters stop responding so they are closed. Well, considering how many posts haven't been answered for in a year in the science subforum and hasn't been closed is a grand testiment that closure of posts are reserved strictly for ATM purposes, whatever those purposes are. It more than too obvious that there is a stigma and this doesn't seem right considering the site is creating such a trap for posters.

I don't know if you've invested much time in reading our rules and/or alternate theory advice but there are some things about the ATM forum you don't seem to know. It's not a case of "nearly every thread" being shut down. Every ATM thread gets shut down. Every single one. Proponents get one shot to make their case within 30 days, after which, the thread is closed. This is not a judgment on content. It's a time limit. This prevents proponents from flogging the board ad nauseam with same old arguments. Proponents may request a thread be reopened (or ask to start a new thread) if they have new evidence or developments to present and in fact, this has been done...quite a bit. I have personal experience with one proponent with a wide-ranging theory whose threads on it total almost 180 days.

The ATM forum is unique in this regard. Threads in other forums may stay open indefinitely, as long as they remain civil and do not otherwise violate the rules or cause problems for the board. As interest wanes, they simply scroll further down the thread list into obscurity and eventual archive.

Moderation note: I redacted a word from post #21. It wasn't particularly offensive (to me, anyway...in context) but it could be flagged by net nanny software. Our aim is to keep this board family friendly and off the nanny black lists. Please keep that in mind when using words that have sexual meanings.

Gillianren
2010-Dec-02, 07:07 PM
I would advise those who don't understand the 30-day limit to browse the ATM threads from before the rule was put in place. Specifically the ones that went in circles for hundreds of pages.

Strange
2010-Dec-02, 07:13 PM
When the person in question has had a respectful history with the site, and knowing his behaviour his singling you out, it is hard not to believe there is not a personal overtone.

Actually, I don't think you have been singled out. Many others have received a similar style of questioning (whether "deserved" or not).

Luckmeister
2010-Dec-02, 08:10 PM
Green Destiny, your three closed ATM threads had a total of 2036 views. There are many BAUT members with good or even expert knowledge of mathematics. I'm sure some of them read your proposals. I went through your threads and saw no one agreeing with your maths and disagreeing with your main antagonist. From that, it does appear that your figures (and/or ideas) were flawed. I think you could better spend your time privately addressing that issue and rethinking your presentations than publicly complaining about how you were treated.

slang
2010-Dec-02, 08:13 PM
When the person in question has had a respectful history with the site, and knowing his behaviour his singling you out, it is hard not to believe there is not a personal overtone.

And what does that have to do with what I wrote? Absolutely nothing. I did not say you were wrong to feel insulted or slighted. I did not say you were right about that either. All I said was that I did not understand your uncivil attitude in that thread, which is what you claimed I would, were I to read that thread. Your uncivil attitude was wrong. Period. It always is. No matter if it is provoked or not. Likewise, any uncivil attitude towards you is wrong.


As for most of your comments though, this is not addressing the OP.

That's ridiculous. In the first two lines of your OP you set up a straw man argument about thread closings. Therefor I address one aspect of thread closings. Don't complain if I choose not to directly address every point in your OP, especially when others already have done so.

Green Destiny
2010-Dec-02, 10:33 PM
I don't know if you've invested much time in reading our rules and/or alternate theory advice but there are some things about the ATM forum you don't seem to know. It's not a case of "nearly every thread" being shut down. Every ATM thread gets shut down. Every single one. Proponents get one shot to make their case within 30 days, after which, the thread is closed. This is not a judgment on content. It's a time limit. This prevents proponents from flogging the board ad nauseam with same old arguments. Proponents may request a thread be reopened (or ask to start a new thread) if they have new evidence or developments to present and in fact, this has been done...quite a bit. I have personal experience with one proponent with a wide-ranging theory whose threads on it total almost 180 days.

The ATM forum is unique in this regard. Threads in other forums may stay open indefinitely, as long as they remain civil and do not otherwise violate the rules or cause problems for the board. As interest wanes, they simply scroll further down the thread list into obscurity and eventual archive.

Moderation note: I redacted a word from post #21. It wasn't particularly offensive (to me, anyway...in context) but it could be flagged by net nanny software. Our aim is to keep this board family friendly and off the nanny black lists. Please keep that in mind when using words that have sexual meanings.

That would seem to fit the evidence I speculated on. Thanks for clearing that up.

Gillianren
2010-Dec-02, 10:56 PM
That would seem to fit the evidence I speculated on. Thanks for clearing that up.

The only interpretation I get from that is that you didn't read the rules prior to posting. Is that correct?

Green Destiny
2010-Dec-03, 12:33 AM
The only interpretation I get from that is that you didn't read the rules prior to posting. Is that correct?

I had a glance or two.

I just figured the standard rules of most forums.

Gillianren
2010-Dec-03, 05:35 AM
I had a glance or two.

I just figured the standard rules of most forums.

You shouldn't have. It just seems ill prepared to me. In fact, we have this come up a lot, and I simply don't understand it. Isn't it a basic aspect of preparation?

Van Rijn
2010-Dec-03, 05:38 AM
I had a glance or two.

I just figured the standard rules of most forums.

What are the standard rules on most forums?

Green Destiny
2010-Dec-03, 11:48 AM
That's a relatively simple question is not? Perhaps rhetorical? It's like me saying, to someone who has morals, what is the correct way to conduct yourself in civilization?

Green Destiny
2010-Dec-03, 11:50 AM
You shouldn't have. It just seems ill prepared to me. In fact, we have this come up a lot, and I simply don't understand it. Isn't it a basic aspect of preparation?

I still don't understand why closure of ATM threads really matter, though. It still bewilders me and seems like a contradiction to even allowing it to exist.

Spoons
2010-Dec-03, 01:04 PM
You shouldn't have. It just seems ill prepared to me. In fact, we have this come up a lot, and I simply don't understand it. Isn't it a basic aspect of preparation?

Gillian, this isn't a forum for chastising. Well, it shouldn't be. I'm not saying you're wrong, and obviously I can't discern the intent of your post, but it did come across to me, an independent reader, as a slight slap over the wrist. You did have your answer, after all, if a little enlightenment regarding his understanding was concerned.

I know that you're right, that one should review the rules prior to posting, but it may be of net value to be cautious of how we respond to new members if we are interested in hearing new views. Sure, they may be wrong views most of the time, but an inclusive attitude should be a worthwhile thing.

Note to all: I wasn't trying to tell Gillian off, I know I'm not a mod, but I think it's in the interests of the forum to welcome new members (as evidenced to my history in the welcome thread) and all I'm saying is that I read the post as a little unwelcoming.

Nereid
2010-Dec-03, 01:19 PM
I still don't understand why closure of ATM threads really matter, though. It still bewilders me and seems like a contradiction to even allowing it to exist.
This kind of question has come up, many many times.

In a word, the 30-day rule was introduced by Fraser, one of the owners of this site, in response (in part) to persistent and frequent attempts by several BAUT members to use this site (which gets a great deal of traffic, considering its mission) for their own marketing purposes (etc). Also, moderating the ATM section consumed far more of the mods' time than any other section (well, CT too). However, Fraser wanted, and still wants, the ATM section to be an opportunity for new, science-based, ideas in astronomy (etc); the special rules are there to foster that.

As I think someone else has already suggested, in this very thread, some quick searching will point you to much of the history, prior threads on similar questions (to yours), etc.

May I ask how hard you've tried to find this material?

Green Destiny
2010-Dec-03, 01:27 PM
This kind of question has come up, many many times.

In a word, the 30-day rule was introduced by Fraser, one of the owners of this site, in response (in part) to persistent and frequent attempts by several BAUT members to use this site (which gets a great deal of traffic, considering its mission) for their own marketing purposes (etc). Also, moderating the ATM section consumed far more of the mods' time than any other section (well, CT too). However, Fraser wanted, and still wants, the ATM section to be an opportunity for new, science-based, ideas in astronomy (etc); the special rules are there to foster that.

As I think someone else has already suggested, in this very thread, some quick searching will point you to much of the history, prior threads on similar questions (to yours), etc.

May I ask how hard you've tried to find this material?

Perhaps in hindsight, I should have expected the question to have cropped up in the past, but since I had not looked over that possibility, I have not took any time looking for such material.

Green Destiny
2010-Dec-03, 01:29 PM
As for ATM being spammed by several posters, why is this behaviour not exhibited in the subforums of other catagories? Surely disruptive behavioural activists out to spam certain threads do not care less for the material of the post?

Strange
2010-Dec-03, 01:35 PM
As for ATM being spammed by several posters, why is this behaviour not exhibited in the subforums of other catagories? Surely disruptive behavioural activists out to spam certain threads do not care less for the material of the post?

I think the difference is that some/many ATM proponents are on a mission to explain to the rest of "us" why we have been deluded by a conspiracy of mainstream scientists into believing these theories which have had to be propped up well past their natural life time. Well, a bit of an exaggeration, but they can be particularly "enthusiastic" about their pet theory. This does ocassionally spill over into other areas so the ATM forum has a secondary function as a place to "quarantine" inappropriate posts in Q&A, say.

Spoons
2010-Dec-03, 02:39 PM
Just in the interests of fairness I'd like to suggest that (in my opinion) you both have good points there.

There are a few posters who appear to be watching and waiting (to quote Hall & Oates, which I love to do) for a chance to shut someone down, and although their ultimate message may often be a god one the manner in which it's done is not always positive, and there are many times in which the ATM proponent gets too attached to the theory.

I wonder, from time to time, what our founders, Fraser and Phil (though mostly Fraser, who I sense has more of an interest) think of any of these issues these days. (This may just be a a personal desire to communicate with Fraser, who I greatly respect and admire)

slang
2010-Dec-03, 03:03 PM
Gillian, this isn't a forum for chastising. Well, it shouldn't be. I'm not saying you're wrong, and obviously I can't discern the intent of your post, but it did come across to me, an independent reader, as a slight slap over the wrist. You did have your answer, after all, if a little enlightenment regarding his understanding was concerned.

I know that you're right, that one should review the rules prior to posting, but it may be of net value to be cautious of how we respond to new members if we are interested in hearing new views. Sure, they may be wrong views most of the time, but an inclusive attitude should be a worthwhile thing.

But this isn't about reviewing the rules prior to posting in ATM. This is about posting a big complaint about the ATM forum and how it works on BAUT, without even reading the rules first (nor the History and Advice stickies, but that aside).

Now, theoretically, a new poster might be completely unaware that there even is anything to read, but like almost every new ATM poster Green Destiny was directed to the rules and ATM advice by a moderator, at least once. He chose to ignore that and went on to post the very ill informed rant that is in post #1. And that's just bad form, IMHO.

Spoons
2010-Dec-03, 03:14 PM
Ok, fair deuce. I readily admit I hadn't read all his posts and threads prior to commenting here. I was only pointing to the apparent attitude I picked from the post, which admittedly may be more indicative of my thoughts than anyone else.

NEOWatcher
2010-Dec-03, 03:23 PM
That's a relatively simple question is not? Perhaps rhetorical? It's like me saying, to someone who has morals, what is the correct way to conduct yourself in civilization?
Civilization is one thing, a specific subset of civilization is another.
You walk into a restaurant that has a sign that says no shorts or t-shirts, you will get ousted wearing that attire.
You walk into someone's home, they ask you to take your shoes off, you comply or get kicked out.

Green Destiny
2010-Dec-03, 04:20 PM
Civilization is one thing, a specific subset of civilization is another.
You walk into a restaurant that has a sign that says no shorts or t-shirts, you will get ousted wearing that attire.
You walk into someone's home, they ask you to take your shoes off, you comply or get kicked out.

No offense, but, if civilization was one thing and not another, why would we apply such civil moderation in a place like this?

NEOWatcher
2010-Dec-03, 04:23 PM
Let me rephrase that (since you didn't grasp what I meant by subset, and absolutely ignored how the analogies applied to the comment)
Behavior applicable to a civilization is one thing, behavior while dealing with a subset of that civilization is another more restrictive thing.

PetersCreek
2010-Dec-03, 04:34 PM
No offense, but, if civilization was one thing and not another, why would we apply such civil moderation in a place like this?

This reads as a non sequitur. The point being made, is that one cannot reasonably expect the laws and customs of one culture to uniformly hold true in another. While they have many things in common, well established Internet forums do have their own culture, to include different rules and customs. The forums I frequent differ remarkably.

Moose
2010-Dec-03, 05:03 PM
As for ATM being spammed by several posters, why is this behaviour not exhibited in the subforums of other catagories? Surely disruptive behavioural activists out to spam certain threads do not care less for the material of the post?

It is, but the tolerance for that outside of the ATM forum is so much lower, it's likely you'll have never seen examples of it unless you're really paying attention for it. You might want to browse the first ten or so pages of the Banned Posters Log and count how many "for ATM outside of ATM" citations there have been in the board's earlier history. Our first year or so, it was probably running somewhere around 50% or so.

Gillianren
2010-Dec-03, 07:06 PM
Ok, fair deuce. I readily admit I hadn't read all his posts and threads prior to commenting here. I was only pointing to the apparent attitude I picked from the post, which admittedly may be more indicative of my thoughts than anyone else.

Basically, I felt that people complaining about how they were treated, when it was exactly within the bounds of the rules, and complaining about an action which is specifically laid out as something which will happen according to the rules, was evidence of poor planning. If you can't even be bothered to read the rules of the forum before you post, what does that say about your preparation anywhere else? I literally do not understand this attitude. Instructions about how the ATM forum works are all over the place around here, and "I don't understand why all the ATM threads seem to get closed" means you didn't even bother to read the rules after you were starting to see a problem.

In short, it's the "it's not me, it's you" attitude which is what drove me out of ATM in the first place.

slang
2010-Dec-03, 07:50 PM
In short, it's the "it's not me, it's you" attitude which is what drove me out of ATM in the first place.

Universe Admits To Wronging Area Man His Entire Life (http://www.theonion.com/articles/universe-admits-to-wronging-area-man-his-entire-li,18556/)

captain swoop
2010-Dec-03, 08:52 PM
Read This (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/91853-A-Very-Brief-History-of-the-ATM-Forum) It's a brief history of the ATM Forum explaining why it is the way it is.

Van Rijn
2010-Dec-03, 09:16 PM
That's a relatively simple question is not? Perhaps rhetorical?


I don't think it's a simple question. It's definitely not a rhetorical question. I've seen a huge amount of variation on rules between forums, so it isn't at all clear to me what you'd think are "the standard rules of most forums" or why you'd think it unnecessary to read the forum rules for this one.



It's like me saying, to someone who has morals, what is the correct way to conduct yourself in civilization?

It is? How? I don't see the relevance of this statement to understanding and following board rules on different forums, or for that matter, the many and varying rules in other societal contexts.

Gillianren
2010-Dec-03, 11:41 PM
Think of it more as traffic laws. Here in Washington State, it is legal to cross the road in the middle of a block provided neither of the nearest intersections have traffic lights. Back in California, where I grew up, it isn't. In some states, you can make a right turn at a red light; in others, you can't. It's intelligent to acquaint yourself with these rules before you do a lot of driving in a new state.

forrest noble
2010-Dec-04, 07:10 AM
Universe Admits To Wronging Area Man His Entire Life (http://www.theonion.com/articles/universe-admits-to-wronging-area-man-his-entire-li,18556/)

I love the Onion News. A friend of mine sent me an article a few years back about the NASA newly proposed 6 billion dollar Space Kaleidoscope. For some reason "dah" I didn't get the gist of it right off and had to ask "dah" questions.

Robert Tulip
2010-Dec-04, 12:00 PM
Green Destiny: I read this thread and skimmed your debate with macaw in ATM. Macaw put good questions which in my opinion you did not answer well. Baut assumes that mainstream science is right. The onus is on those who disagree to provide persuasive arguments, or even better, compelling evidence. You have not done so. If you think mainstream science is wrong, BAUT provides a public scientific forum for you to explain why, as long as your arguments are rigorous and evidentiary. The scepticism about ATM is based on the assumption that new scientific findings should be presented in peer reviewed literature. Perhaps the off chance exists that researchers who are not part of the academic mainstream will deliver something new here. The bar is high.

Green Destiny
2010-Dec-04, 05:46 PM
Green Destiny: I read this thread and skimmed your debate with macaw in ATM. Macaw put good questions which in my opinion you did not answer well. Baut assumes that mainstream science is right. The onus is on those who disagree to provide persuasive arguments, or even better, compelling evidence. You have not done so. If you think mainstream science is wrong, BAUT provides a public scientific forum for you to explain why, as long as your arguments are rigorous and evidentiary. The scepticism about ATM is based on the assumption that new scientific findings should be presented in peer reviewed literature. Perhaps the off chance exists that researchers who are not part of the academic mainstream will deliver something new here. The bar is high.

Don't hit me with that. One selection I believe q1-6 where jus ridiculous.

Gillianren
2010-Dec-04, 05:49 PM
That's nice. You may be surprised to learn that it is not solely your belief which matters.

Green Destiny
2010-Dec-04, 05:57 PM
Even tasuem said those questions where ridiculous.

Green Destiny
2010-Dec-04, 05:58 PM
Just shows it wasn't ''just my belief'' - as the mdoerator said the same, language. Also, I don't appreciate how he bombarded me question after question - he was told off for this too.

macaw
2010-Dec-04, 06:21 PM
Don't hit me with that. One selection I believe q1-6 where jus ridiculous.

No, it isn't ridiculous. the number of questions equals the number of your mistakes, this is why there are so many questions. Your threads go like this:

1. You copy some random stuff off the internet and you add some incomprehensible buzzwords to make it look important
2. You do not understand what you copied.
3. You add an assortment of mathematical mistakes
4. You do not know what the variables in the mathematical expressions mean. Yomix incorrectly scalars and vectors, you don't know the operators (curl, div, grad)
5. When you get questioned on each of your many errors you become abusive.
6. The above behavior is a repeat of your behavior that got you banned (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=104961&page=4) on the Sci Forums.

PetersCreek
2010-Dec-04, 06:29 PM
Green Destiny has been suspended for resorting to insulting language. Since it would also appear that this thread has run any semblance of a useful course, it is now closed. As usual, report this post to ask for reopening...if there's a good reason.