Please think before posting in ATM or CT.

[mkline55]

Why is that my responsibility? A claim was made about some thread, and the claim was not supported, nor the thread cited, by the person who made the claim. You didn't make the claim, but did give the arxiv paper, but for the reasons I cited, that does not by itself rise to the level of evidence for the claim made. I don't even know if that was the thread being mentioned. But my expectation is that the ATM thread in question involved little useful discourse that affected or improved the arxiv paper, which was most likely never refereed or published anywhere. That is my expectation, because that's what I've seen. If someone would like to offer evidence that this expectation is incorrect, I would welcome knowing that, but that's their job, not mine. The person who makes a claim is the one who should provide evidence for it, that's how science works.
Yes, it was useful to have the paper, my only comment is that as it stands, this example is no kind of evidence that the ATM section has led to anything getting published, or even to any constructive discussions that altered someone's view. The paper is only on arxiv, and is difficult to make much sense of, quite frankly. I have no idea if it is right or wrong, but it does not seem well vetted.

Only if in fact there wasn't any such evidence. Why would it be evidence of that, if it did get somewhere? We should not have difficulty establishing what is evidence, and what isn't. Goodness, that should be the only easy thing.

The evidence is here. It took me 15 seconds to find. You are welcome to ignore it.

[Swift]

But if there was no ATM section, what would you do with ATM claims? It sounds like you are saying you would just ban them altogether, rather than remove them to ATM land.

That is what I would do. You would be allowed to ask about ATM ideas ("hey, I saw this on some Youtube video, could you answer some questions about it"). But advocacy of any ATM ideas would be forbidden.

[Shaula]

Respectfully disagree. There has been a very long running thread at nsf.com on the EM-drive. That's about as ATM as it gets, yet people are collaborating and doing good work. Other people chime in from time to time to tell them it violates the laws of physics and is therefore impossible, but so what? Science is never perfect and it is never finished. It has been shown to be wrong a few times in history.

Head over to spacetimeandtheuniverse.com. Voila. Hundreds of counter examples. Head over to the the physicsworld comments section. Oh look, loads of counter examples.

Also, you ignored my main point: being polite is not necessarily collaborating, and snarky critiques help to develop the ATM theory. IOW the snarkiness is gratuitous--it serves no purpose. And the fact that it's enshrined in the rules (actually it's not) to the point where people are getting warnings for being nice is plain crazy IMHO.

The example you gave was more than being nice. Plus you always have the option of being nice by PMing them your suggestions and letting them choose to include them in the thread with an attribution. The only form of 'being nice' that is banned is the kind that encourages people by making them feel like they have support and people wanting to work on their idea.

{citation needed}
The ATM forum is not a review process because it is not a form of publication. A publication is citable; nothing anywhere on CQ is ever citable, even for Wikipedia.

https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthr...-the-ATM-Forum

Fraser's stated intention was clear in that the ATM forum was to be modeled somewhat like a (practice) peer-review defense, except fully within the decorum rules of BAUT, and without formal referees (so we're necessarily not equivalent to peer-review by any stretch.)

As I said, it is meant to replicate a form of review. Not be a review, but to have the structure of one.

I prefer to think of the ATM section as a sort of brown bag lunch where people get together to discuss speculative ideas in order to further develop them. Certainly, that is the only reason I would ever start a thread there--to exploit the forum in order to gain new ideas for myself. It was never my goal to convince one person here about anything; if someone changes their minds, that's great, but that's not why I started the thread. However, if and when I ever get around to trying to submit the theory to an actual publication, whether it's Icarus or Astrobiology or JGR, the avoided pitfalls and new ideas I've gained thanks to helpful comments here will prove invaluable...

That is not the stated aim of the forum nor is it something, I believe, the site should support. There are literally hundreds of places out there that you can go to discuss ATM ideas. There are very few forums which are loudly and proudly about the science. And, frankly, most of the posts I see in ATM are so far from being a theory that people sitting around chatting about them is pointless. Having a forum especially for people to sit around and tell each other stories masquerading as science would be counter-productive to a science eduction site. I think that in fact having one where anyone who is not prepared for their review is cut to shreds is probably more far more useful, educationally.

[Shaula]

That is what I would do. You would be allowed to ask about ATM ideas ("hey, I saw this on some Youtube video, could you answer some questions about it"). But advocacy of any ATM ideas would be forbidden.

Swift for President!

[Shaula]

Why is that my responsibility? A claim was made about some thread, and the claim was not supported, nor the thread cited, by the person who made the claim. You didn't make the claim...

If he must post,
Create his thread of spleen, that it may live
And be a thwart disnatured torment to him!
Let it stamp wrinkles in his view of stars,
With raged tears fret channels in his cheeks,
Turn all his teacher’s pains and benefits
To squabbling and contempt, that he may feel
How sharp a serpent’s tooth it is
To have a thankless Ken!

[Solfe]

I strongly disagree with both of these statements.

I have often heard that the only (or the main) purpose of ATM is to keep ATM stuff out of the rest of the board. I think we've demonstrated that we can keep the board free of forbidden or restricted topics (politics, religion, 9/11 CTs, etc.) without have to devote a special section for them. I actually think an ATM-free CQ would be easier to manage, as you would not have the ATM forum attracting all the ATM proponents. By even having such a section, we make CQ a target for those who wish to advocate their non-mainstream ideas.

I also don't think ATM theories, well thought out or not, could be (or should be) in the rest of the forum, without major revisions of our rules and methods.

Just to clarify, I don't think we should lighten up our policies on religion, politics, etc. That would be very bad. Let's ignore those. No, do not change a thing on this.

I don't think that the rules and methods need change, I think it is on the poster. And that is a "harder get" than merely changing the rules. As long as someone doesn't hit the topics that are forbidden (above), as long as they refuse to present an item as reality, mainstream or even valid, then they should use whatever area is appropriate. I THINK this is already permissible, posters can do a lot so long as they don't cross that line to advocacy.

From a moderator point of view, I can see your objection. What if someone runs through 10 pages without going ATM, then slaps on a post that brings it to ATM, what now? That is troublesome and annoying.

I am sort of in favor of removing ATM, but don't really see a good mechanism for removal. I think it would drive some of our visitors to shenanigans in other areas the forum. And that is exactly the problem, we get visitors who want to push the limits. Usually, our resident posters don't do that. At least, not on purpose. In many cases, our regular posters are putting "technical ATM" into areas outside of ATM not to be contentious, but to have a discussion. Arsenic in DNA, FTL neutrinos detected by OPERA, Planet Nine, String Theory, water on Mars, etc. are all examples of things that are or were speculative that don't appear in ATM. It comes down to correct phrasing of the topic. The problem comes when we get visited by the Tooth Fairy making pronouncements well beyond the facts.

We have a very broad user base. We have a topic areas for everyone and largely it works. Every reorganization isn't really useful and meets with howls of disdain. What we have generally works very well. That is a reflection of the mod team and end users. The forum is very nice.

[Gigabyte]

We only allow an individual to advocate an ATM idea; there is no general discussion, and no debunking of other people's ATM ideas.

That might be the issue rat there.

No discussion of any ATM "idea" is ever allowed.

[Shaula]

No discussion of any ATM "idea" is ever allowed.

Not true. You can ask about it and discuss it in Q&A. You just cannot advocate it or give an ATM concept as an answer to a Q&A type question.

Not sure why you hold to this idea that any example of any ATM idea even being mentioned gets you banned. It is simply not true and has been stated not to be true by several moderators several times.

[Gillianren]

It feeds the persecution complex.

[Warren Platts]

Head over to spacetimeandtheuniverse.com. Voila. Hundreds of counter examples.

You gotta be kidding. I was talking about reputable forums. My antivirus software even recommends against that site...

The example you gave was more than being nice.

Yes, it contained scientific content X that was equally expressed by the snarky example. That proves that the snark is gratuitous, and that politeness is being needless suppressed.

https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthr...-the-ATM-Forum

Fraser's stated intention was clear in that the ATM forum was to be modeled somewhat like a practice peer-review defense, except fully within the decorum rules of BAUT

As I said, it is meant to replicate a form of review. Not be a review, but to have the structure of one.

That [the ATM section is a place where people get together to discuss speculative ideas in order to further develop them] is not the stated aim of the forum nor is it something, I believe, the site should support.

Neither is the case. And even though your quote is taken out of context, it proves my larger point: "practice" implies development and cooperation to prepare for a future game day that would involve actual peer review elsewhere. Note also that the decorum rules should apply to the ATM section. As for what Fraser's stated intentions WRT ATM, we can read it for ourselves:

People who have an interesting idea to explain some aspect of the Universe. They post their idea, community members generously donate their time to help think it through and provide ways to test the theory. It happens quickly and we all move on.
---------
We still value the ATM section. It's my hope that people with genuinely original ideas will have a place they can post their ideas. People with knowledge about the field of science will be able to spot the weakenesses in the theory. Or maybe, just maybe, they'll recognize the genuinely original theory and help get it promoted to working scientists who can take the idea further. That's my hope for the ATM section.
------------
Ideas from outside the mainstream have a genuine value to science. Who knows where the next great idea is going to come from? It won't always be scientists; although, they've got the training to understand why some ideas won't work. I'd never want to shut down ATM.
-----
I'd love to go even further, potentially bringing in partners from the scientific community to help evaluate theories. And my greatest hope would be that a member of the community could propose a new idea, scientists would be able to help look for evidence, and the whole process could contribute to science.
------------
If Phil and I wanted ATM shut down, we'd just shut it down. Delete the section, and put the mods on search and destroy mode.
------------
I don't understand. Why close [the ATM subforum] entirely?

The 30-day format has reduced the impact on the mods, and given us a place where new and interesting ideas can be posted without being overwhelmed by ATM marketing. I like it.
---------
Let's say that some believes that the Moon is really made of swiss cheese. They're very dedicated, and want to get the word out. So they come to BAUT and create a thread. They also reply to each and every thread in the entire forum, so that the last post in every thread in the entire forum somehow relates to their swiss cheese theory.

Are they promoting a book? Are they trying to make money? Are they trying to start a religion? Who knows? I don't care. What I do care is that BAUT has suddenly turned into a communications tool by the lunar swiss cheese movement.

Now, let's go to the other end of the extreme. A clever housewife is thinking about the nature of time, and comes up with a genuinely unique theory that answers problems that have plagued Einstein. She wants to see if her idea has merit, so she searches Google, finds BAUT and posts her idea. Scientists and amateurs who understand the math and evidence can give her feedback. Maybe her idea has enough merit that one of them decides to submit a paper to Arxiv. Then she wins a nobel prize in physics. BAUT provides a genuine service to science, helping someone from the outside contribute to our understanding of the Universe.
---------
Okay, maybe that [clever housewife] was a bad example. How about a clever high-school student? Or a taxi driver with a lot of time on his hands between customers to ponder the Universe. Or even a politician or lawyer.

The point is, great ideas can come from anywhere. I'll keep saying that until you believe me.
-----
I do plan to promote [the ATM section]. But in a structured way that doesn't chew up moderator/volunteer energy. A way that gives ATM theorists a genuine opportunity to get their theories heard and assisted by working scientists. A way that rewards ATM discipline with action.

Link: https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthr...stream-section Hmm. I wonder why it's not a sticky.

Here it is abundantly made clear--because Fraser stated the same thing over and over--that the ATM section is a place where ideas are to be more further developed through cooperation with actual, practicing scientists. E.g., people like Cross Country, who is a paid, bona fide PhD scientist at the Lunar & Planetary Institute--precisely the type of scientist Fraser said he wants to attract. Yet Cross Country (a) has stated he doesn't like getting infracted; (b) recently said he doesn't post here as much as he might like to; and (c) if he, a working scientist who has been a lead author in Science magazine appears to assist an ATM proponent, he could get infracted for that!

How is this situation even possible?

Apparently a single moderator who's failed in his past attempts to get rid of the ATM section has taken it upon himself to take a "judicial activist" stance towards the rules--that neither state that ATM critics are exempt from the usual rules of decorum nor that people should not help the ATM poster to develop her ideas--and subvert the original intentions of the Founding Fathers of this place, such that obnoxiously obstructionist posters who only clutter up threads with their snark get a green light, whereas people who attempt to do what Fraser hoped they would do--working scientists collaborating with citizen scientists who have fresh ideas--get threatened with infractions!

The apparent strategy is to lower the quality of the content of the ATM section to the point where no one can have a principled objection to its cessation. Good old fashioned, sausage-making politics in other words.

This is why there should be term limits to moderators: so people with lifetime appointments can't simply outlast the Founders of this forum over multiple decades in order to subvert the original intention for which this website was created. As it is, IMO, a grave disservice is being done to both the owners and readers of this forum. At the very least, IMO, moderators who believe the ATM section should be axed ought to recuse themselves from moderating the ATM section, and leave that to the mods (if there are any) who share Fraser's vision of the ATM section being a vibrant place where new ideas get to be discussed and assisted by actual working scientists and other knowledgeable members. If there are no such moderators, IMO, it's clearly time for some fresh blood.

IMHO YMMV

[Solfe]

It is a sticky. And it was posted at a time when the ATM was already rolling. There have been a few changes since then, but the ATM section is operating inline with both the rules and this post.

[Shaula]

You gotta be kidding. I was talking about reputable forums. My antivirus software even recommends against that site...

Not shocked. The reason I mention it is because it was at least part run by someone who was an active ATM proponent on this site and a fair few of the people who agitated for relaxing the rules and complained how unfair this place is went on to call that site home. Which is why it is a very relevant warning. I note you ignore the comments section of physicsworld. Both are counter to examples to yours and show that it is not a clear cut as you make out. ATM-permissive fora are easily, and frequently, abused to pedal the kind of rubbish that ends up on both the sites I mention.

Yes, it contained scientific content X that was equally expressed by the snarky example. That proves that the snark is gratuitous, and that politeness is being needless suppressed.

What, because you can think of a contrived example that could possibly lead to this? It is perfectly possible to change what you said to be polite but not to act as either empty validation or collaborative efforts. How about "I like your idea, however I think it is incomplete because it doesn't address X. Can your theory be used to address X and have you done this?" Oh look - a snark free example that contains both the support you want to give and X.

Neither is the case. And even though your quote is taken out of context, it proves my larger point: "practice" implies development and cooperation to prepare for a future game day that would involve actual peer review elsewhere. Note also that the decorum rules should apply to the ATM section. As for what Fraser's stated intentions WRT ATM, we can read it for ourselves:

None of what you have quoted says collaborative free for all. The thread running through the whole section is that peoples' ideas are presented, challenged and questioned. Nowhere does it say we should be aiming to turn it into a collaborative forum. And, of course, you are absolutely free to take it to PM if you do want to collaborate. There is nothing at all stopping people forming little working groups of people who like the idea using that mechanism.

Here it is abundantly made clear--because Fraser stated the same thing over and over--that the ATM section is a place where ideas are to be more further developed through cooperation with actual, practicing scientists. E.g., people like Cross Country, who is a paid, bona fide PhD scientist at the Lunar & Planetary Institute--precisely the type of scientist Fraser said he wants to attract. Yet Cross Country (a) has stated he doesn't like getting infracted; (b) recently said he doesn't post here as much as he might like to; and (c) if he, a working scientist who has been a lead author in Science magazine appears to assist an ATM proponent, he could get infracted for that!

Counterpoint - I am an actual practising scientist too. It doesn't give me, or anyone else, a free pass to behave how we like. There is a wide variety of practising scientists out there and maybe some don't fit the forum that well. It is a shame but you cannot argue that we should change everything to suit everyone. If the changes you seem to want were made the odds are good that I would post less because the forum would become less to my taste. Are you now going to demand that these changes not be made in order to prevent me feeling this way?

Apparently a single moderator who's failed in his past attempts to get rid of the ATM section has taken it upon himself to take a "judicial activist" stance towards the rules--that neither state that ATM critics are exempt from the usual rules of decorum nor that people should not help the ATM poster to develop her ideas--and subvert the original intentions of the Founding Fathers of this place, such that obnoxiously obstructionist posters who only clutter up threads with their snark get a green light, whereas people who attempt to do what Fraser hoped they would do--working scientists collaborating with citizen scientists who have fresh ideas--get threatened with infractions!

You know they could appeal, right? Even if your claims about one moderator were true (don't think they are) then you can get around this by asking the others to intervene. If it were as bad as you claim then they would. Personally I'd like to see less snark in ATM. But I'd also like to see a heck of a lot more science.

Now I will put my cards on the table - I think that the badgering and repetition in the ATM forum is too much. I don't like it and I post less there because of it. I'd like to see the whole forum become more civilised. But that absolutely does not mean it should change from what I see as Fraser's stated aim - it should remain somewhere ideas are challenged. Anything else is far too open to abuse. I'd like to be both proponents and opponents held to a MUCH higher standard in there. I'd like to see scientific ideas, testable physics and well thought out pieces of work. I'd like to see focused, relevant questions answered in detail. Then it would be an interesting forum. As things stand it mostly isn't.

Maybe we could have a halfway house where someone puts up some very basic outline of their ideas but asks for it to be locked immediately while they wait for people to volunteer to help. The 30 day timer doesn't start until the group have got their work (via PM) into a good enough form to present - then the thread opens and the challenge begins. The same rules would apply to the thread as anything else - only one open thread at a time, no promotion elsewhere. If no-one wants to volunteer to help then the thread is left to wither. Don't know, just thinking on my feet here.

[slang]

Apparently a single moderator who's failed in his past attempts to get rid of the ATM section has taken it upon himself to take a "judicial activist" stance towards the rules [...]

Once again, moderator decisions, other than trivial ones like dealing with spam, are usually team decisions. Even when a mod acts alone, infractions are always visible to every other moderator, and public warnings to everyone. And if one feels a single moderator is "threatening" in a private message, which are not visible to others, you can use the report function to report that PM to the other mods.

Anyway, by now I think we have some idea of the preferences, likes and dislikes of other mods, and have no qualms to speak up if those seem to be influencing their decisions, or reported posts. While not often, it does occasionally happen that someone's bias may show, although I don't remember any such occurrence with respect to ATM forum related decisions. I think that as a group we're doing pretty well in recognizing our interests and excusing ourselves when necessary.

[Hornblower]

I just now responded to what I considered an evasive response from an ATMer to my previous post. Let me add that I had not actually asked him to answer a question, and I appreciate his having given me the courtesy of some sort of a response. My previous post was a somewhat broad but directly on-topic comment about what he was saying in the OP. My newest one is narrower and more sharply focused on the opening paragraph of his opening post. In all fairness to him, it appears to me that many of the other responders are bombarding him with unfocused, scattershot questions and remarks. I would have no quarrel if he reports that to the mods.

[Ken G]

In all fairness to him, it appears to me that many of the other responders are bombarding him with unfocused, scattershot questions and remarks. I would have no quarrel if he reports that to the mods.

I don't know what thread you are referring to, but I think this is the issue in a nutshell. I wonder what would happen if, on the ATM forum, an OPer reported to the mods post that he/she felt represented a barrage of unfocused or irrelevant questions. My guess is that the ATM rules would be regarded as clear, that it's not up to the OPer to decide what questions are relevant, they simply have to address everything. In fact, I once flat out stated what forms of questions I regarded as unresponsive to the claims made in an ATM thread, and of course I was accused of breaking ATM rules. So that is the essence of what I'm talking about, are ATM rules built to make sure that the mods don't end up having to decide whether the ATMer is right or not (which would be a burden on them), or are they just built to make sure it is easy to reel out enough line to kill any fish in there.

[Hornblower]

I don't know what thread you are referring to, but I think this is the issue in a nutshell. I wonder what would happen if, on the ATM forum, an OPer reported to the mods post that he/she felt represented a barrage of unfocused or irrelevant questions. My guess is that the ATM rules would be regarded as clear, that it's not up to the OPer to decide what questions are relevant, they simply have to address everything. In fact, I once flat out stated what forms of questions I regarded as unresponsive to the claims made in an ATM thread, and of course I was accused of breaking ATM rules. So that is the essence of what I'm talking about, are ATM rules built to make sure that the mods don't end up having to decide whether the ATMer is right or not (which would be a burden on them), or are they just built to make sure it is easy to reel out enough line to kill any fish in there.

Upon reviewing the thread, I can see that I overestimated the amount of digression, and that the ATMer provoked it. Most of the responders have been demanding a mathematical justification of what he proposed in his OP. I had not paid much attention to them because I was more concerned with trying to get him to answer my questions, which were focused on the OP and on his response to my earlier remarks.

[Swift]

I wonder what would happen if, on the ATM forum, an OPer reported to the mods post that he/she felt represented a barrage of unfocused or irrelevant questions.

ATM advocates have made such Reports on numerous occasions (at least the irrelevant part; I don't recall a complaint of "unfocused").

Sometimes they are correct and questions are irrelevant. I don't think there is a standard response, but there have certainly been warnings about questions, either specific questions, or a more general warning.

There are times when the questions are completely relevant and either the OP is either trying to dodge them, or their lack of understanding leads them to not understand the relevance.

The ATM rule is certainly not that they have to address everything.

[Ken G]

OK, that's all anyone can ask.

[Gigabyte]

Not true. You can ask about it and discuss it in Q&A.

I am asking for a Mod decision on this. Is that true? We can discuss ATM concepts, ideas, whatever you call them, outside of the ATM forum?

[tusenfem]

I am asking for a Mod decision on this. Is that true? We can discuss ATM concepts, ideas, whatever you call them, outside of the ATM forum?

I think this has been stated already, but yes, you can ask questions about some ATM that you have seen and want to know if it is feasible or not.
I guess the most recent, maybe not exactly ATM, example is the EM drive discussion (which I cannot find right now, maybe I am mixing up with ISF).
You can ask questions, clarifications, etc. You cannot, however, start to defend the concept outside of ATM, then you will be thrown into the lion's pit :-)
Of course there is a grey area, and the one or other "but what if" question will not lead to infractions or banning.
But as also mentioned, many decisions are made by the mod team, so you are not just hanging on the whim of one moderator.

[Swift]

I am asking for a Mod decision on this. Is that true? We can discuss ATM concepts, ideas, whatever you call them, outside of the ATM forum?

Within reason.

For example, in Q&A, you can ask questions about non mainstream ideas and get the mainstream interpretations. You can even ask for follow-up details or further explanations. Or there can be discussions about things for which there is no clear-cut mainstream explanation (the discussion about KIC 8462852 is one example).

But, if you start advocating non-mainstream ideas, and that includes arguing too strongly against mainstream explanations, you are going to get into trouble.

Is this vague? Yes it is, for reasons that have been explained numerous times in Feedback. Does this make you a little leery about getting into such discussion? Good, it should.

What's the worst that can happen? Well, we might open up a hole in the space-time continuum and destroy the universe, but that is a very low probability event. (that was a joke)

More likely, if you start drifting into too much advocating, you'll start getting warnings from moderators and the thread may be closed or moved to ATM if you continue (at which point you could just say "please close the thread if you are going to move it to ATM"). If you ignore those instructions, you'll probably get infracted.

But given all that, there are plenty of examples of discussions of non-mainstream (or borderline) concepts on CQ.

[Shaula]

I am asking for a Mod decision on this. Is that true? We can discuss ATM concepts, ideas, whatever you call them, outside of the ATM forum?

You should really have included the rest of my paragraph on that.

Not true. You can ask about it and discuss it in Q&A. You just cannot advocate it or give an ATM concept as an answer to a Q&A type question.

Quiet an important caveat and, so far, one that very few people seem able to stick to.

We've discussed things like aether theory, alternatives to dark matter and a few other topics before.

[Warren Platts]

ATM-permissive fora are easily, and frequently, abused to pedal ... rubbish

Yes. That's why there's a 30 day limit on ATM threads so that the board can't be used as free advertising for some wacky theories.

How about "I like your idea, however I think it is incomplete because it doesn't address X. Can your theory be used to address X and have you done this?"

Yes. That could very well get you a warning from a moderator. Sad to say....

collaborative efforts

How are the following--all from Fraser:

donate their time
help think it through
provide ways to test the theory
spot weaknesses in their theory
recognize the genuinely original theory
help get it promoted
bringing in partners from the scientific community to help evaluate theories
scientists would be able to help look for evidence
the whole process could contribute to science
scientists and amateurs who understand the math and evidence can give her feedback
helping someone from the outside contribute to our understanding of the Universe
great ideas can come from anywhere
gives ATM theorists a genuine opportunity to get theor theories heard and assisted by working scientists.

... not descriptions of "collaborative efforts"?!?

"Collaborate: to work, one with another; cooperate, as on a literary or scientific work."

To say that Fraser was not trying to encourage scientific collaboration is Orwellian duckspeak. And to think that such collaboration is somehow undesirable defies common sense.

I suppose one could be forgiven, if English is not one's native tongue, to think that collaboration is what traitors do with the enemy. But that is wrong too: people who start ATM threads are not nor should they be treated as enemies. It is possible to challenge someone while at the same time help them to develop their ideas.

There is a wide variety of practising scientists out there and maybe some don't fit the forum that well.

Yes. There are amateur scientists, community college teachers, technicians who work in commercial labs, and then there are professional planetary scientists who are lead authors in Science. To think that the latter "variety" ought to be potentially penalized for doing what Fraser said was his "greatest hope" again defies the imagination. It doesn't even make sense.

free for all ... free pass to behave how we like ... we should change everything to suit everyone

You're jumping the shark now.

I think that the badgering and repetition in the ATM forum is too much. I don't like it and I post less there because of it.

There it is. You just proved my point. I'll add that the current setup makes for lousy reading as well.

[Shaula]

Yes. That could very well get you a warning from a moderator. Sad to say....

I disagree. I have praised components of ATM theories before, or the people themselves without any issues. I have asked if theories can be applied to gaps I can see in them. Not been infracted for any of it.

How are the following--all from Fraser:
... not descriptions of "collaborative efforts"?!?

They are not examples of collaboratively developing in a theory, which I thought it was fairly obvious I was talking about. They are all examples of providing feedback or resources (and the resources would better come from Q&A, not ATM).

As for the rest of the post - you seem to be acting as if there is only one scientist on the entire board. I know it doesn't fit your narrative but that is simply not true. Since every new post from you seems to hit new levels of breathless rhetoric I am going to stop trying to argue against you. Suffice to say I think your vision of what ATM 'should' or indeed 'could' be is completely at odds with the history of the forum and the posts in it.

Fun fact: I've actually offered to collaborate (via PM) with 2-3 people from ATM on their ideas. In every case what they actually wanted was someone to do all of the science and then give them the credit. I stopped offering after those attempts.

[Gigabyte]

I think this has been stated already, but yes, you can ask questions about some ATM that you have seen and want to know if it is feasible or not.

That's not what I asked about. I asked if the ideas could be discussed. Not promoted, defended or questioned, I asked about the specific claim made. "You can ask about it and discuss it in Q&A." Can we discuss ATM ideas outside of the ATM forum?

You cannot, however, start to defend the concept outside of ATM, then you will be thrown into the lion's pit :-)

That much has always been clear. That is not what I asked about.

"You can ask about it and discuss it in Q&A."
Is that true? We can discuss ATM concepts, ideas, whatever you call them, outside of the ATM forum?

Obviously no one is allowed to defend, argue or promote any ATM idea, but the claim was they could be discussed in Q&A, Is that true?

[Gigabyte]

It's an important issue. I was warned (or punished, I can't recall now) for just linking to a scientific graph, because it was hosted on a web page that was "a known denier" page, and told I should know better. I had no idea that simply looking at something, or linking to it could be a rule violation. (I do now of course)

Which brings us back to the important question, how can you know what is ATM and what is Mainstream? The clear message at the time was we are supposed to know in advance which is which. And toi not even bring up anything that is ATM, outside of the ATM forum.

Which is why I asked.

[Gigabyte]

A concrete example. And this is an example, please don't punish me for asking. The example is in quotes below.

The idea that there there are two tidal bulges always running around the worlds oceans is shown to be completely wrong by modern scientific data, but is that idea (the two bulges) considered mainstream or not?

Certainly it appears on government pages, NOAA, NASA and many educational pages. Is a discussion about this ATM or not?

Is that sort of thing allowed outside ATM?

Obviously the essential question is about the concept itself. If it's ATM, it's not allowed. If it's Mainstream it is allowed. Who decides?

Then there is the next question. If a Mod says it's ATM, can it still be discussed? Or is it now just one person allowed to defend, and nobody else can discuss it in the lone ATM thread, which is what would happen.

So the question has multiple parts.

The example is to allow for direct answers about an exact issue.

First, is the issue ATM or not?

Then, if it is considered ATM, who decides this?

Then, it it is ATM, can it be discussed in Q&A or not?

(edited to add)

And the most important issue of all. Would posting something like my example outside of ATM get a warning? I'm not making a claim, I am pointing out that many sources about ocean tideas are wrong, and newer data shows this clearly.

Which brings us back to the question, how do you know what is ATM or not?

[Solfe]

Then, if it is considered ATM, who decides this?

I would like to say all of us. It's when someone asserts something is real or fact when that isn't the case that makes a statement ATM. There are tons of grey areas.

My personal favorite grey area is the ever present "What about the science of Book or Movie X." Scientifically speaking, it is going to end in a nonsensical but interesting conversation. However, when someone dives into Q&A and starts giving comic book answers, obviously that needs to go to ATM. Movies and books should go in "Small Media at Large", but if someone is super specific, say the modeling of black holes as per Interstellar have an interest in math or of hardware or coding, that thread can go to a more specific area. Maybe it gets moved or not, but probably SMAL to Science and Tech over ATM. Depends on how the thread rolls.

[profloater]

A concrete example. And ......is ATM or not?

I like your tides example because I have often been compelled to comment on that old and wrong two bulges idea.

[Swift]

It's an important issue. I was warned (or punished, I can't recall now) for just linking to a scientific graph, because it was hosted on a web page that was "a known denier" page, and told I should know better. I had no idea that simply looking at something, or linking to it could be a rule violation. (I do now of course)

It was two and a half years ago and you didn't just link to something (a clearly AGW denier website) you made comments that indicated support for (or at least serious consideration of) the idea.