The nature of utterly pointless posts

[LotusExcelle]

I have noticed a regularly occurring theme recently.

1) Posts that are based on absurd, baseless notions that are then not supported by the OP.

2) Posts that are based on absurd, baseless notions. The OP then completely ignores any other posts in response and blindly charges forth with ever-increasingly odd posts that eventually aren't even on topic for their own thread.

3) The people becoming frustrated with this pattern are spoken to within the thread by the moderators and asked to *stay on topic*.

I do not intend to call out the moderators for #3 - I'm sure there is a reason it is handled that way. My issue is that little or no discipline is seen versus the OP. I believe these are threads with which the post/response rules apply yet I'm struggling to recall a time when the usual thread rules apply.

It is usually:
OP: I have a completely baseless, strawman-ridden statement, that for a lack of simple google searching I will burden this board with.

Response1: Here is a google link, it took me 1 minute to find the answer to your incorrect statement. Do some searching before you post.

OP: Here is another statement based on my first one. It is a continuation of something that was already incorrect. Instead of finding the answers on my own I'll blindly post some more, and even though people are spoon-feeding me answers and corrections I'll blatantly ignore them.

Response2: Could you please not do that? Here's another correction for you. Why don't you try searching?

OP: Speaking of which, here is something unrelated that I randomly thought about. I know I'm right because I thought of it. Its about chickens.

Response3: Chickens!? What?

OP: Now we are moving on to black holes.

Anyway. I'm venting and I apologize. But it really is frustrating. Why is the OP not disciplined for, at the very least, not sticking to his/her own topic?

[tashirosgt]

Many municipalities in the USA have outlawed keeping chickens in outdoor chicken coops. I think the main reason for this was the noise caused by roosters in the morning. Should the noise caused by a rooster be called "crowing"? It would seem more natural to restrict the meaning of "crowing" to the noise made by crows.

[LotusExcelle]

Chickens, which are allowed to be outside in every municipality in the US, can also be used to reach the moon, according to NASA and the TSA.

[Paul Beardsley]

What do you call a chicken in a shellsuit?

An egg!

[Swift]

I've moved this thread to Feedback, as that seems more appropriate than OTB.

Let's drop the chicken jokes, I think LotusExcelle has a serious concern.

[Swift]

Why is the OP not disciplined for, at the very least, not sticking to his/her own topic?

I can think of at least one member who did this several times, and recently got a 2 point infraction for it. But like many infractions, unless the infraction results in a suspension, or there is an additional public warning, other members may never know about the discipline.

[slang]

Can we stay on topic?

Black Whole Chickens, right?

I see your point though. I'm annoyed with posters who seem to treat the forum as a blog. Start a thread, with a question or opinion, a discussion ensues, but the OP is long gone and does not participate in the discussion at all, nor answers questions. Starts a new thread or two the next day anyway. I think it isn't against the rules, so it's hardly something to report. And I have to ask myself if I would be just as annoyed if it wasn't one person starting the threads, or if each thread was started by a different person. So is the problem me, or is it the posters?

[kleindoofy]

I have noticed a regularly occurring theme recently. ... Why is the OP not disciplined for, at the very least, not sticking to his/her own topic?

Yup, and humor seems to becoming a no-no here.

But, this is the internet, the land of "I have one more button than you and am therefore omniscient," so what are we to expect?

If things go along normal lines, it will get worse before it gets better.

[Swift]

Yup, and humor seems to becoming a no-no here.

But, this is the internet, the land of "I have one more button than you and am therefore omniscient," so what are we to expect?

If things go along normal lines, it will get worse before it gets better.

Are you referring to my moderation with that second line, because if you like, I can make things worse for you very quickly?

I'll remember to let the humor completely derail the next thread you start.

There are times for humor, and there are times for no humor; this is not the time for humor.

[LotusExcelle]

Can we stay on topic?

Black Whole Chickens, right?

I see your point though. I'm annoyed with posters who seem to treat the forum as a blog. Start a thread, with a question or opinion, a discussion ensues, but the OP is long gone and does not participate in the discussion at all, nor answers questions. Starts a new thread or two the next day anyway. I think it isn't against the rules, so it's hardly something to report. And I have to ask myself if I would be just as annoyed if it wasn't one person starting the threads, or if each thread was started by a different person. So is the problem me, or is it the posters?

I suppose this is a better summary of my thoughts. It is tantamount to spamming or flooding, in my opinion. Though the solution (one which I myself have yet to impose) is not to click on posts by offending members. If it is not within the moderators' functions to do something about it - and I believe it is not... and that it is RIGHT that way - then we responders and readers have to do some thinking before *believing* a response will have any effect. I've caught myself typing a response to certaint hings several times, and when it got down to clicking the post button I simply close my browser. The time wasted writing it is nothing compared to the time wasted trying to keep up with it.

[LotusExcelle]

Yup, and humor seems to becoming a no-no here.

But, this is the internet, the land of "I have one more button than you and am therefore omniscient," so what are we to expect?

If things go along normal lines, it will get worse before it gets better.

I disagree at least with the 'one more button' comment. I agree that cheeky humor is recently regarded as a no-no but humor is open to a rather wide range of interpretation. One person might actually snort-laugh at something another person is offended by. In regards to this thread I hope the feeling is at least light-hearted. We are not saving lives here - and the chicken comments were exactly on topic because it was an obvious acknowledgment of my complaint.

[LotusExcelle]

I can think of at least one member who did this several times, and recently got a 2 point infraction for it. But like many infractions, unless the infraction results in a suspension, or there is an additional public warning, other members may never know about the discipline.

The exact situation that prompted this thread is, I think, a good example. Users try to hold the OP on topic and become (I feel understandably) curt, or even acerbic after repeated stonewalling. There IS public discipline of these frustrated users but to my knowledge no public sign that the mods are disciplining the OP for anything. It is a sort of spiral of frustration.

[astromark]

It is not for the mod's to inform us of there actions.
They do seem to work behind the scene to keep this board a civil and descent place..
Its not my business. But I do agree with your point....
'The seagull approach.' Where the one timer drops in and asks a sometimes very complex question
and is never seen again...
or does come back to change the subject and thus derail his own thread... It is of some annoyance...
But I will not stop enjoying and participating in a 'little' humor. We are not machines...

[Swift]

The exact situation that prompted this thread is, I think, a good example. Users try to hold the OP on topic and become (I feel understandably) curt, or even acerbic after repeated stonewalling. There IS public discipline of these frustrated users but to my knowledge no public sign that the mods are disciplining the OP for anything. It is a sort of spiral of frustration.

I always feel it is a very delicate balance of moderation, I can not claim that I always get it right (or that there even is a "right"). Among the several things we have to balance is between the open give-and-take and banter of an Internet forum versus keeping threads on topic and between public and private moderation.

To this last point, with the thread I have in mind in my earlier example of the 2-point infraction, there was both public and private moderation. There were several public warnings, and a public closing of the thread, as well as more direct and specific moderation suggestions in the private infraction.

I think your earlier comments about how one responses to the threads that have the problem expressed in your OP are very good. To be honest, I think a lot of the inappropriate behavior seen on BAUT, such as the "wandering" behavior you talk about (I don't have a better name for it) is an attention-getting device. The best response may be to just ignore such threads. But unless as a moderator we have grounds to close such a thread, we can't mandate that members don't respond. And if we do close the thread, we may be cutting off legitimate discussion on a topic, they may be happening in spite of the OP's wanderings.

[korjik]

The exact situation that prompted this thread is, I think, a good example. Users try to hold the OP on topic and become (I feel understandably) curt, or even acerbic after repeated stonewalling. There IS public discipline of these frustrated users but to my knowledge no public sign that the mods are disciplining the OP for anything. It is a sort of spiral of frustration.

Unless you are in ATM or CT, you can stonewall all you want. There isnt a requirement to answer. If you are in ATM or CT, then stonewalling should be reported.

It is pretty simple, if you get an infraction for getting a bit curt, then you should have just reported the post. What I have noticed since the infraction system started is that the stonewallers start getting public warnings after about 2 pages of stonwalling, then start getting suspensions after about 6 pages. Of the 27 bannings on the last page of the bannings thread, 11 are for stonewalling (I am adding chinglu cause he gets testy when he gets called on his dodging). Posts 801 to 827 for those people who have different formatting.

If you think someone is stonewallng, then report it, and then have patience.

[slang]

I always feel it is a very delicate balance of moderation, I can not claim that I always get it right (or that there even is a "right"). Among the several things we have to balance is between the open give-and-take and banter of an Internet forum versus keeping threads on topic and between public and private moderation.

Right. The primary purpose for threads should always be to answer the question or discuss the topic. Sometimes the question is very straightforward, and soon answered. In my experience a bit of humor or wandering, within reason, after that point isn't considered very wrong. Sometimes a joke response can at the same time be thought provoking. Some topics simply require a joke response (How big is the universe? --> cue DNA's insightful answer), and if that joke doesn't lead to more off-topic/unwanted posting, it doesn't really derail. IMHO the mods overall seem to get the balance right between enforcing the topic and allowing for a bit light heartedness.

And if we do close the thread, we may be cutting off legitimate discussion on a topic, they may be happening in spite of the OP's wanderings.

Yes. Part of the annoyance with me is that if the OP abandons the thread without any further participation [s]he doesn't seem to care about the topic at all. And that seems to me to be disrespectful to the members who considered the thread and took the time to compose a reply. Well, at least to the serious replies (as especially in Babbling not all are).

It is pretty simple, if you get an infraction for getting a bit curt, then you should have just reported the post. [...]

If you think someone is stonewallng, then report it, and then have patience.

Both very good points. When composing a post in anger or annoyance, or on re-reading before hitting post (we all do that, right? ) it turns out to have become a post you wouldn't want directed at yourself, it's probably best not to reply, and maybe (after a bit of considering) invite moderator review instead. And don't get frustrated if mods don't seem to act. At least you did your part right, and didn't contribute to making a thread more difficult.

[Ara Pacis]

It's a big internet. If there's a post that doesn't bear responding to, then don't respond to it.

I respond to lots of threads, until I no longer feel interested. Even I have standards for BAUT-based Edutainment.

Just my $.02

[tashirosgt]

...for a lack of simple google searching I will burden this board with.

I have no expectation that posters will do research before they ask questions. To me the interchanges on the forum are like conversation. If I'm sitting around a table with some people and a question pops into my mind, I'll ask it. As to such posts "wasting people's time" -- it primarily wastes the time of persons who feel some perverse sense of duty compelling them to answering such posts. If I ask a question and get an answer of "Google is your friend" and some links to Wikpedia articles, I don't necessarily appreciate the cliche, but I do appreciate the links if the articles are concise and clear. If the articles aren't particularly clear then I always wonder if the person who provided the links really tried to read them. In ordinary conversation, people ask questions that they could answer by their own diligent research. They hope to have the more enjoyable and convenient experience of hearing an eloquent expert explain the answers.


The bautforum has an interesting culture. A major component of it has to do with setting up a atmosphere when parties with against-the-mainstream ideas are invited into arena where strict rules of debate are enforced. The sport in this arena is to refute (and sometimes browbeat) such cranks into oblivion. This sport doesn't interest me, but I understand that people who want to participate in it need sections of the forum where posts are expected to have an high degree of sobriety. I'd prefer that there be other sections of the forum that don't have the atmosphere of a debating society. It's best to clearly mark which sections belong to which culture. For example, is "What current technology will still be used 50 years from now?" a proper question for the Science and Technology section? Or does it belong in Off Topic Babbling? Or do the sections need some reorganization so that there is one Science and Technology section for sober, serious, researched topics and another one for more subjective chatter?

[Tostig]

The bautforum has an interesting culture.

"interesting" is not the first word I would have chosen, but I have to agree with you.

A major component of it has to do with setting up a atmosphere when parties with against-the-mainstream ideas are invited into arena where strict rules of debate are enforced. The sport in this arena is to refute (and sometimes browbeat) such cranks into oblivion.

I have been a lurker for well over a year, maybe more than two, I'm not sure, and I didn't join (until now) largely because I am turned off by this. Not because I mind seeing people who first heard about relativity at breakfast and have disproved it by lunch get massacred, but for the reason below.

I'd prefer that there be other sections of the forum that don't have the atmosphere of a debating society.

But there are. Have an ATM idea about nuclear fusion? Off to ATM you go. Have an ATM idea about history, law, the evolution of society, oil speculation, whatever, then you belong in OTB, where there is no requirement that you answer questions, provide evidence, or have the foggiest clue you know what you're talking about. You can even be one of the most brutal ATM police in the one forum, and the most wild-eyed "we don't need no stinkin' evidence" ATM proponent in the other.

So that's why I've been a lurker so long, I'm repulsed by that sort of behaviour. It's probably only a small percentage of the board that does this, but you tend to notice them; it only takes one screaming baby on an airplane to make for a miserable flight.

[Hernalt]

In ATM an admin advises an OP, "Argumentum ad URL (argument by link) is frowned upon here and cited sources should be peer reviewed or of similar quality."

Is there any kind of rigorously exampled spectrum of what does or does not trigger this frowning?
My naive impression of the moderator comment is that
1) a link to a peer-reviewed white paper would not be frowned upon (nominal)
2) a link to a peer-reviewed white paper with specific relevant quotation would be smiled upon (best)
3) a link to a .edu / .gov domain website might be frowned upon (least)
4) a link to a .edu / .gov domain website with specific relevant quotation would not be frowned upon (nominal)

Frowning precedes putting something in writing; I don't recall reading any writing on this in the terms of service. If a poster seeks to conserve ASCII, and thinks a simple link to an authorized source provides the necessary and sufficient means to kill the question, is there expectation that the poster add quotation of the specifically relevant part?

Edit add: Oops, forgetting established market engineering and science knowledge, that very well does not appear under .edu and .gov, because it is already so vetted and established that it flies our airplanes. Where does this fit in the spectrum of links, and what is the requirement for quotation?

[slang]

"Argumentum ad URL (argument by link)" is when an OP is asked a question about his theory, and he answers "Just read this" and a link to an 87 page PDF link follows, or a 40 post thread on another forum, or a large website. In other words: instead of answering the question, the OP just points to a mountain of text and leaves it to the questioner to read the entire mountain, hoping that the answer is indeed in there (often it isn't). This is what is frowned upon most.

It's different when OP gives a clear answer to the question, uses the same link as support, and precisely indicates where the supporting text is, preferably by quoting it. Peer-review in a respected journal would be nice, but in general there is no frowning if the OP at least gives a clear, coherent answer. Even a quote from a very bad paper or article may still help clarify the OP's answer, even if it's a wrong answer. In those cases where a credible source is required (ie prove that X is mainstream science) that can be handled at that time.

[HenrikOlsen]

The problem with arguing by link without a summary is that it far too often is a link to a paper where the abstract contains some keywords that looks relevant to the argument, but once someone takes the time to actually read the paper it becomes painfully obvious that not only didn't the ATM proponent read anything but the abstract, but also misunderstood it because the paper itself explicitly refutes what he's claiming.

The "in your own words please" advice is because it forces the ATM proponent to do the work.

Arguing in the form "What I'm saying is blah blah blah . . ., because so and so. For numbers backing up this assertion see <URL> tables 6 an 8", I expect would be completely acceptable, because the reference is then used in a way that doesn't force people to go and read it all when the proponent didn't.

The real problem comes when a URL or a list of URL's is use as the only answer to a question.

[Strange]

Have an ATM idea about nuclear fusion? Off to ATM you go. Have an ATM idea about history, law, the evolution of society, oil speculation, whatever, then you belong in OTB, where there is no requirement that you answer questions, provide evidence, or have the foggiest clue you know what you're talking about. You can even be one of the most brutal ATM police in the one forum, and the most wild-eyed "we don't need no stinkin' evidence" ATM proponent in the other.

Well, that's the difference between science and "stuff you talk about down the pub". One requires evidence (and has strict rules for how that evidence is gathered and used) and the other doesn't (so much). Criticize science and you have to play by science's rules.

Also, this is a science forum. History should be evidence based, even though there is a lot more scope for interpretation. You will be asked for evidence if you present some wild theory about history but it isn't enforced because it isn't central to the forum's purpose.

[Tostig]

Well, that's the difference between science and "stuff you talk about down the pub". One requires evidence (and has strict rules for how that evidence is gathered and used) and the other doesn't (so much).

In my line of work, I get asked for evidence for what I am saying on a daily basis, and if I don't have it, I'm in big trouble. And I assure you my office is not in a pub. (Ugh, I fear I must admit there is a pub in my building. But it's on a different floor.)

Criticize science and you have to play by science's rules.

The rules in other fields are not, "hey, we're just a bunch of people in a pub, say any nonsense you want!"

This is my BAUT dilemma. I'm interested in the science discussions, but when someone starts talking about what a genius he is because he told off some crank in ATM, and then promptly goes to OTB and starts his own crank discussion---it's just hard for me to filter that out sometimes. I know it's just a small proportion of the posters, but like I said before, one screaming baby on an airplane is all it takes

[Swift]

I know it's just a small proportion of the posters, but like I said before, one screaming baby on an airplane is all it takes

If that is your criteria for a good forum, there is not even one "screaming baby", then I fear you will never be happy with BAUT. We do what we can, but we're not that good or wise.

And from my experience as a moderator, when we do kick the screaming baby and its mom off the airplane, we get someone starting a thread in feedback about how unfair we are to moms and babies.

[Strange]

In my line of work, I get asked for evidence for what I am saying on a daily basis, and if I don't have it, I'm in big trouble. And I assure you my office is not in a pub. (Ugh, I fear I must admit there is a pub in my building. But it's on a different floor.)

I'm sure that if you went to a specialised history forum, you would be expected to provide evidence for any claims you made about that subject. But if you wanted to talk nonsense about science, they probably wouldn't care. This is a science forum, so here it is the other way round.

The rules in other fields are not, "hey, we're just a bunch of people in a pub, say any nonsense you want!"

As far as the rules of this forum is concerned, they are. And I know that's not the case in real life; I also work in an evidence-based industry.

I'm interested in the science discussions, but when someone starts talking about what a genius he is because he told off some crank in ATM, and then promptly goes to OTB and starts his own crank discussion

Well, it takes all sorts to make a forum. Not all them equally appealing! There is an "ignore" function but it is limited (it would be nice if it made it appear that the ignored person didn't even exist ).

[baric]

I would like to interject my thoughts on humor and threads going off-topic.

In my experience, the two biggest problems with most internet forums are profanity and ad hominems. BAUT moderators do an excellent job keeping the civility:incivility ratio very high.

The on-topicff-topic ratio is still important, but less so. An exception should be made for subforums with specific goals, such as Q&A and ATM, where moderation needs to be strong to ensure those forums serve their purpose.

For more conversational areas of the site, topic moderation should be relaxed. Many different subjects in astronomy are interrelated, making it difficult sometimes to stay directly on the OP's subject as a conversation evolves. In those cases, moderators have to make a judgment call about when to break off a thread into a new subject.

Humor should be ok as long as it is related to subject and not too racy. I freely admit that I have crossed this line once or twice in an attempt to be funny. I mean, c'mon.. it's hard to resist making a below-the-belt crack wherein Uranus is the butt of an occasional joke. I can't think of one right now but, if I did, look out below.

Actual thread derails where the subject veers out of astronomy and into waffles or cats should definitely draw a moderator warning. Repeat offenders should be infracted.

And yeah, no criticism of moderators in thread. That path leads to anarchy. We seem to have enough moderators so that power is not easily abused.

[Tostig]

If that is your criteria for a good forum, there is not even one "screaming baby", then I fear you will never be happy with BAUT. We do what we can, but we're not that good or wise.

And from my experience as a moderator, when we do kick the screaming baby and its mom off the airplane, we get someone starting a thread in feedback about how unfair we are to moms and babies.

I came to that conclusion regarding the board myself quite a while ago. But the rest, from my perspective at least, is not relevant - because the people who exhibit the type of behaviour I am describing don't get kicked off or sanctioned, as this behaviour doesn't seem to violate any rules or board norms.

I'm not asking that anything be done differently moderation-wise. I do feel though that if a very small handful of posters spent less time gloating about what geniuses they are for debunking some goofy theory in ATM, and more effort restraining their own goofy theories in ATM, it would be a good thing. Either they're willing to do that, or they're not, and everyone else will have to decide how they feel about that. The nature of a public board is you're liable to get all types, some people will like the mix, and some will not.

[Gillianren]

Not to mention that the mix changes. People come and go, and what one person thought was good won't remain. The thing which comes in its place may be better or worse, depending on who joins and who leaves.

[astromark]

Some of the more interesting and challenging ideas are often spoiled by the seagull posters or turned into a deep and meaningless discussion of the English language.
I trust a little tolerance and understanding could some times be more evident... The moderation team do for the most part play a important part of affectively controlling bad behavior... bravo ! ...
The resultant forums are a safe place for young inquisitive minds to learn and understand education.
The following is ( my opinion ) a good example of just this. The late William Shakespeare wrote of many things and is said to have added over 300 words to the English language. Some research into this was both interesting and informative. English is not my 'first' language and I often make stupid and silly errors...quickly making a denial of my age having any part of this... Unfortunately its mostly ignorance dyslexia and laziness...
That remark of the meanings of words and the way we use them is often challenging.. I wish to talk of a word that has been misused and its one of many. A child whom has a father unknown is in old English literature a language. That word was used and recognized in the courts of law across England as a proper and appropriated term... Usage has changed its meanings considerably. I have not and would not expect to see that word in this forum. It no longer is a comment regarding parenting. With a rolling of the eyes and a knowing smile I trust you can see what I have not said but meant.
It is with a feeling of unease that I have witnessed bullying and unfriendly banter. Controlling these open forums is not a light and easy task. It IS generally done very well. May a tolerance of different cultures and levels of understanding continue. After all we are all (mostly) trying to reach the same goal.. Suppression of ignorance. Ridding us of the bad astronomer ...its a noble goal...

PS. I see after posting the 'word' was deleted... fair enough... Thats understood as a program does not know better...
... Mark Lee.