PDA

View Full Version : Infraction system improvement



forrest noble
2011-Feb-04, 07:15 PM
I think the moderation system concerning infractions and other general decisions can be readily improved. What I think that is obviously missing is that there is no feedback allowed from the "accused" prior to moderation's judgment. I have personally experienced what I know to be totally wrong judgments most of the time from moderation, no malice, just wrong opinions (I can rightfully say "obvious" since I know the truth of the matter when being accursed of malice).

Infractions for blatant rudeness that are obvious to all, would continue as is. But for other accusations I suggest that prior to judgment concerning infractions or suspensions, that moderation allows a time frame of just one day or less suspension (or until the "accused" returns, ) be set aside to hear the opinion of the "accused, before making final judgment" in favor of the complainer.

In psychology one learns that those accusing others of malice are often the perpetrators of it or have similar intent.

My last two two-week suspensions were totally based upon false judgments of moderation based upon complaints and I think if my argument would have been heard beforehand that I would have never been infracted in the first place and that the ATM thread would not have been closed prematurely.

What are your opinions concerning this proposal?

NEOWatcher
2011-Feb-04, 07:24 PM
Is there a problem with the appeals process?

If you disagree with a moderator action, then PM or email the moderator, a different moderator, or an administrator. If it's a post by a moderator that you disagree with, you can report the post using the usual mechanism. We will review the case and take action as needed.

I admit that there can sometimes be misunderstandings that may lead to actions. But there's also the potential for a poster to keep going and making things worse before things are sorted out.

It is my opinion, but I think being in the safe side helps.

ETA:
By the way, I looked back on the last 6 months of threads in this section to see how many times moderator actions were disputed?
4 out of the 5 I found were yours. Before I accuse you of something, do you have any comment on that?

Also; there were two polls on moderation I ran across. "About Right" was a clear winner with the opposing sides pretty much cancelling each other out.

forrest noble
2011-Feb-04, 07:46 PM
NEOWatcher,


Is there a problem with the appeals process?

"If you disagree with a moderator action, then PM or email the moderator, a different moderator, or an administrator. If it's a post by a moderator that you disagree with, you can report the post using the usual mechanism. We will review the case and take action as needed."

Upon suspension you never get to make an appeal and never hear of your suspension or find out the reason until it happens. You never get to discuss the matter until afterwords and then you have already "paid your time." Only for infractions without suspensions do appeals have a chance.

NEOWatcher
2011-Feb-04, 07:54 PM
Upon suspension you never get to make an appeal and never hear of your suspension or find out the reason until it happens. You never get to discuss the matter until afterwords and then you have already "paid your time." Only for infractions without suspensions do appeals have a chance.
There is a mechanism for contacting the board without logging in. I can't remember what or where, but I almost used it when I had trouble logging in (until I tried more and got in)
Is that not an option?

Gillianren
2011-Feb-04, 08:05 PM
Oh, goody. Another thread about all this.

forrest noble
2011-Feb-04, 08:11 PM
There is a mechanism for contacting the board without logging in. I can't remember what or where, but I almost used it when I had trouble logging in (until I tried more and got in)
Is that not an option?

Thanks for that. The mechanism that I know of is at the bottom of the suspension statement saying maybe "contact us" but upon my complaints no one ever answers until after the prescribed suspension time, and afterwords nothing is changed concerning the infraction or suspension status so that the next time someone "imagines" misbehavior another suspension ensues or maybe even a permanent banning solely, or almost solely, based upon "imaged" offenses. The way suspensions and bannings are explained based upon moderator opinions are always logical, when they also post the thread of the alleged offense this also seems hard to dispute. But more often the reason I think is based upon a moderator agreeing with a wrong assertion or opinion of a complainer.

Swift
2011-Feb-04, 08:18 PM
But more often the reason is based upon a moderator sustaining wrong judgment by a complainer.
That is your opinion. It is not mine. I have said this before, we do not make a judgment just because someone complains (Reports). Either based upon a Report, or based upon a moderator's own readings (yes, we actually do read much of what is posted) we look into a situation and make a judgment. Usually, it is a consensus judgment of multiple moderators, particularly if we are considering an infraction that would lead to suspension.

I'll go even further. There have been several cases where Person A reports a post of Person B, and upon investigation, Person A gets the infraction (or both A and B are infracted). If your idea that we just take the "complainer's" word was true, that would never happen.

forrest noble
2011-Feb-04, 08:27 PM
That is your opinion. It is not mine. I have said this before, we do not make a judgment just because someone complains (Reports). Either based upon a Report, or based upon a moderator's own readings (yes, we actually do read much of what is posted) we look into a situation and make a judgment. Usually, it is a consensus judgment of multiple moderators, particularly if we are considering an infraction that would lead to suspension.

I'll go even further. There have been several cases where Person A reports a post of Person B, and upon investigation, Person A gets the infraction (or both A and B are infracted). If your idea that we just take the "complainer's" word was true, that would never happen.

Based upon my inquiries I've been told when asking, that this or that infraction involved a complaint(s). Often they have not explained the circumstances when asked, which I can understand.

Give me more credit than to believe that moderation takes anybody's word for anything. My idea on this proposal is some kind of a feedback system allowing the "accused" to give feedback before a final decision is made. I know it makes it harder for moderation but I think the result will be at least some better decisions. And as you know, when your donkey gets gored only few are silent :)

Van Rijn
2011-Feb-04, 08:56 PM
ETA:
By the way, I looked back on the last 6 months of threads in this section to see how many times moderator actions were disputed?
4 out of the 5 I found were yours. Before I accuse you of something, do you have any comment on that?


When I saw this complaint thread, I thought to myself, "I bet forrest noble's latest ATM thread was closed." So I checked, and sure enough, it was.

slang
2011-Feb-04, 09:49 PM
When I saw this complaint thread, I thought to myself, "I bet forrest noble's latest ATM thread was closed." So I checked, and sure enough, it was.

It's very scientific. Clear and unambiguous prediction, and reproducible. ;)

forrest noble
2011-Feb-04, 10:00 PM
When I saw this complaint thread, I thought to myself, "I bet forrest noble's latest ATM thread was closed." So I checked, and sure enough, it was.

you got that right. Like I said to Swift, when your donkey gets gored only few remain silent :)

This is probably the third time that I've gone to feedback with a "better-system" idea :) after moderation had suspended me concerning someone's "imaginations" of my misbehavior :( -- this time it was alleged to be my "failure to answer questions," two weeks suspension concerning a wrong decision, then they closed the thread while I was gone. At least to their credit they re-opened it for a couple of days afterwords, my consolation prize I guess, Boo Hoo :(

Swift
2011-Feb-04, 10:01 PM
Please do not make this a thread about bashing forrest noble. Stick to a discussion of the proposal. Thanks,

Swift
2011-Feb-04, 10:04 PM
This is probably the third time that I've gone to feedback with a "better-system" idea :) after moderation had suspended me concerning someone's "imaginations" of my misbehavior :(
How many times do I have to repeat this: if there are any "imaginations" of your misbehavior it is the collective imaginations of about five moderators. You keep acting like member XYZZY imagines you've done something wrong, reports it, and some moderator just goes "well, if XYZZY says it, it must be true".

forrest noble
2011-Feb-04, 10:39 PM
How many times do I have to repeat this: if there are any "imaginations" of your misbehavior it is the collective imaginations of about five moderators.............

OK, then the collective made a imaginative mistake. I do think the system could be improved according to this proposal. I know it would be more difficult for moderation. What do you think?

Tobin Dax
2011-Feb-04, 10:41 PM
There is a "Contact Us" link at the bottom of the page. Every page. Three guesses on what it allows you to do.

Swift
2011-Feb-04, 10:46 PM
OK, then the collective made a imaginative mistake. I do think the system could be improved according to this proposal. I know it would be more difficult for moderation. What do you think?
Honestly... I hate the idea. Things are difficult enough now. I am not going to have a prolonged trial/debate with each individual we decide needs to be infracted. I do not want to hear 24 hours of counter-arguments.

I think the current system bends over backwards to be fair, though obviously I'm part of the dillusional collective, so what do I know. If you convince a majority of moderators to go along with it, more power to you, but I would quit as a moderator.

Geo Kaplan
2011-Feb-04, 10:57 PM
From having read through the latest (and now closed) FN thread, I agree with Swift that the current system bends over backwards to be fair. If you go to any scientific conference, presentations are never permitted to go round and round as long as they are generously allowed to here. We've already had a couple of polls, FN, and the clear consensus is that the vast majority of participants here feel that the mods are doing a great job. You obviously have a different (dare I say ATM) viewpoint on the matter, FN, but you ought to accept that this is not going to change.

forrest noble
2011-Feb-04, 11:13 PM
Honestly... I hate the idea. Things are difficult enough now. I am not going to have a prolonged trial/debate with each individual we decide needs to be infracted. I do not want to hear 24 hours of counter-arguments.

I think the current system bends over backwards to be fair, though obviously I'm part of the dillusional collective, so what do I know. If you convince a majority of moderators to go along with it, more power to you, but I would quit as a moderator.

Does this mean you don't like my idea??

I never have doubted moderation's collective efforts to do a good job. Your jobs are hard enough so I guess such a proposal will never fly and my destiny seemingly will be to be banned from BAUT someday -- and then you'll be sorry :P

...not "delusional collective," "imaginative" -- always put a positive twist on things :)

captain swoop
2011-Feb-04, 11:20 PM
So far I am not persuaded

Jim
2011-Feb-04, 11:28 PM
It's a bad idea. Not because it means more work for the Mods (Well, not just that.) but because it gives us no benefit.

Most moderation draws no complaints at all. Some small percentage does, and it's always from the same small group of Members who believe they are misunderstood and/or the Mods made a mistake.

We have removed infractions on rare occasion. We have shortened suspensions and reversed bans, again on very rare occasion. And these actions are pretty evenly divided between Member requests and Moderator initiation. Actually, probably weighted toward the latter.

Your particular case, forrest noble, was discussed at great length by the Moderators. You had accumulated enough points from previous infractions that a small new infraction resulted in a lengthy suspension. Some of us even felt bad about that, but your transgression could not be ignored.

And, you should have known the points were there. You had received enough warnings and infractions for giving poor, evasive, or non- answers before that you should have been more careful. The one that put you over the edge was a complete non sequitur, and in your protests, you admitted as much. In fact, the argument you made in your protests was a better answer than the one you posted.

Your thread was closed while you were suspended so the questions and remarks would not pile up... as a courtesy to you. When it was reopened, you demonstrated immediately that you have yet to learn that answers should, well, actually answer questions. The thread was closed because it had become painfully obvious that it was going nowhere with increasing velocity, and that leaving it open would almost certainly lead to warnings and infractions.

That action was also discussed by the Moderators before it was taken. Had we consulted you in advance, I doubt very seriously that you could have done or said anything to change our minds.

We Moderators recognize the gravity of our positions. We know that our actions can have great impact. We do not take our duties lightly or act hastily. I'm sorry you don't agree. I'm sorry you misunderstand us.

Gillianren
2011-Feb-04, 11:37 PM
Basically, the suggestion on the table here seems to me that moderators should be subservient to the moderated. After all, I think it will happen very seldom that the kind of person who complains will ever acknowledge that their infraction/suspension/ban is fair, even when literally everyone else consulted does. A chance to explain? How about a chance to follow the rules?

forrest noble
2011-Feb-04, 11:55 PM
There is a "Contact Us" link at the bottom of the page. Every page. Three guesses on what it allows you to do.

It allows you to complain but no one ever addressed that complaint except maybe to say "we don't agree," without stated reasoning :P -- until after the suspension is complete. Then afterwords no changes are made. In this case the suspension mistake would have been transparently obvious to anyone and everyone having the knowledge concerning the details of computing redshifts i.e. "compute the redshift of two stars 4 light years apart" -- with no more information than that? purely a joke :P

Those words have absolutely zero meaning to them.

I presumed the question involved something to do with galactic redshifts within a galaxy and tried to explain how this did not apply: The result was a 2 week suspension for avoiding a direct question. What a total joke :P Last time I was suspended for supposedly promoting my book, whereby the name of it has never been mentioned on BAUT, but If you call your theory in a book "Fred" and mention that word Fred on BAUT and that it has four hundred pages to it, you also get suspended for 2 weeks, on that one they reduced the 2 weeks to only 9 days because of my complaint. They always tell me my suspensions could have been longer, of course they could have :P but the decisions for suspension in the first place were wrong. The last one was simply based upon a collective moderator understanding of what I was talking about. If people don't understand in ATM, many think you are trying to pull the wool over their eyes and complain :P

Well, that's enough about me, how about you :) ? Swift has already explained why my latest proposal will go nowhere. Considering that everything that I have said is true, anyone have any idea how moderator decision making can be improved in such circumstances?

pzkpfw
2011-Feb-04, 11:56 PM
My last two two-week suspensions were totally based upon false judgments of moderation based upon complaints and I think if my argument would have been heard beforehand that I would have never been infracted in the first place and that the ATM thread would not have been closed prematurely.

None of us agreed with your protests after the suspension, so I don't think a protest before would have made a difference.

slang
2011-Feb-05, 12:02 AM
Sorry forrest, my remark was not intended as a slight towards you, just an observation of a pattern I found somewhat humorous, regardless of who was involved.

As to the proposal, I don't see significant benefit. As noted by others, by far most bans and suspensions are beyond doubt. There are few occasions where a decision might conceivably be ambiguous, or at least where discussion about it might be useful. In those cases there are ways to contact people who might facilitate such contact. The suspendee might have an email address of a moderator, and a polite conversation might be possible. If not, (s)he might have a way of contacting another BAUT member, who might be able to negotiate a way to get in contact with a mod.

This, to me, seems to be enough for the rare case in which it's useful to contact someone before the end of a suspension. Yes, this makes for more work for the suspendee. Yes, it may be useless for new members. Too bad, sit it out, engage in polite conversation afterwards, and perhaps amendments can be made (free membership for a week, removal of accumulated points, whatever).

Of course mods can hardly be blamed if they ignore such attempts, especially if complaints about previous measures were without merit.

Setting up some kind of new system (which absolutely without a doubt will be abused!) seems to only add complexity to something that is already somewhat possible, and only adds more work for the volunteers involved.

forrest noble
2011-Feb-05, 12:14 AM
For moderation to first ask the accused seems fair to me but I'm not the one doing all the work, moderation is? So is there a better improvement idea involving a conversation discourse with a third party maybe that could be relayed to moderation? This might help clarify a few misunderstandings before final decision making occurs. Any member(s) could volunteer for such a service without committing the great time and effort that moderation gives.

I agree this is not a big problem but it is a big problem for me as far as my future prospects on BAUT. I'll give a wild guess that false accusations resulting in suspensions happens at least 10% of the time and maybe more often concerning ATM's. In my last "suggestion" in this section I stated that I expected that it has happened in some banning cases as well, hopefully not too many :- l

any thoughts?

PetersCreek
2011-Feb-05, 12:15 AM
It allows you to complain but no one ever addressed that complaint except maybe to say "we don't agree," without stated reasoning :P -- until after the suspension is complete.

Okay, really...and once again...you need to stop misrepresenting events. You corresponded with a moderator and an admin on this matter while still on suspension (~1/21-1/22/11) and received considerably more than "we don't agree" in response...while you were still on suspension.

forrest noble
2011-Feb-05, 12:25 AM
Sorry forrest, my remark was not intended as a slight towards you, just an observation of a pattern I found somewhat humorous, regardless of who was involved.

As to the proposal, I don't see significant benefit. As noted by others, by far most bans and suspensions are beyond doubt. There are few occasions where a decision might conceivably be ambiguous, or at least where discussion about it might be useful. In those cases there are ways to contact people who might facilitate such contact. The suspendee might have an email address of a moderator, and a polite conversation might be possible. If not, (s)he might have a way of contacting another BAUT member, who might be able to negotiate a way to get in contact with a mod.

This, to me, seems to be enough for the rare case in which it's useful to contact someone before the end of a suspension. Yes, this makes for more work for the suspendee. Yes, it may be useless for new members. Too bad, sit it out, engage in polite conversation afterwards, and perhaps amendments can be made (free membership for a week, removal of accumulated points, whatever).

Of course mods can hardly be blamed if they ignore such attempts, especially if complaints about previous measures were without merit.

Setting up some kind of new system (which absolutely without a doubt will be abused!) seems to only add complexity to something that is already somewhat possible, and only adds more work for the volunteers involved.

Thanks, all systems will be abused by those that are bent that way. I fully understand Swift's position and probably would find it awkward myself as a moderator, having to talk to someone I was about to infract. It could also turn a one day suspension into a permanent banning if someone got mad, where suspension allows them time to cool off :(

so can you think of something better?

Geo Kaplan
2011-Feb-05, 12:37 AM
{snip}anyone have any idea how moderator decision making can be improved in such circumstances?

Again, your opinion is held by almost no others here. Most do not see a need to improve "moderator decision making," so asking for ideas how to do so is, well, absurd.

If you read this -- and related threads -- carefully, you'll recognize a very consistent message: The system is fine, the mods are fine. Asking for special rules just for you (and yes, that is exactly what you are asking for) is not to going to work, so abandon that failed strategy. Quit complaining, FN.

slang
2011-Feb-05, 12:38 AM
For moderation to first ask the accused seems fair to me but I'm not the one doing all the work, moderation is? So is there a better improvement idea involving a conversation discourse with a third party maybe that could be relayed to moderation?

There currently is opportunity to discuss each and every single infraction point awarded via the normal usage of the forum software, with the exception of getting so many infraction points at once that a suspension is immediate. (I don't see how the latter is likely to happen on the basis of a simple misunderstanding.) So, if those previous infractions were still standing, and it's only the last infraction point that pushes one into suspension, then surely that suspension is also deserved by the previous accumulated points, and not a totally unfair measure just because the last accumulated point might be disputed.

About involving a third party, this does lead to a tricky territory. IMHO, if you are banned or suspended, and you involve someone else to talk for you, it can even be interpreted as an attempt to evade the ban. Granted, if it's polite private conversations (pm, mail) this is not a likely thing to happen here. To have someone else publicly post a message is an entirely different matter, of course. (In fact I have banned/suspended people on other boards for doing exactly that..) Just so my previous options are not interpreted as intending a free-for-all ban evasion technique. :)

ETA: cross posted


Thanks, all systems will be abused by those that are bent that way. I fully understand Swift's position and probably would find it awkward myself as a moderator, having to talk to someone I was about to infract.

Awkward? Why? If it's part of the accepted procedure, then as a mod, personally, I would simply do it. I would resent the extra work and the no doubt usually pointless discussions that would result from it. But that's not the same as feeling awkward about it.


It could also turn a one day suspension into a permanent banning if someone got mad, where suspension allows them time to cool off :(

The former has, in fact, almost literally, happened.


so can you think of something better?

Yes. Avoid getting infracted. (Gee, that was easy ;p)

Moose
2011-Feb-05, 12:47 AM
It allows you to complain but no one ever addressed that complaint except maybe to say "we don't agree," without stated reasoning :P

Let me explain something to you exactly once:

There isn't a single teacher manual on the planet that doesn't have something to say about letting oneself get drawn into arguments with students (or parents) who think the rules don't (or shouldn't) apply to them. That 'something' is typically phrased as "not to". Occasionally, it's phrased as "do not". I'd express the concept as: "that way lies madness".

I've had no issue with the corrective actions taken so far, and I see no compelling reason to review them again. As such, I wouldn't hold my breath on any further responses from me on this subject (no matter how many times you 'protest'). You'll just have to learn to deal with the fact that your 'plight' simply isn't a priority in either my professional or personal life. Particularly on a Friday night.

Speaking of Friday night...

forrest noble
2011-Feb-05, 01:11 AM
Okay, really...and once again...you need to stop misrepresenting events. You corresponded with a moderator and an admin on this matter while still on suspension (~1/21-1/22/11) and received considerably more than "we don't agree" in response...while you were still on suspension.

This was not through normal channels and although there was an extended reply, their response let me know that they had no clue at all concerning the stupidity of the supposed question (just meaningless words) that I was allegedly dodging. The conclusion of their response was that I should feel lucky that I did not get a longer suspension which I could have been given. I never in my mind have questioned the integrity of moderation or the administrators. In this case they simply had a severe lack of considered judgment. Even upon my return if moderation would have allowed the thread to remain open I would not have complained as I am now about the wrongful suspension. But again for the same reason, claiming that I failed to answer questions -- no one should allow abuse without complaint. This time they gave no specific example at all, they just re-closed the thread saying that moderators "have reached the conclusion that there is no choice but to close this thread, as it is clearly going nowhere. The costs have far exceeded the benefits" (concerning complaints of inadequate answers in the 2 day primarily 2 man questioning. I do feel lucky, however, that they opened it again at all.

Then it was said that "Any future ATM thread from you will need to have a very different topic, and not rely on this or any of your other ATM threads for support." This was another complete moderator misinterpretation. No other ATM's of mine were required to support this one. Only when related questions were asked were previous ATM's first mentioned . The total time I had on that thread was maybe one week, then two weeks suspension and the system problems were in the middle of the beginnings of the thread. What is wrong with giving a promised 30 days. If no questions were asked I would give no responses and the thread would have died a silent death. Seeking help is not difficult concerning outside opinions for moderation.

I have 50 years into this particular proposal and the study of astronomy. This was my first beginning proposal and the underpinnings of my entire book. If a questioner does not understand an answer ask again using different words. It was not that hard I don't think. In past more complicated ATM's I was able to get my 30 days. It is also acceptable for me to say that I do not know how to explain this part of it to you any better after explaining it to them maybe 3 prior times using different wording -- but it was never allowed to get to get that far. Some members simply cannot understand new concepts as well as others can. That's the way that it goes. I have explained most all of these concepts to beginning college students and I believe that nearly all of them that tried to understand these concepts eventually did, often after the first questions concerning a foundation concept, some simply by reading them only, they understood it.

The ones that always complain in ATM concerning question dodging I believe have a hard time understanding because they don't think it's worth the effort to try to understand it since they do not want to anyway and it is simpler to complain, the sad truth :(

Bottom line is, do you have any better ideas that can keep such things from repeating. Any astronomer could have explained what a meaningless group of words were involved with what I got a suspension for supposedly "dodging a direct question." Many members of BAUT could also easily explain it. If one thinks not I could put it in Question and Answers and all would see how many "laughing responses" we would get from it. Those same words are also as meaningless in the mainstream model as they are in my model. This I think is also true concerning most complaints in the ATM section. The proposal can easily be above the knowledge level of some readers, even those who think they have the background.

forrest noble
2011-Feb-05, 01:32 AM
Let me explain something to you exactly once:

There isn't a single teacher manual on the planet that doesn't have something to say about letting oneself get drawn into arguments with students (or parents) who think the rules don't (or shouldn't) apply to them. That 'something' is typically phrased as "not to". Occasionally, it's phrased as "do not". I'd express the concept as: "that way lies madness".

I've had no issue with the corrective actions taken so far, and I see no compelling reason to review them again. As such, I wouldn't hold my breath on any further responses from me on this subject (no matter how many times you 'protest'). You'll just have to learn to deal with the fact that your 'plight' simply isn't a priority in either my professional or personal life. Particularly on a Friday night.

Speaking of Friday night...

This proposal is about improving the system, unrelated to the rules.

Speaking of Friday night, you do have an excellent point concerning inappropriate times for such discussions -- so therefore much thanks for the heads up. I will be back tomorrow. Although I have had no dinner and am not hungry now, I am thirsty :) cheers

caveman1917
2011-Feb-05, 02:22 AM
You say the mods are misunderstanding you, but really all you can say is that you have a relationship of misunderstanding with the mods. Considering the fact that about the entire board agrees on their (i'll grant you completely arbitrary) definition of what constitutes an "answer to a question", together with the observable fact that you have a relationship of misunderstanding with the board population on that point, and the obvious one that the board will not change that definition, it must be obvious to you that the only way to change that misunderstanding is for you to adopt that definition. Learn what constitutes an answer and what doesn't.

Your strategy of dealing with this problem is faulty, because you mistake what you perceive as a misunderstanding on their part rather than the fact that you have a relationship of misunderstanding, the time and effort spent to complain here (again) should have been spent learning about what it means to scientifically answer a question.

Ah Mach's principle, i knew you would come in useful at some point :)

forrest noble
2011-Feb-05, 02:36 AM
(I don't see how the latter is likely to happen on the basis of a simple misunderstanding.)

You know me by now. I am polite and all infractions have been related to moderator assertions (which involved much misunderstandings) of inappropriate ATM behavior of some kind, and none other. I got suspended for two 2 week period for three infractions, all of which I believe were total moderation mistakes. They have the evidence to review. I already explained the two "most flagrant ones" on this thread. The third a member kept misquoting me in ATM and putting my initials by the characterized quotes. I complained the first time it was done to moderation with no response at all. When it happened the second time a couple of days later I complained again while telling the responder to stop doing it, restated that his characterizations of what I said with my initials next to it, were completing wrong. Moderation intervened and warned me not to do my own moderation and told the questioner also to stop doing it. An hour later I received an infraction for it in my e-mail. These were the 3 infractions that gave me 3 weeks and 2 days BAUT free, but I was certainly not happy since my ATM time was still running and not given back to me. An easy way to shut down a thread, even though I don't believe that was moderation's objective.

In my 3 year time on BAUT I received only one infraction outside the ATM section concerning giving an alternative mainstream explanation in the Q & A section even though I explained that it was not the primary answer which had already been given. I volunteered to give references to the paper but the decision to infract had already been made. I complained to ToSeek and he reduced it from a 2 point infraction to a 1 point infraction, at least a little mercy. I have defended four ATM proposals but have initiated only two. One came from ATM on my very first BAUT posting which was considered a high jack, The second came from feedback whereby a said that I though that most modern mainsteam theories in physics were generally wrong. Even though it followed from the context of what was being said it was thought to be worthy of its own ATM, lucky me. You participated in that one as I recall. None of my four ATM's went without me being infracted, usually including a two or three day suspension period. Generally all were based on the assertion that I was not properly answering questions. They are my theories and if nothing else I certainly know if questions are properly answered. But based upon complaints and moderator agreement, infractions and suspensions followed. To me ATM is something like trying to explain something to someone who likes to argue and both he and moderation believes something differently. You can rarely get away without a rebuke.

So Slang, I think you probably have the expertise to give the proper response to this question: Using the mainstream model "work out the predicted redshift between two stars of radius 900,000 miles placed at the distance of 4 light years. Compare your results with observed redshift."

I explained that "the question" was non-nonsensical and has no meaning at all to it concerning my model or the mainstream model. What would have been your answer concerning the mainstream model?

This was the reason I was suspended for two weeks for the failure to answer this question and without warning!

forrest noble
2011-Feb-05, 02:45 AM
You say the mods are misunderstanding you, but really all you can say is that you have a relationship of misunderstanding with the mods. Considering the fact that about the entire board agrees on their (i'll grant you completely arbitrary) definition of what constitutes an "answer to a question", together with the observable fact that you have a relationship of misunderstanding with the board population on that point, and the obvious one that the board will not change that definition, it must be obvious to you that the only way to change that misunderstanding is for you to adopt that definition. Learn what constitutes an answer and what doesn't.

Your strategy of dealing with this problem is faulty, because you mistake what you perceive as a misunderstanding on their part rather than the fact that you have a relationship of misunderstanding, the time and effort spent to complain here (again) should have been spent learning about what it means to scientifically answer a question.

Ah Mach's principle, i knew you would come in useful at some point :)

You also should be able to answer the question that I asked Slang. See what answer you would give?

forrest noble
2011-Feb-05, 02:50 AM
So far I am not persuaded

Yes Captain, the proposal seems to be unpopular with the mods, and as I understand they would endure more work and hassle with seemingly no benefit for them.

I can say with certainty that there is a problem, but probably no easy fix.

The way that I am presently envisioning the procedure is that initially it would result in an automatic suspension (if they were going to suspend someone anyway) telling the accused of his supposed offense and giving him up to 3 days to respond formally while the suspension stays in place. Once moderation hears his reply, within a reasonable period of time they will give their decision. Maybe something like "we have sustained our accusation" infraction given x points resulting in a two day suspension. One day time-served and one more day to go, or something like that. This procedure I think would sometimes stop wrongful suspensions and bannings after hearing some explanation from the accused. It might just help make the infraction points less or maybe even greater if the answer has insults in it regarding moderation. A note could accompany the infraction with a canned phrase saying something like "no system is perfect and neither are we, but this is our decision" :) The decision should always be posting specific, not like the last response to me concerning moderation has decided that you are not properly answering questions. Also as much as possible I think warnings should be given first before this process starts, when it seems like a reasonable thing to do. Moderation is good at warnings :) This procedure might also stave of malice of different types, from time to time.

caveman1917
2011-Feb-05, 02:58 AM
You also should be able to answer the question that I asked Slang. See what answer you would give?

I should not be able to answer the question, because i am not the one proposing a replacement theory.

Either way your answer should have been in the form (i'm just making up the numbers here):
My calculated redshift is z=0.01. The observed redshift is z=0.008 +- 0.003. It fits.

But more importantly, if your strategy of dealing with a post that explains why your strategy is faulty is itself so faulty (why are you expecting me to answer redshift questions??), you really ought to take a moment to think about what basic problem solving means. Otherwise you will run into problems which you cannot seem to solve, does this not seem familiar?

Gillianren
2011-Feb-05, 03:02 AM
Considering that everything that I have said is true . . . .

Let's back that train up a second. What you are doing is assuming that what you say is true. I have no doubt that you believe it is. However, you have consistently failed to back up your opinion on that. The reason you get such negative responses to these threads every time you start a new one is that every thread you've started on the subject seems to boil down to "I'm not being treated the way I want to!" Your presumption as described above makes no sense to me. Since, were it obvious to "anyone and everyone" that your suspension was in error, it would be logical to assume that other people would complain, why should the mods have to wait for your opinion as to whether an infraction was justified?

You also, in the same paragraph excerpted above, assume that anyone else thinks moderator decision-making needs to be improved. It should be more than obvious to you by now that the vast majority of people here believe it does not.

forrest noble
2011-Feb-05, 03:15 AM
None of us agreed with your protests after the suspension, so I don't think a protest before would have made a difference.

Your point is an excellent point against this proposal concerning my circumstances, but other circumstances are seemingly less complicated.

Everyone of you, however, would be disappointed in your decision in my case if you knew how ignorant the request was by putting this "question" in the Question and Answer section of BAUT concerning the mainstream model -- and then realizing the meaningless words that masqueraded as a question. Then I was suspended for the most polite answer possible considering the ignorance of the "question," without even chiding the ignorance of it. I was not even warned on thread so that I could explain the total ignorance of the request, post links, or get corroboration if moderation requested it. Any astronomy educated member I think would know. I just asked Slang and another member to see what kind of answer they would give concerning a mainstream answer.

forrest noble
2011-Feb-05, 03:33 AM
Let's back that train up a second. What you are doing is assuming that what you say is true. I have no doubt that you believe it is. However, you have consistently failed to back up your opinion on that. The reason you get such negative responses to these threads every time you start a new one is that every thread you've started on the subject seems to boil down to "I'm not being treated the way I want to!" Your presumption as described above makes no sense to me. Since, were it obvious to "anyone and everyone" that your suspension was in error, it would be logical to assume that other people would complain, why should the mods have to wait for your opinion as to whether an infraction was justified?

You also, in the same paragraph excerpted above, assume that anyone else thinks moderator decision-making needs to be improved. It should be more than obvious to you by now that the vast majority of people here believe it does not.

You also, in the same paragraph excerpted above, assume that anyone else thinks moderator decision-making needs to be improved. It should be more than obvious to you by now that the vast majority of people here believe it does not.

I agree with you concerning most circumstances but some ATMs can have sophistication to them and moderation does not always know who is right and in such cases usually will side with the questioner if at least one moderator thinks the questioner is correct and that a violation of the rules has occurred.

The proof will be in the links that I will provide. If those are not understandable to moderation concerning corroboration, then I've asked knowledgeable BAUT members for the mainstream answer for this "question" and we'll see what they come up with. The ignorance of the "question" should be obvious to many of them concerning any cosmological model. If not I'll provide more links and finally if I have to I'll ask astronomy teachers that I know to provide the info to me formally and I'll publish it on BAUT if wanted -- of course it will cost me a few six packs :) but I might drink one of them while I am visiting to help recoup the financial loss; they will never notice :) . Once moderation accepts the corroboration I will not ask them to withdraw the suspension :) but will ask them to withdraw their infraction points and give me the full 30 days on that thread. If they do this then I will only answer questions and respond to new postings like usual. If there are no new postings the thread will quietly die. Even if they opened the thread again and posted a warning "Do not post in this thread by moderation request or ...." I would probably not ever complain since I would know that I was getting special treatment :)

If no acknowledgments are received by me concerning moderations' mistake and I have not been banned, I will assume they still do not understand the problem and will continue providing them links and info until I leave the US for India on business in the early Spring without asking for their response :). Thereafter I'm sure they will not miss receiving any more of my information links :)

TGIF cheers :)

forrest noble
2011-Feb-05, 03:51 AM
I should not be able to answer the question, because i am not the one proposing a replacement theory.

Either way your answer should have been in the form (i'm just making up the numbers here):
My calculated redshift is z=0.01. The observed redshift is z=0.008 +- 0.003. It fits.

But more importantly, if your strategy of dealing with a post that explains why your strategy is faulty is itself so faulty (why are you expecting me to answer redshift questions??), you really ought to take a moment to think about what basic problem solving means. Otherwise you will run into problems which you cannot seem to solve, does this not seem familiar?

I asked the question of you since I was hoping the answer to the question was obviously meaningless to you even without the supporting links.


It’s important to note that stretching space time does not alter the size of stars, galaxies or even galaxy clusters. Their gravitational fields keep their dimensions unaltered.

The above quote from the link below says that there are no galactic redshifts which appear less than a galaxy cluster's distance away; for us this would be a distance of about 5 million light years. Only beyond that could we see galactic redshifts. This is because accordingly there is no change in distance over time as again indicated by "Their gravitational fields keep their dimensions unaltered."

Stars within a galaxy are gravitationally bound together. There is no cosmic redshift concerning stars 4 light years apart and most cosmologists believe not even within the same galaxy cluster or even supercluster because of its rotation. There is no relative motion or apparent supposed expansion of space for such a short distance as 4 light years concerning a cosmological redshifts. Any relative motion between stars in the same galaxy that could produce a difference in redshift, would be totally unrelated to cosmological redshifts and cosmological models.

http://www.asterism.org/tutorials/tut29-1.htm

At galactic distances outside our local supercluster in the next closest supercluster, galactic redshifts of 11 million light years for the closest distances first can be observed or calculated having a similar redshift quantity within the supercluster. Use the calculator below. At 11 million light years at an average rate of cosmic expansion of 70 Km/s/Mpc, the redshift is about .0008 can be calculated.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/hubble.html

Go to the calculator, link above, and look for the page with the white boxes. Put a 1 in the first box, put an 11 in the last box next to the MLY (million light years), then push enter on the key board and in the third box you will see the redshift number designated as "z." The number is 0.000786926875790951 which I rounded up to .0008. This is the closest redshift that we validly can see because closer distances are within our own supercluster whereby we would instead be observing the relative motion of the cluster rather than solely a cosmic redshift but probably could estimate from calculated distances concerning a galactic redshift less than .0008, but many cosmologists believe there is no galactic redshifts at all withing the same galactic cluster or supercluster for the reasons explained in the above link.

Thanks anyway and cheers :) , It's still Friday night for me so it's Miller time :)

Gillianren
2011-Feb-05, 04:03 AM
I agree with you concerning most circumstances but some ATMs can have sophistication to them and moderation does not always know who is right and in such cases usually sides with the questioner if at least one moderator thinks the questioner is correct.

So in short, you think most of the time, your idea won't actually help anything, but when it comes to the moderators' misunderstanding you, everything will be fine?

pzkpfw
2011-Feb-05, 05:39 AM
Forest Noble, this is not the ATM forum and it is not the place to present the detail of one of your ATM claims. Keep things hypothetical, do not revisit the specifics.

slang
2011-Feb-05, 08:35 AM
You know me by now.

I know how you present yourself online. I would not dare to assume that that implies knowing you well as a person. But that aside.


(I don't see how the latter is likely to happen on the basis of a simple misunderstanding.)

To put that quote back in context, "the latter" was: accumulating enough infraction points to warrant a suspension, all of them at once, on the basis of one misunderstanding, with zero previously aquired points. I don't think your post addressed that. Still, even if it did, that would still make it a rare occurrence, not a common enough situation to justify changing the procedure.

Strange
2011-Feb-05, 10:13 AM
I don't see how this would work. You would present your case, which would be rejected (because the mods have already considered the case at length). You would then start a new thread claiming that the appeal process needs to be improved.

geonuc
2011-Feb-05, 11:05 AM
Since you asked for other members' opinions, count me as one who thinks the existing infraction process works just fine. The moderators are doing a good job and I agree with their handling of your situation, from what I can tell.

Forrest Noble, in my view, you seem to want BAUT to be something it is not. It is not an ATM-friendly forum and if you persist in not following the rather rigid rules for that section, infractions will result and the suspensions will increase in severity.

Bob Angstrom
2011-Feb-05, 03:40 PM
Forrest Noble, in my view, you seem to want BAUT to be something it is not. It is not an ATM-friendly forum and if you persist in not following the rather rigid rules for that section, infractions will result and the suspensions will increase in severity.The PTB's like it just the way it is so chill out, have a beer, and remember you can't fix stupid, or BAUT either one.

slang
2011-Feb-05, 04:03 PM
The PTB's like it just the way it is so chill out, have a beer, and remember you can't fix stupid, or BAUT either one.

What does "PTB" mean?

CJSF
2011-Feb-05, 04:16 PM
"Powers That Be." And I bristle at being compared with "stupid." I've said this to others before. There's a whole wide Internet out there. You can be sure we'll keep the door from hitting your backside on the way out.

CJSF

slang
2011-Feb-05, 04:23 PM
"Powers That Be."

I thought so too, but that makes no sense! geonuc voiced his opinion as a user. If owners, admins, mods, and big majority of the users are happy with how things are, at least with respect to this particular proposal, why single out the "powers"? I don't get it.

baric
2011-Feb-05, 04:40 PM
Forrest, to be perfectly blunt your persistent problem with moderation is that you are posting ATM theories.

Not because of the ATM theories themselves, but because of the strict rules regarding that forum. By posting an ATM theory, you are knowingly placing a heavy burden upon yourself to meet the rigorous expectations for ATM supporters.

The majority of non-spam suspensions on this forum can be traced directly to ATM activity. That is not necessarily a bad thing as this is not an ATM site.

forrest noble
2011-Feb-05, 04:59 PM
What does "PTB" mean?

PTB -- Those in charge: Powers To Be -- those running the show

forrest noble
2011-Feb-05, 05:00 PM
"Powers That Be." And I bristle at being compared with "stupid." I've said this to others before. There's a whole wide Internet out there. You can be sure we'll keep the door from hitting your backside on the way out.

CJSF

You beat me to it : Powers to Be

forrest noble
2011-Feb-05, 05:08 PM
Forrest, to be perfectly blunt your persistent problem with moderation is that you are posting ATM theories.

Not because of the ATM theories themselves, but because of the strict rules regarding that forum. By posting an ATM theory, you are knowingly placing a heavy burden upon yourself to meet the rigorous expectations for ATM supporters.

The majority of non-spam suspensions on this forum can be traced directly to ATM activity. That is not necessarily a bad thing as this is not an ATM site.

Oh course you are absolutely right. I haven't heard anything that you have said yet that I disagree with.


....but because of the strict rules regarding that forum. My contention is that I always follow the rules. I've read them many times and refer to them in detail. I believe in my case that the "infractions" were based upon moderation's imaginations only. The point is that this can also happen to others, not just me. I completely endorse any proposal for any reason that I think would make this forum better for all. In the long run it would probably only help a few but I'm a giant opponent of injustices in whatever form they may come. Hence this thread :) and totally endorsed your last proposal with similar objectives.

forrest noble
2011-Feb-05, 05:13 PM
Forrest, to be perfectly blunt your persistent problem with moderation is that you are posting ATM theories.

Not because of the ATM theories themselves, but because of the strict rules regarding that forum. By posting an ATM theory, you are knowingly placing a heavy burden upon yourself to meet the rigorous expectations for ATM supporters.

The majority of non-spam suspensions on this forum can be traced directly to ATM activity. That is not necessarily a bad thing as this is not an ATM site.

Oh course you are absolutely right. I haven't heard anything that you have said yet that I disagree with.


....but because of the strict rules regarding that forum. My contention is that I always have followed the rules. I've read them many times and refer to them in detail. I believe in my case that the "infractions" were based upon moderation's imaginations only and all ATM based as you stated. The point is that this can also happen to others, not just me. I completely endorse any proposal for any reason that I think would make this forum as a whole better for all. In the long run it would probably only help a few, primarily those sometimes proposing things in the ATM forum, but I'm a giant opponent of injustices in whatever form they may come. Hence this thread :) and totally endorsed your last proposal with similar objectives. cheers :)

forrest noble
2011-Feb-05, 05:16 PM
Forrest, to be perfectly blunt your persistent problem with moderation is that you are posting ATM theories.

Not because of the ATM theories themselves, but because of the strict rules regarding that forum. By posting an ATM theory, you are knowingly placing a heavy burden upon yourself to meet the rigorous expectations for ATM supporters.

The majority of non-spam suspensions on this forum can be traced directly to ATM activity. That is not necessarily a bad thing as this is not an ATM site.

Oh course you are absolutely right. I haven't heard anything that you have said yet that I disagree with.


....but because of the strict rules regarding that forum. My contention is that I always have followed the rules. I've read them many times and refer to them in detail. I believe in my case that the "infractions" were based upon moderation's imaginations only and they were all ATM based as you stated. The point is that this can also happen to others, not just me. I completely endorse any proposal for any reason or forum that I think would make it better as a whole. In the long run it would probably only help a few, primarily those sometimes proposing things in the ATM forum, but I'm a giant opponent of injustices in whatever form they may come. As I outlined the preliminary proposal for Capt. Swoop, I don't see how it would be more difficult for moderation either.
Hence this thread :) and I totally endorsed your last proposal with similar objectives. cheers :)

baric
2011-Feb-05, 05:18 PM
My contention is that I always follow the rules.

You are not the arbiter of the rules so your contention on this point is not relevant. The arbiters ("PTB") feel that you are not and have indulged your grievances more than once.

The infraction system on BAUT is very forgiving compared to other forums. If you are really that unhappy with the way infractions are handed out for ATM non-compliance, then I would be interested to hear other forums handle this process better. In particular, I'd like to see multi-page complaint posts that are not punctuated with moderators bluntly telling you to leave the forum if you don't like it.

forrest noble
2011-Feb-05, 05:30 PM
Since you asked for other members' opinions, count me as one who thinks the existing infraction process works just fine. The moderators are doing a good job and I agree with their handling of your situation, from what I can tell.

Forrest Noble, in my view, you seem to want BAUT to be something it is not. It is not an ATM-friendly forum and if you persist in not following the rather rigid rules for that section, infractions will result and the suspensions will increase in severity.

One of the points of this thread is that I know my past infractions, all ATM related and in most cased they were based upon moderation's imaginations. I can say this for a fact.
The last two imaginations resulted in 3 plus weeks of suspensions. I don't care so much about not being able to comment on BAUT but in all cases such long suspensions were in the middle of an ATM presentation of mine :( which cuts down on the 30 days supposedly allotted time period.

forrest noble
2011-Feb-05, 05:38 PM
baric,


................for ATM non-compliance My point is that I contend that I was in compliance with the rules and the last two weeks suspension was based upon totally wrong judgments by moderations, without a doubt -- since I can provide many links to corroborate what I said, which also definitely contradict what moderation has contended. I agree with you that other forums that I know of with quality people in them are no better but that does not stop me from trying to make this a better place and forum.

grapes
2011-Feb-05, 06:47 PM
The PTB's like it just the way it is so chill out, have a beer, and remember you can't fix stupid, or BAUT either one.BAUT fixes stupid all the time. :)

which cuts down on the 30 days supposedly allotted time period.Not to my knowledge, it does not. But I could be imagining it. :)

PetersCreek
2011-Feb-05, 06:49 PM
One of the points of this thread is that I know my past infractions, all ATM related and in most cased they were based upon moderation's imaginations. I can say this for a fact.

Here we go again. No, you cannot say that for a fact because you do not have all the facts at your disposal. You are not privy to our discussions. You are not privy to our thoughts.

Now, I suggest you drop the double talk. First, you say we do a good job. Next, you suggest we're not competent enough to apply the rules objectively. Clear and consistent communication on your end would be most helpful.

PetersCreek
2011-Feb-05, 06:54 PM
The PTB's like it just the way it is so chill out, have a beer, and remember you can't fix stupid, or BAUT either one.

I suggest you take your own advice. Chill out, have a beer, and have a care with how you use words like "stupid" in proximity to people on this board.

Gillianren
2011-Feb-05, 06:56 PM
Forrest, can I ask you a serious question? Have you ever considered yourself to be in the wrong?

This should not be construed as a personal attack, as I legitimately don't mean it as one. And I'm sorry, mods, but these threads are about him; he means them to be. Honestly, I think we should stop having them. But on a broader scale, I do still think it's relevant. Apparently, every single time the mods have given him an infraction, it's a misunderstanding on their part. He has never done anything wrong. And I'm wondering how often people will see themselves in the wrong and how often it'll just be further whining at the mods, which I doubt they have the time or inclination for.

korjik
2011-Feb-05, 08:49 PM
One of the points of this thread is that I know my past infractions, all ATM related and in most cased they were based upon moderation's imaginations. I can say this for a fact.
The last two imaginations resulted in 3 plus weeks of suspensions. I don't care so much about not being able to comment on BAUT but in all cases such long suspensions were in the middle of an ATM presentation of mine :( which cuts down on the 30 days supposedly allotted time period.

You can say it for a fact. This fact would then be wrong. You bring up obviously ATM idea into Q&A threads quite frequently, and your answers in ATM are usually either complete non-answers, or just plain wrong. Both of these are plainly against the rules. If you really want to post here and dont want infractions, dont post in ATM and dont bring your ATM ideas into the other sections of the board.

It really is that simple.

korjik
2011-Feb-05, 08:51 PM
Forrest, can I ask you a serious question? Have you ever considered yourself to be in the wrong?

This should not be construed as a personal attack, as I legitimately don't mean it as one. And I'm sorry, mods, but these threads are about him; he means them to be. Honestly, I think we should stop having them. But on a broader scale, I do still think it's relevant. Apparently, every single time the mods have given him an infraction, it's a misunderstanding on their part. He has never done anything wrong. And I'm wondering how often people will see themselves in the wrong and how often it'll just be further whining at the mods, which I doubt they have the time or inclination for.

But you dont understand. I am right, everyone else it wrong. If you would just believe everything I say, all this would be obvious to you. :)

WHarris
2011-Feb-06, 01:32 AM
Yes Captain, the proposal seems to be unpopular with the mods...

And with virtually everyone else, I would wager.

Jim
2011-Feb-06, 02:31 AM
... The way that I am presently envisioning the procedure is that initially it would result in an automatic suspension (if they were going to suspend someone anyway) telling the accused of his supposed offense and giving him up to 3 days to respond formally while the suspension stays in place. Once moderation hears his reply, within a reasonable period of time they will give their decision. ...

Uh, this is almost exactly how your suspension was handled. You complained via a series of e-mails to a Moderator and to an Administrator. Those e-mails were shared with the Moderation Team and we discussed how to handle your protest. The decision was that the suspension was warranted. You were so informed.

And protested again.


... A note could accompany the infraction with a canned phrase saying something like "no system is perfect and neither are we, but this is our decision" :) ...

This may be news to you, forrest noble, but the Mod Team is aware that we are only human. And so are you. We make mistakes. And so do you.


... The decision should always be posting specific, not like the last response to me concerning moderation has decided that you are not properly answering questions. Also as much as possible I think warnings should be given first before this process starts, when it seems like a reasonable thing to do. ...

We try to make infractions and postings about them "post specific." In this particular instance, there were several posts that led to the infraction. The one you continue to reference (so you apparently know which one that is) was merely the final straw.


... Everyone of you, however, would be disappointed in your decision in my case if you knew how ignorant the request ... and then realizing the meaningless words that masqueraded as a question. Then I was suspended for the most polite answer possible ...

Your suspension had nothing to do with how "ignorant" or not the question was. It had everything to do with your dodgy answer to that question. You may have considered it polite, but it was still a non-answer.

And you acknowledged this is those e-mails and even in this thread. You have provided several versions of what would have been considered a direct answer to the question.


I agree with you concerning most circumstances but some ATMs can have sophistication to them and moderation does not always know who is right and in such cases usually will side with the questioner if at least one moderator thinks the questioner is correct and that a violation of the rules has occurred. ...

This may be the root of your misunderstanding. Moderation does not even attempt to determine whether an answer is "correct" or not, only whether it seems to address the question. Remember that "I don't know" is always an acceptable answer, but it hardly serves as a "correct" answer to a question. (Well, unless the question is, "Do you know the answer?")


... but will ask them to withdraw their infraction points and give me the full 30 days on that thread. If they do this then I will only answer questions ...

As you noted earlier, when a protest is considered valid, we will withdraw all or some of the infraction points. Your protest was not considered valid. You were infracted for continuing to provide dodgy answers to questions. Trying to correct that through e-mails to the Mod Team won't fix the problem.

Your thread was closed during your absence, reopened upon your return, and closed again when you showed us you intended to continue the pattern of dodgy answers. You would have been given more time, but...

Zvezdichko
2011-Feb-06, 02:30 PM
Hm... I just clicked on the OP link and noticed that one of the forum participants was banned - mugalines...

I wonder why he got banned. I remember he was very active in Space Exploration and a valued member

korjik
2011-Feb-06, 02:52 PM
Hm... I just clicked on the OP link and noticed that one of the forum participants was banned - mugalines...

I wonder why he got banned. I remember he was very active in Space Exploration and a valued member

There is an explanation in the banned members thread

Bob Angstrom
2011-Feb-06, 11:24 PM
BAUT fixes stupid all the time. :)Well said but there is a fine line between correcting stupid and merely driving it away. In the ATM forum, BAUT fosters a toxic atmosphere for rational discussion that allows posters who make little or no attempt to understand the topic to harass the presenter with denunciations and literally hundreds of questions, often ignorant or off topic, to the point where the questions hijack the discussion. It may not be the the intent of of THE RULES to drive away dissent so that those who claim a monopoly on the truth can remain in their virtuous bubble but they do have that effect. Robert A. Wilson said,”The only person who can be certain of anything is the person with only one set of encyclopedias.“

This is a comment from today's ATM forum and “bsbarclay” speaks for many others about a problem that remained unchanged for years. He is now suspended of course.

“But beyond that, no matter what great pains I take, and no matter how many times I explain or re-describe my approach and model to clarify it, you are doggedly relentless in rashly misinterpreting and misrepresenting it in whatever way affords you the greatest latitude for denunciation. Whether this is deliberate or unconscious, (it doesn’t really matter) its obvious even to other readers that you are either; not reading or not internalizing the concept, approach and model.” dsbarclay

PetersCreek
2011-Feb-07, 01:23 AM
This thread has a specific topic...a suggestion from forrest noble. It is not the place to grind your own axe or dredge up misbehavior from other threads. Return to and stick with the OP or we can assume it has run its course and close the thread.

korjik
2011-Feb-07, 05:23 AM
Well said but there is a fine line between correcting stupid and merely driving it away. In the ATM forum, BAUT fosters a toxic atmosphere for rational discussion that allows posters who make little or no attempt to understand the topic to harass the presenter with denunciations and literally hundreds of questions, often ignorant or off topic, to the point where the questions hijack the discussion. It may not be the the intent of of THE RULES to drive away dissent so that those who claim a monopoly on the truth can remain in their virtuous bubble but they do have that effect. Robert A. Wilson said,”The only person who can be certain of anything is the person with only one set of encyclopedias.“

This is a comment from today's ATM forum and “bsbarclay” speaks for many others about a problem that remained unchanged for years. He is now suspended of course.

“But beyond that, no matter what great pains I take, and no matter how many times I explain or re-describe my approach and model to clarify it, you are doggedly relentless in rashly misinterpreting and misrepresenting it in whatever way affords you the greatest latitude for denunciation. Whether this is deliberate or unconscious, (it doesn’t really matter) its obvious even to other readers that you are either; not reading or not internalizing the concept, approach and model.” dsbarclay

Actually the ATM forum is kid gloves on compared to real science. If you think the ATM forum here is toxic, you really arent going to get very far. I have been grilled far worse at an URSI meeting by real scientists doing real science than anything that has happened here, and they were being nice to me because I was a student. I've seen it when two full professors go at it tooth and nail over someone's theory, they arent anywhere near as nice.

Not only that, but one thing that every ATMer here seems to completely miss is that ALL of the ideas presented in the ATM forum have been discussed by real scientists at some point or another. Then discarded for very good reasons. 90% of the time, the 'ignorant or off topic' question is the very key to understanding the flaw in the ATM idea. The reason that the questions 'hijack the discussion' is that when the question is the reason that the idea dosent work, the responders are trying to get the ATMer to see the flaw. The normal course of events isnt that the responders are closed minded. A quick and easy step is: When everyone points out the same flaw in your idea, they may be on to something.

The last thing is, the ATM section here is not a place to get a fair shake on trying to get out a new idea. It is here to keep ATM ideas out of the other sections of the board. The fact that anyone listens at all, and is willing to explain what may be wrong with your idea is due to courtesy and a desire to teach. There is no presumption of correctness or incorrectness either way. To say otherwise is really kind of insulting.

forrest noble
2011-Feb-07, 06:02 AM
BAUT fixes stupid all the time. :)
Not to my knowledge, it does not. But I could be imagining it. :)

When a two weed suspension occurs in the middle of a 30 day ATM proposal, you only get 16 days for your proposal that are left. This happened to me every time and also all the other cases on BAUT that I am aware of, many examples for review :( to corroborate this statement.

pzkpfw
2011-Feb-07, 06:11 AM
Post #71 was for everyone, korjik

pzkpfw
2011-Feb-07, 06:14 AM
When a two weed suspension occurs in the middle of a 30 day ATM proposal, you only get 16 days for your proposal that are left. This happened to me every time and also all the other cases on BAUT that I am aware of, many examples for review :( to corroborate this statement.

Oh for goodness sake. More half-of-the-story.

When you came back from your latest suspension, we re-opened your thread even though your 30 days were all up.

We were perfectly aware that the suspension had eaten into your 30 days, and were ready to allow "extra time". (In our mod-area discussion we talked of 1 or 2 weeks extra, which seemed fair enough - given it was your behaviour that got the thread shut down.

Then, it was your continued behaviour that got that thread closed down, so don't lay the blame for that on our heads or on BAUT rules.


In any case, we've been discussing this thread too.

It is just another contuation of a pattern:
a. You start (or participate) in a thread.
b. You do something that gets you infracted, perhaps suspended.
c. You start a feedback thread to complain or get the rules changed.

In every case you've basically not been able to change the moderators minds on the initial infractions.
Nor have you been able to convince the general population of BAUT that your feedback is "correct" nor that your rules ideas have merit.


We've had enough. Please don't start another of these any time soon.