Discussion on advertising, spam, banning etc

[R.A.F.]

[Moderator Note: this thread consists of posts discussing a particular BAUT's member's behaviour, not the content of the thread ("Nemesis: ** or what? (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=14571)"). I've split the thread because the content is more relevant to 'About BAUT' than 'Against the Mainstream'.]
Anything regarding his Nemesis idea or the supportive angular momentum evidence I ask about?

I wasn't addressing his Nemesis idea in my post...obviously...that's why I stated it was "off topic".


...since he apparently ignores the Campeche "debunking" are we to simply dismiss "nemesis" as well?

When an ATM idea is presented by any poster, it is entirely appropriate to determine what critical thinking "skills" were being employed by that poster. Previous "examples" indicating poor critical thinking skills are fair game IMO.

It also doesn't "help" that he is "appearently" posting in an attempt to sell his book.

[A.DIM]

I wasn't addressing his Nemesis idea in my post...obviously...that's why I stated it was "off topic".

When an ATM idea is presented by any poster, it is entirely appropriate to determine what critical thinking "skills" were being employed by that poster. Previous "examples" indicating poor critical thinking skills are fair game IMO.

Yeah, I see that tack alot: point out something "wrong" with an unrelated idea as if it begins to negate the topic at hand, but ok.


It also doesn't "help" that he is "appearently" posting in an attempt to sell his book.

I see it somewhat differently: He offered up his book, his research, to us as peers for review. I think it only prudent to examine his research before dismissing him as merely wanting to "sell his book."

[Wolverine]

To clarify, so everyone's on the same page: he was given opportunity to discuss his ideas -- Nereid specifically asked him to so, publicly and privately. The request was ignored.

The now-removed threads were not a "peer review" offering, but blatant attempts to advertise. Had he been interested in discussion rather than marketing he wouldn't have been banned this morning.

[R.A.F.]

Yeah, I see that tack alot: point out something "wrong" with an unrelated idea as if it begins to negate the topic at hand, but ok.

Unrelated or not, it's relevant to know just how andy processes information. In other words, examples of andy's credulousness are relevant.


I think it only prudent to examine his research before dismissing him as merely wanting to "sell his book."

I would have loved to examine his work...but he didn't present any...and now it's a moot point as he has been banned.

[A.DIM]

Unrelated or not, it's relevant to know just how andy processes information. In other words, examples of andy's credulousness are relevant.

OK, and now can you show me how his apparent unwillingness to acknolwedge the Campeche "debunking" bears on the Nemesis theory?


I would have loved to examine his work...but he didn't present any...and now it's a moot point as he has been banned.

So you'd "love" to examine it yet not outside BAUT?

[Moonrock]

Can I ask why Andy Lloyd was banned? The guy has not broken any rules that I can see? Or was it because he said he had just published a new book about Planet X?

As far as I can see the guy kept things on topic and to the point, in fact members here wanted him to answer some questions, obviously the admins here didnt want him to and I want to know why?

Surely a forum is for people to debate things. If your going to censor what they want to say then whats the point of Bad Astronomy?

Perhaps you think that people have all day to come onto your forums to debate space subjects? From what I can see Andy last posted just yesterday, hardly a point to ban him for not having replied in just 24 hours.

If the person running this site disagrees with advertising so much, why does he post film reviews?

I think that the admins here should reconsider their decision and let Andy come back and address the questions that the members here want him to answer.

[R.A.F.]

As far as I can see the guy kept things on topic and to the point...

Unfortunately the "point" was "debunk my book". The only way to do that would be to buy his book. If he would have started a thread stating "here are my ideas, debunk them", that would have been fine...but he didn't do that...


...in fact members here wanted him to answer some questions, obviously the admins here didnt want him to and I want to know why?

Interesting "characterization". Wrong, but interesting...

[Moonrock]

Andy has been debating his theory on this forum for a long time, his book is the culmination of his research and addresses many of the questions asked by people such as those who hang out here.

I have posted his reply that hes posted on his website in a new thread as obviously he cannot post it himself. Perhaps youll see things from his perspective after you've read it?

[Wolverine]

Can I ask why Andy Lloyd was banned?
Did you see my above post (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=622482&postcount=93)?


The guy has not broken any rules that I can see? Or was it because he said he had just published a new book about Planet X?
You're unable to see the two recent threads he began because they've been removed. They were removed because they were nothing more than attempts to promote his book. As stated in the forum rules (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=564845#post564845):

6. Advertising, Solicitation, and Spam

Do not post advertisements of any kind without securing the express consent of the administrators beforehand. Do not use this bulletin board as a vehicle to promote your own website, product, or forum, nor to sell merchandise. These are egregious offenses which will result in the deletion of the offending posts and banning of the user(s) responsible.

The above protocol was followed, to the letter. As noted above, andy lloyd was not only invited to discuss his ideas, but was directly asked to do so (by a moderator). He was also warned not to use this forum solely as a means to promote his book. He chose to ignore both requests.



As far as I can see the guy kept things on topic and to the point, in fact members here wanted him to answer some questions, obviously the admins here didnt want him to and I want to know why?

See above.


Surely a forum is for people to debate things. If your going to censor what they want to say then whats the point of Bad Astronomy?
We welcome discussion and debate. The only thing censored in this instance was the individual's self-promotion, which is forbidden by the FAQ.


Perhaps you think that people have all day to come onto your forums to debate space subjects? From what I can see Andy last posted just yesterday, hardly a point to ban him for not having replied in just 24 hours.
People who come here are required to answer direct questions in a timely fashion. This also is clearly expressed in the forum rules (see #14: Alternative Concepts). andy lloyd's first thread advertising his book was posted 08-December-2005, 22:36 (GMT); immediately afterward he was warned about our no-advertising rule and invited (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=621004&postcount=83) by Nereid to begin a discussion (Nereid also contacted him via PM). andy lloyd returned yesterday to post a second thread advertising his book at 10-December-2005, 14:22 (GMT) -- that's an ample amount of time to acknowledge the promptings of a moderator. He clearly had the time to come here to promote his book, but apparently wasn't interested in a discussion. In accordance with the forum rules, he was then banned.


If the person running this site disagrees with advertising so much, why does he post film reviews?
Reviewing science fiction films isn't advertising. Phil Plait posts movie reviews on www.badastronomy.com (http://www.badastronomy.com) to address bad astronomy and bad science, as he notes there (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/movies/index.html):


That's why I have these Bad Movies pages. The movies may not be bad, but sometimes the science is. I know they are fiction, so I try not to take them too seriously. My philosophy is: these movies have made an impression, and if it's wrong, at least I can use that impression to teach Good Astronomy. Sure, they're fiction, but why not use that fiction to show some fact?

I think that the admins here should reconsider their decision and let Andy come back and address the questions that the members here want him to answer.
He had that opportunity, and did not take advantage of it. I think you may have composed your post without all the facts at your disposal. However, if after reading this you still wish to appeal the decision, you're welcome to contact the forum administrators. That option is also specified in the FAQ.

[Moonrock]

Well thankyou for your quick reply. But to put you in the picture, I personally know Andy and know that his time on the internet is at a premium due to his busy schedule. Just because he didnt have the opportunity to address questions within 24 hours should not be a reason for his ban. In the other post I wrote which included his reply you said that the person being quoted should post it himself, so Im asking how do you suggest he does this if hes banned?

Ok, lets forget about the movie reviews, what about all the other adverts on this site? And I believe that Andy wasn't blatantly advertising his book anyway, if he was wouldnt he have just posted a link to Amazon?

Whats the difference between him asking to debate Planet X and the theories in his book when compared to the constant linking to Clavius by many people here?

[R.A.F.]

I have posted his reply that hes posted on his website in a new thread as obviously he cannot post it himself. Perhaps youll see things from his perspective after you've read it?

I've read it, and my opinion hasn't changed at all. He wants us to debunk his book. If he had wanted to debate the ideas presented in his book, and had presented those ideas here, that would have been fine.

But I am not going to buy his book simply for the purpose of debating him.

...and I find it very hard to believe that he couldn't "anticipate" the reaction he would receive after posting (what was essentially) an "advertisement" for his book...

[ToSeek]

Ok, lets forget about the movie reviews, what about all the other adverts on this site? And I believe that Andy wasn't blatantly advertising his book anyway, if he was wouldnt he have just posted a link to Amazon?

The other ads on this site are an entirely separate matter as the revenue from them goes to support this site's continued operation, i.e., there are here to and for the benefit of this site. Someone coming on board and using this site for their own benefit is another matter entirely.

(Personally, I think that if Andy had asked permission to post information about his book - as is specifically stated in the rules regarding proposed advertising - that it would have been granted. However, repeatedly promoting it while being repeatedly warned not to is inappropriate and merited the banning.)

[Moonrock]

I've read it, and my opinion hasn't changed at all. He wants us to debunk his book. If he had wanted to debate the ideas presented in his book, and had presented those ideas here, that would have been fine.

But I am not going to buy his book simply for the purpose of debating him.

But did he have the opportunity to post anything from his book and if he did would he then be accused of just trying to create publicity for it?

As I said earlier, why is Clavius links allowed and others not?

[Wolverine]

The other ads on this site are an entirely separate matter as the revenue from them goes to support this site's continued operation, i.e., there are here to and for the benefit of this site. Someone coming on board and using this site for their own benefit is another matter entirely.
Moreover, Fraser has openly invited people (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=551988&postcount=18) to install Firefox (http://www.mozilla.com/) & Adblock, which does away with the adverts.


But to put you in the picture, I personally know Andy and know that his time on the internet is at a premium due to his busy schedule. Just because he didnt have the opportunity to address questions within 24 hours should not be a reason for his ban.
He certainly had the time to return here and promote his book. Why didn't he have time to discuss what he was invited to?


Whats the difference between him asking to debate Planet X and the theories in his book when compared to the constant linking to Clavius by many people here?
Clavius is a wonderful resource which debunks errant claims about the Apollo missions. Its author and webmaster, JayUtah, has participated here since the forum's inception. Neither Jay nor his site attempt to use this forum as a means of selling products. Linking to the Clavius site is no different than linking to an encyclopedia.

[R.A.F.]

Whats the difference between him asking to debate Planet X and the theories in his book...

But that's not what happened, is it. He posted "debunk my book"...he did not say "here are the ideas I've wrote about, lets debate them". There is a big difference.

And if as you say...


...I personally know Andy and know that his time on the internet is at a premium due to his busy schedule.

...he doesn't have the time to spend either presenting or defending his ideas, then what was the purpose of his post?


...when compared to the constant linking to Clavius by many people here?

The webmaster from Clavius makes the time to come here...

[Wolverine]

In the other post I wrote which included his reply you said that the person being quoted should post it himself, so Im asking how do you suggest he does this if hes banned?

I forgot to include the above in my previous post. Both administrators' e-mails are readily available to the public.

[R.A.F.]

...why is Clavius links allowed and others not?

The only thing that JayUtah is "selling" is knowledge...and he offers it for free...

[A.DIM]

What gets me about this whole thing is that Andy surely knew the denizens of BAUT aren't really the "audience" for buying his book, so I find it difficult to believe his motives were "marketing" as alleged.

[Moonrock]

Im absolutely certain that Andy would have answered any questions about his site or even his book if anyone has it. To ban him for posting a link to his site is very harsh.

Considering that the book answers questions posed by some of the posters on this site then surely he should be given the right to let those people know that he has worked on their questions and answered them in his book?

How else was he supposed to let them know?

Also consider that there is a thread in this forum that has been running for 18 months that talks about his site. Now why, if the admins here do not allow links to other sites has this topic been on BA for so long? Or what about if somebody else started posting about a persons book or website? Is it ok to link to websites or books if your not associated with it?

Big deal so he told everyone that he has a new book out, we are all adult enough to decide whether we will buy it or not surely?

[Wolverine]

Im absolutely certain that Andy would have answered any questions about his site or even his book if anyone has it.
The record indicates otherwise.


To ban him for posting a link to his site is very harsh.
As has been previously explained, he was not banned for posting a link. He was banned for using this forum as a vehicle to advertise his book after being warned not to do so by the forum staff.


Considering that the book answers questions posed by some of the posters on this site then surely he should be given the right to let those people know that he has worked on their questions and answered them in his book?
His post here (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=620946&postcount=82) vaguely hints at that. Nereid's post (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=621004&postcount=83) immediately afterward requested him to elaborate. ToSeek and Nereid both sent him warnings privately not to advertise his book, and requested that he acknowledge both the forum rules as well as the warnings in addition to asking him to discuss the subject. He did not comply, and subsequently posted another thread in a different section of the forum nearly identical to the first which prompted the warnings in the first place.


How else was he supposed to let them know?
He could have followed the invitation to discuss his book rather than merely advertising it.


Also consider that there is a thread in this forum that has been running for 18 months that talks about his site.
Curious then, that in all that time he never chose to offer much about his ideas or his book, other than to attempt shoehorning the then-recent discovery of Sedna into the topic.


Now why, if the admins here do not allow links to other sites has this topic been on BA for so long?
As has already been stated, links to other sites are allowed. It should be noted that andy lloyd retreated from the previous discussion as well. However, his previous participation did not attempt to market his book here.


Or what about if somebody else started posting about a persons book or website? Is it ok to link to websites or books if your not associated with it?
We have discussed numerous books and websites here. You seem to be missing the point entirely. Please review my posts on this thread.


Big deal so he told everyone that he has a new book out, we are all adult enough to decide whether we will buy it or not surely?
Of course. And, certainly he was adult enough to abide by this discussion board's rules. Unfortunately, that did not happen.

[Wolverine]

What gets me about this whole thing is that Andy surely knew the denizens of BAUT aren't really the "audience" for buying his book, so I find it difficult to believe his motives were "marketing" as alleged.

His behavior here indicated precisely the opposite, whether or not you find that difficult to believe.

[R.A.F.]

Well, I've been to andy's forum and read his "opinion" posted there...

He certainly is responding in the "usual" way..."they can't handle the truth, so they banned me" kinda thing...

It's almost as if he had planned to be banned so he could go back to his forum and "crow" about it...but of course that's just my personal opinion.

[A.DIM]

His behavior here indicated precisely the opposite, whether or not you find that difficult to believe.

Fine.
I can certainly see his last post in this thread as well as the thread he started as "advertising" his book, but very much doubt he actually thought he'd sell his book to anyone here.

[A.DIM]

Well, I've been to andy's forum and read his "opinion" posted there...

He certainly is responding in the "usual" way..."they can't handle the truth, so they banned me" kinda thing...

It's almost as if he had planned to be banned so he could go back to his forum and "crow" about it...but of course that's just my personal opinion.

Well, I read it too, but saw nothing remotely like a "they can't handle the truth, so they banned me kinda thing" kinda thing.

To the contrary, he acknowledges the "help" he received from skeptics here before the book was published. He explained why he felt he needed to present the book to BAUT (though, I think he erred by not asking permission first).

But I suppose it just boils down to one's perception, no?

You see, RAF, I viewed your "obvious" off topic "point" re: the campeche "debunking" as being in violation of Rule #2 Decorum and Civility.
Attacking the person first before the topic is considered. I could only find it a relevant argument if discussion of the topic at hand exposed his unwillingness to acknowledge contrary evidence to his ideas.

I suppose this could be an overly strict interpretation of the Rules, but hey... I'm not a Mod.



Back on topic, then?

Anyone with a more reasonable answer to the angular momentum evidence put forth by BRI?

[Nereid]

It might be an idea to read what the BAUT rules (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=32864) actually say (my bold):
6. Advertising, Solicitation, and Spam

Do not post advertisements of any kind without securing the express consent of the administrators beforehand. Do not use this bulletin board as a vehicle to promote your own website, product, or forum, nor to sell merchandise. These are egregious offenses which will result in the deletion of the offending posts and banning of the user(s) responsible. Do not submit threads/posts containing identical text in multiple forum categories; that's considered spamming the board, and likewise will be dealt with accordingly.

You can put a website in your signature if you wish, but please think carefully before you do so. If you have any doubts that it may break one of these rules, contact a moderator or administrator first.If we were to review andy's posts, and the reactions to them, how do you think his actions would seem (in the light of the clearly stated rules)?

[R.A.F.]

Well, I read it too, but saw nothing remotely like a "they can't handle the truth, so they banned me kinda thing" kinda thing.

Well then...how would you characterize the following?...


It goes to show; if you actually come up with some material that causes these sceptics a head-ache, they just cop out and kick you off.
...snip...
Could it be that I've finally got them running scared?


Attacking the person first before the topic is considered.

No, I was considering how he used information when evaluating ATM ideas...I wanted to know how he thinks.


edited to add...WOW that was freaky...the thread got split while I was posting to it...:lol:

[A.DIM]

I think this thread should've begun with post #91 from the other.

[Wolverine]

You see, RAF, I viewed your "obvious" off topic "point" re: the campeche "debunking" as being in violation of Rule #2 Decorum and Civility.

Attacking the person first before the topic is considered. I could only find it a relevant argument if discussion of the topic at hand exposed his unwillingness to acknowledge contrary evidence to his ideas.
The evaluative example concerning Campeche is not a personal attack, nor a civility & decorum violation. Analysis of one's methodology can be not only insightful, but also serve as an indicator toward gauging commentary they offer on other topics. R.A.F. makes a valid point in that regard.

I do partly agree with you however, A.DIM. It would be imprudent to arbitrarily dismiss unrelated ideas as invalid based upon flaws in a separate commentary. Not that I subscribe to any Nemesis or Dark Star hypothesis, mind you, but in the interest of fairness, ideas should be judged based upon their own merits or shortcomings, not those of other works.

[Wolverine]

I was considering how he used information when evaluating ATM ideas...I wanted to know how he thinks.

That strikes me as perfectly reasonable.

[A.DIM]

It might be an idea to read what the BAUT rules (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=32864) actually say (my bold):
If we were to review andy's posts, and the reactions to them, how do you think his actions would seem (in the light of the clearly stated rules)?

As "advertising," just I said before.
I very much agree he should've asked permission, but why not just suspend him first for the infraction, and send a serious message while also allowing him to return to defend his ideas?

My point is that Andy had posted only a handful of times prior and is clearly recognized as being the "darkstar" "nemesis" guy around here (well, BA moreso). He'd obviously been working on his book and now returned to see what we have to say.

I just think banning was over the top in this instance.

[Wolverine]

I just think banning was over the top in this instance.

The rule concerning advertising is strict, much like the section concerning copyright issues. They are also strictly enforced.

[R.A.F.]

It would be imprudent to arbitrarily dismiss unrelated ideas as invalid based upon flaws in a separate commentary.

I agree, and I can see why A.DIM would think that I was "going there". In that particular post I was only pointing out andy's credulousness and the cosmic Dave "connection".

But in my defense :) I contend that it would be impossible for me to dismiss andy's claims (for whatever reason) because (in recent history) he hasn't made any claims...he simply said "debunk my book".

[Nereid]

I think this thread should've begun with post #91 from the other.Good point; done.

[Moonrock]

Can I ask how these warning to Andy from the admins were sent? Was it a PM and if so does a separate window pop up when you enter this site to say that you have one?

If not, then unless you check your mail, how would you know you had a PM? Also, how many times do people really read forum rules? I am a member of many and dont read any rules because as long as Im on topic, not offending anyone and making a good contribution to the topic then I cant see how I would be breaking any rules.

Now onto answer a few questions from above


Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonrock
Im absolutely certain that Andy would have answered any questions about his site or even his book if anyone has it.


The record indicates otherwise.

But I think you jumped the gun. Just because the guy doesnt answer a question within 24 hours does not mean that the question will not be answered. You say that he should have replied but perhaps you forget to remember how big a forum this is and that sometimes its hard to navigate to those questions asked?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonrock
To ban him for posting a link to his site is very harsh.


As has been previously explained, he was not banned for posting a link. He was banned for using this forum as a vehicle to advertise his book after being warned not to do so by the forum staff.

As I said above, how was this warning sent?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonrock
Considering that the book answers questions posed by some of the posters on this site then surely he should be given the right to let those people know that he has worked on their questions and answered them in his book?


His post here vaguely hints at that. Nereid's post immediately afterward requested him to elaborate. ToSeek and Nereid both sent him warnings privately not to advertise his book, and requested that he acknowledge both the forum rules as well as the warnings in addition to asking him to discuss the subject. He did not comply, and subsequently posted another thread in a different section of the forum nearly identical to the first which prompted the warnings in the first place.

You mean he did not reply within just a few hours. Hes a busy man and as I say, if he didnt read your warning if it was in a PM message then I can see why he would make another post. Do you seriously think that he would ignore your requests just to repeat that he had a book out?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonrock
How else was he supposed to let them know?


He could have followed the invitation to discuss his book rather than merely advertising it.

See above.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonrock
Also consider that there is a thread in this forum that has been running for 18 months that talks about his site.


Curious then, that in all that time he never chose to offer much about his ideas or his book, other than to attempt shoehorning the then-recent discovery of Sedna into the topic.

Thats because his book has only just been published within the past month. How could he discuss ideas in his book if it wasnt even published? Most of the ideas are already on his website anyway.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonrock
Now why, if the admins here do not allow links to other sites has this topic been on BA for so long?


As has already been stated, links to other sites are allowed. It should be noted that andy lloyd retreated from the previous discussion as well. However, his previous participation did not attempt to market his book here.

Thats because his book has only recently been published. The only reason he came here was to announce that the questions answered on these forums are answered in the book that he has been working on for the past 4 years. Now then, lets turn the tables and ask that if Jim Oberg came here and said 'guys, that Apollo hoax book Ive been writing is finally out', would you ban Oberg as well?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonrock
Big deal so he told everyone that he has a new book out, we are all adult enough to decide whether we will buy it or not surely?



Of course. And, certainly he was adult enough to abide by this discussion board's rules. Unfortunately, that did not happen.

If he read them. Most forum rules are the same as the next.

As far as the Campeche incident goes, Im not sure what you've heard as an explanation, but needless to say its probably the US Military trying to cover things up yet again. I would recommend reading this article on Rense.com (http://www.rense.com/general53/scsi.htm) and also finish by saying that most of the military personnel involved were demoted after this incident, even ranks as high as majors and generals.

[R.A.F.]

...how many times do people really read forum rules? I am a member of many and dont read any rules because as long as Im on topic, not offending anyone and making a good contribution to the topic then I cant see how I would be breaking any rules.

How could you "possibily" know you're not breaking any rules if you haven't read them??? Sheesh...


Do you seriously think that he would ignore your requests just to repeat that he had a book out?

Well, since you asked...yes, yes I do think that.


How could he discuss ideas in his book if it wasnt even published?

I would assume that he was familiar with the book he wrote...right?


The only reason he came here was to announce that the questions answered on these forums are answered in the book that he has been working on for the past 4 years.

Then why didn't he simply present those answers so they could be addressed??


...lets turn the tables and ask that if Jim Oberg came here and said 'guys, that Apollo hoax book Ive been writing is finally out', would you ban Oberg as well?

I'm sure that Mr. Oberg is very familiar with the rules of this board...and he would have asked first.


Most forum rules are the same as the next.

This is really not a good argument for you.

[Moonrock]

I am a member of many forums as I said, some of which have several thousand members. This is the first forum Ive ever visited where you have to ask permission to post a link.

[R.A.F.]

This is the first forum Ive ever visited where you have to ask permission to post a link.

HUH!!?? You know that is a "mischaracterization"...why would you post that??

[Fraser]

If Jim Oberg came onto this forum and replied to several posts that his latest book answered many questions about the Space Shuttle disaster, and people should hurry over to his website and check it out, he'd get a warning from the mods, and a ban if he kept it up. I'm watching you Oberg...

What Wolverine and others are trying to get across, but still doesn't seem to be sinking in is the following:

BAUT forum costs me and Phil money to operate every month. We use advertising on the site to help cover these costs. If you come here to promote your book, product, or pet theory, you're overstaying your welcome, and we'll ask you nicely to cut it out. This forum doesn't exist to give you free marketing. It exists to let people talk about space, astronomy and skepticism.

What is marketing? It's hard to define, but we know it when we see it. If you join the forum, and the first thing you post is a link back to your website or product... that's marketing. Make the same post after you've done 1,000 posts on a variety of topics and we'd love to hear about other projects you're working on.

See the difference?

We read your posts and judge why you've joined the forum. If your purpose seems to be marketing, we'll give you a warning so you can clean up your act. Keep it up and we lower the boom.

[Wolverine]

Can I ask how these warning to Andy from the admins were sent? Was it a PM and if so does a separate window pop up when you enter this site to say that you have one?
They were sent via PM, and a pop-up notifier window does appear if the member has that option enabled in their User CP.


If not, then unless you check your mail, how would you know you had a PM?
E-mails being dispatched upon PM receipt are another option available in the User CP. Aside from that, the forum displays that you have new private messages at the upper-right hand side of the window. Even if a user has all the PM notification options disabled, it's still readily apparent when new private messages have arrived.


Also, how many times do people really read forum rules?
Users have the responsibility of familiarizing themselves with the forum rules (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=564845#post564845) -- this is expected of everyone. Should a rule violation occur, the first thing we moderators and admins do is direct a member to those rules to ensure they review and abide by them. In andy lloyd's case, this was done both publicly (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=621004&postcount=83) and privately. As a result, ignorance cannot be pleaded in this instance.


I am a member of many and dont read any rules because as long as Im on topic, not offending anyone and making a good contribution to the topic then I cant see how I would be breaking any rules.
Other fora are totally irrelevant in this case. If you recall, I had to edit one of your posts (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=35821) and lock the discussion because it violated the forum rules. Had you reviewed and followed those rules, I wouldn't have had to invervene.


But I think you jumped the gun. Just because the guy doesnt answer a question within 24 hours does not mean that the question will not be answered. You say that he should have replied but perhaps you forget to remember how big a forum this is and that sometimes its hard to navigate to those questions asked?
It's not difficult at all to navigate the forum, particularly to find discussions where you've already participated. Your above hypothetical is not an excuse.


As I said above, how was this warning sent?
See above.


You mean he did not reply within just a few hours. Hes a busy man and as I say, if he didnt read your warning if it was in a PM message then I can see why he would make another post. Do you seriously think that he would ignore your requests just to repeat that he had a book out?
He certainly had the time to come here and post, so he wasn't that busy was he? If he didn't read the rules, posts, private messages, and warnings issued by the moderators, that's his fault. Not ours. Even if he had completely ignored every attempt to address and contact him, surely he could have seen that his earlier thread had been removed. That should have sent a clear signal in and of itself.


Thats because his book has only just been published within the past month. How could he discuss ideas in his book if it wasnt even published? Most of the ideas are already on his website anyway.
Well, it's certainly published now. We requested that he discuss his book. He made no effort to do so.


Thats because his book has only recently been published. The only reason he came here was to announce that the questions answered on these forums are answered in the book that he has been working on for the past 4 years. Now then, lets turn the tables and ask that if Jim Oberg came here and said 'guys, that Apollo hoax book Ive been writing is finally out', would you ban Oberg as well?
James Oberg (http://www.bautforum.com/member.php?u=956) is a registered member on this forum. I seriously doubt he would attempt to advertise here without the consent of the administrators. In the unlikely event that he did, he too would be made aware of the forum rules in the same fashion andy lloyd was.


If he read them. Most forum rules are the same as the next.
If he didn't, it's certainly not our fault for that, now, is it?


As far as the Campeche incident goes, Im not sure what you've heard as an explanation, but needless to say its probably the US Military trying to cover things up yet again.
Your assertion is not supported by evidence. See here (http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-09/campeche.html) (more here (http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/archives/2004/04-07-24.html)).

[Wolverine]

This is the first forum Ive ever visited where you have to ask permission to post a link.

Your statement is inaccurate, and has already been addressed in this discussion.

I reiterate: permission is not required to post a URL. Permission is required to advertise on this forum. There is a marked distinction between the two.

[Moose]

I have to wonder, Moonrock, if you and your buddy Andy similarly tried to stiff the publisher.

Because that's basically what's happened here. Andy tried to get free advertizing off of Phil and Fraser's bandwidth. He was stopped, and you're complaining about it.

Moonrock, here's some free advice, and pay attention: Send. Google. Money.

Google's ad department will be happy to add Andy's book to the advert rotation (in exchange for money), and it'll appear all over the BAUT along with the other paying advertizers who are happy to know that Phil and Fraser will be sure to get their cut of the revenue.

Or, you can negociate a deal with Phil and Fraser directly to have an ad or two placed on the BAUT. Again, expect that you will need to send them money. Don't skip that part, it's important. Money keeps the board going and our admin happy.

You see, we like our admin happy. Yes we do.

[Moonrock]

Hehe, sorry but I have to laugh at this point. You guys really think that anybody would pay to advertise a book on a site that disagrees with its contents? Andy didnt actually come here to sell his book anyway. He came here to start discussing its contents which includes answers to questions asked in the 7 page thread about his website 'The Dark Star Theory'.

Ok, to put you all in the picture, Ive just come off the phone to Andy and here is what he had to say.

Firstly he did not read any warnings about posting about his book. As the moderator stated above, unless you have PM pop up enabled in your account preferences you will not see any PM warnings.

So that leads me to ask the question, if your warning was sent by PM and he didnt enable the pop up window so therefore would obviously not notice he had a private message - what is your reason for banning him?

Andy tells me that he posted on here and then returned 4 hours later to see what the response to his post was and found immediately that he had been banned for life. He had read no warning either by Email (which is the usual way of contacting members of a forum). Some way to run an apparently free speech forum huh?


Quote from Fraser:If Jim Oberg came onto this forum and replied to several posts that his latest book answered many questions about the Space Shuttle disaster, and people should hurry over to his website and check it out, he'd get a warning from the mods, and a ban if he kept it up. I'm watching you Oberg...

What Wolverine and others are trying to get across, but still doesn't seem to be sinking in is the following:

BAUT forum costs me and Phil money to operate every month. We use advertising on the site to help cover these costs. If you come here to promote your book, product, or pet theory, you're overstaying your welcome, and we'll ask you nicely to cut it out. This forum doesn't exist to give you free marketing. It exists to let people talk about space, astronomy and skepticism.

What is marketing? It's hard to define, but we know it when we see it. If you join the forum, and the first thing you post is a link back to your website or product... that's marketing. Make the same post after you've done 1,000 posts on a variety of topics and we'd love to hear about other projects you're working on.

See the difference?

We read your posts and judge why you've joined the forum. If your purpose seems to be marketing, we'll give you a warning so you can clean up your act. Keep it up and we lower the boom.

Perhaps before you fall over each other to ban a person whos theory you dont agree with you could actually go and check to see exactly when that person joined your forum? It was in March 2004, so your assumption that he came on here solely to plug his new book is wrong. You'll also notice that even back then he would reply to questions in a thread about his website usually after a couple of days. As I said, hes a busy man, not everyone has the time to stay online 24/7.

Its hard to understand what your hang up is with posting a link to a book or material that the participants in this forum would find interesting? Indeed, a subject that theyve been specifically talking about for the past 18 months. IF we didnt share knowledge then how would so many people be worldly wise?


Users have the responsibility of familiarizing themselves with the forum rules -- this is expected of everyone. Should a rule violation occur, the first thing we moderators and admins do is direct a member to those rules to ensure they review and abide by them. In andy lloyd's case, this was done both publicly and privately. As a result, ignorance cannot be pleaded in this instance.

Well according to Andy, he wrote his posts and returned 4 hours later to find he was banned. If you send a message that he isnt aware of (unless he looks in the top right hand corner of this forum - and what is the likelyhood of that when your looking at the general forum and not a toolbar?) and then warn him in a thread and decide to ban him even before you have had his response, how do you consider that fair?


Other fora are totally irrelevant in this case. If you recall, I had to edit one of your posts and lock the discussion because it violated the forum rules. Had you reviewed and followed those rules, I wouldn't have had to invervene.

Would that be the post where I posted Andy's reply from his website? The very same one that you said that I couldnt use large quotes from other posters who should be doing it themselves? Well he cant because you've banned him. And the reason why you deleted and locked the post is because your forum likes to dictate what its readers should read. Its very obvious that if you dont agree with something in this forum then you either delete it or ban the contributor. So may I ask whats the point of this forum if it isnt for debate?


He certainly had the time to come here and post, so he wasn't that busy was he? If he didn't read the rules, posts, private messages, and warnings issued by the moderators, that's his fault. Not ours. Even if he had completely ignored every attempt to address and contact him, surely he could have seen that his earlier thread had been removed. That should have sent a clear signal in and of itself.

So you expect a member to return here within a couple of hours purely so that it keeps you happy and the debate alive? I dont know what World you live in buddy but we dont spend all our time in front of our monitors. If your system doesnt make it apparent that you have a PM when you log onto the site then that is the fault of the system that you are using. Dont blame the contributors here for that. PHP forums have this feature I have set up plenty of my own forums in the past which have this feature built in. As stated earlier he didnt return here for 4 hours so he wouldnt have seen his original post had been removed would he? In fact because of his ban he cant see anything - go figure.


Well, it's certainly published now. We requested that he discuss his book. He made no effort to do so.

What part of plain English do you not understand? You gave him 4 hours to discuss his book - he wasnt online - you banned him. Nice!!!



Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonrock
As far as the Campeche incident goes, Im not sure what you've heard as an explanation, but needless to say its probably the US Military trying to cover things up yet again.

Your assertion is not supported by evidence. See here (more here).

So you seriously believe that military pilots who have flown over this area on numerous occasions, and after a full Mexican military investigation, that they didnt know about the oil platforms? The sceptics view of other lights in the footage that can not be the oil platforms must be either other aircraft or reflections from sandbanks or metal structures. That sounds a really scientific explanation if ever I heard one... hmmm

[SciFi Chick]

Moonrock - I find it fascinating that you think it's perfectly okay to not read the rules, not read any notices from the moderators, and then complain when your friend is banned. I know you'd like to think censorship is what has happened here, but you are mistaken.

[Wolverine]

Ok, to put you all in the picture, Ive just come off the phone to Andy and here is what he had to say.
Did I not already warn you (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=623099#post623099) not to post here on behalf of others?


Some way to run an apparently free speech forum huh?
This is not a "free speech" forum. There are numerous limitations as expressed in the forum rules.


Perhaps before you fall over each other to ban a person whos theory you dont agree with you could actually go and check to see exactly when that person joined your forum?
How do you know if anyone agrees or disagrees with his ideas when he never enumerated them?


As I said, hes a busy man, not everyone has the time to stay online 24/7.
And as I said, that's not our responsibility.


Its hard to understand what your hang up is with posting a link to a book or material that the participants in this forum would find interesting? Indeed, a subject that theyve been specifically talking about for the past 18 months. IF we didnt share knowledge then how would so many people be worldly wise?
What transpired here had nothing to do with the material itself. We've clearly described every step leading up to the ban, openly and honestly.

Moonrock, your objections have been duly noted. Our position has been made clear. That concludes this discussion.