Over moderation

[tommac]

Uggg ... still ... why do the mods here insist on over moderating everything.
This is the typical scenario:

1) Question is asked
2) Other member posts random replies that really has nothing to do with OP
3) OP questions relevance
4) thread closed for random reason

[korjik]

Uggg ... still ... why does Tommac insist that everything is overmoderation.
This is the typical scenario:

1) Question asked
2) Tommac starts advocating ATM position
3) Moderator closes thread
4) Tommac starts thread complaining about overmoderation

[tommac]

What ATM position? There is no ATM position ... and off topic post was posted to the thread ... and then the thread was closed.

Typical of the way this site is mismanaged.

[Hornblower]

If anything I think the moderators exercised plenty of restraint in letting that thread go as long as it did.

[Noclevername]

Typical of the way this site is mismanaged.

There's plenty of internet to visit if things here are not to your liking.

[BetaDust]

Typical of the way this site is mismanaged.

... Did you take a look at your forum's, before you made that statement?

[antoniseb]

... Typical of the way this site is mismanaged.

Fortunately for you, there is this guy name tommac who, on every post, posts links to other forums for people who don't like the moderation here at BAUT. Try one of those sites. They're probably exactly what you're looking for.

[DoggerDan]

What ATM position? There is no ATM position ... and off topic post was posted to the thread ... and then the thread was closed.

Typical of the way this site is mismanaged.

Are you the same tom as on SpaceTimeandtheUniverse? You have nearly the same icon (avatar?) If so, whoever's over there managing that site seems to be doing a decent job. I've noticed the few regulars on the forum police it with good posts, as a message forum should, rather than shutting down every conversation someone finds distasteful.

If people want to discuss something, I say let 'em discuss it. They might learn something. Isn't that what a message forum is for? If people want to build a repository of knowledge, a wiki is the way to go, not a message forum.

[Strange]

If people want to discuss something, I say let 'em discuss it. They might learn something. Isn't that what a message forum is for? If people want to build a repository of knowledge, a wiki is the way to go, not a message forum.

There is an important and, to my mind, valuable difference between BAUT and most other science forums. And that is that the discussions are constrained to be "sensible". When looking for information on a subject I am not an expert in, I often find links to science discussion forums. On some of them I see information I know is incorrect that goes unchallenged. Or I see a heated argument and have no way of judging which side is nearer to being correct. At least with BAUT, when there is debate, it is mainly about details or interpretation; you can be confident that the basics are correct.

Yes, there are other types of websites which are just information repositories. But if you see something on Wikipedia and you want to know if its correct or why it is like that or what the implications are, then you can go to a forum to discuss it. On all forums you will get some experts and some uninformed clowns. On BAUT, you can be reasonably confident that you will be having a discussion mainly with those with some level of expertise.

If you want a free-form discussion where general relativity has an equal standing with the aether, a "push" model of gravity and meaningless metaphysics, then there are plenty of other places for that (basically, all other science forums, as far as I can tell).

[Gillianren]

You know, I've had a few problems with some things around here lately, but when one of these threads gets started, I think, "Oh, Tommac is in the wrong again."

[Tensor]

Ok, lets look at the thread. In the OP, you first misuse the word topology in your mistaken description of why a binary system would generate gravitational radiation. In your second paragraph, you correctly state that energy in the system is lost due to the gravitational radiation. Your third paragraph attempts to state how you think the gravitational radiation doesn't have any energy, although you aren't very specific about the specifics concerning the energy and the movement of the waves, neither do you present the equations for that energy. Finally, you ask a question about if it's possible to slow down a star by extracting energy from it's gravity.

Gsquare then, in posts #2 and #14 gave you specific answers to your questions (with a minor correction by Publius about the jerk). And you never came back to those answers. You never said thanks, great, do you have a link, nothing. You just started challenging the answers you got from others. Then, when you were given specific papers by Shaula, with a title specific to your new questions, there was the following:

In post #43 "See the problem as I see it is that I dont think they can be consumed..."

In post #44 "I am defining the "wave" as say the plot of gravitational potential energy over time."

In post #52 "I dont think I am missing that point ... I just dont agree with it "

In post #54 "This example is not very complex ... it is about as straight forward as you can get. Very simple. Very straight forward. I will try to simplify the question for you. You have a quadrapole of a binary star system. Depending on its alignment. You will experience a different amount of gravity Ranging from 1 = max to 0 = min ( lets forget about -1 as I think that could have been a mistake in the above example ). Even at min there is gravity coming from the system but since we are looking at the wave we are just looking at the amount that fluctuates. "

After several more posts from you, there was this in #73 "I read through it but not sure of its validity ... and was asking for clarification from someone here."

So, after getting a specific answer, and papers explain damping, you go on to say you don't agree with it, you don't think it's right, you define a wave the way you want to, and state an example isn't very complex, when talking about tensor analysis. And yet, you don't give any specific examples of where the papers you were given are wrong. And then you wonder why the thread was locked? That's not over moderation, that is proper moderation.

If you don't agree with a mainstream paper, the mainstream answers you were given, and you don't agree with the validity of the paper (when others have already told you it's valid), why don't you think your position is ATM?

[Garrison]

Overmoderated? I'll take BAUT's moderation any day over JREF where someone can post a hundred pages of drivel without evidence and ducking questions left right and centre and the mods won't bat an eyelid. Frankly if anything they could stand to be harsher over in CT...

[Shaula]

When the OP basically says "OK, I have seen what everyone is saying but I choose not to believe any of them because I don't like/understand said explanations. Maybe if I ask the same question I did in post one again someone will give me an answer I do like." it is thread close time.

This place is not over-moderated. At all. I lurked for a long time before signing up to post here and one of the things that attracted me to these forums was that they are well moderated and generally maintain a civilised standard of debate. One where "OK, I may not like that but I am going to accept it because you have shown me I should" actually happens.

Here is a question: Do you think you would get a higher or lower quality of reply to your questions (in terms of scientific background) if this place were more of a free for all?

[R.A.F.]

...why do the mods here insist on over moderating everything.

Is this a question or a statement?

If it's a question, the answer is, they don't.

[JayUtah]

Okay, there may be someone's personal issue being discussed here, but I feel the "controversial" sections (ATM, and Conspiracy Theories) have been overmoderated of late. I've been urged by others who feel similarly to make my feelings known.

Yes, there are very distinct advantages to the rules for debate, among which are the compulsion to answer direct questions and to actually make a point. I find those valuable tools in testing claims.

Lately, however, I come to the Conspiracy Theory section of BAUT and I find little more than a wall of locked threads. It fails to hold my interest anymore. Yes, there is plenty of other Internet, but I was invited to the original forum by Phil Plait himself more than ten years ago, and I have been an enthusiastic and prolific contributor over many years. This forum is a place I used to enjoy reading and contributing to.

I took six-month sabbatical from BAUT in 2006 to care for my ailing father. I took a nine-month sabbatical in 2011 to focus on a vexing professional issue. When I came back most recently, I noticed a far stricter tone to the moderation -- the result being that very little interesting discussion occurs anymore, IMHO. By "interesting" I mean not only that there are point and counterpoint, but that there may be some repartee. In some threads it seems like there is as much moderation as there is discussion. And thread closure seems to be the rule, often leaving misbehaving claimants to have the last word and precluding further enlightening discussion. The point is not that there aren't other places to go. The point is that BAUT is becoming less interesting to me and I lament its decline.

[boppa]

Okay, there may be someone's personal issue being discussed here, but I feel the "controversial" sections (ATM, and Conspiracy Theories) have been overmoderated of late. I've been urged by others who feel similarly to make my feelings known.

Yes, there are very distinct advantages to the rules for debate, among which are the compulsion to answer direct questions and to actually make a point. I find those valuable tools in testing claims.

Lately, however, I come to the Conspiracy Theory section of BAUT and I find little more than a wall of locked threads. It fails to hold my interest anymore. Yes, there is plenty of other Internet, but I was invited to the original forum by Phil Plait himself more than ten years ago, and I have been an enthusiastic and prolific contributor over many years. This forum is a place I used to enjoy reading and contributing to.

I took six-month sabbatical from BAUT in 2006 to care for my ailing father. I took a nine-month sabbatical in 2011 to focus on a vexing professional issue. When I came back most recently, I noticed a far stricter tone to the moderation -- the result being that very little interesting discussion occurs anymore, IMHO. By "interesting" I mean not only that there are point and counterpoint, but that there may be some repartee. In some threads it seems like there is as much moderation as there is discussion. And thread closure seems to be the rule, often leaving misbehaving claimants to have the last word and precluding further enlightening discussion. The point is not that there aren't other places to go. The point is that BAUT is becoming less interesting to me and I lament its decline.

what I simply find incredible is that both some mods and users are arguing the point with THE J.U...

hello how many of you have both worked with and are founding members of the very website you are posting on...

I havent had the pleasure of meeting him, (met the B.A. in Canberra) but IF such a full on member says (what many other `minor' members have said before disappearing)

wouldn't THAT make me think - `hang on a second, maybe something isnt as good as it is assumed to be'

after all we have many members saying baut is overmodded (compared to the `good old days' but when its just some skippy from down under, that makes it less important...)

but when THE JayUtah says it is over modded- HELLO PEOPLE...

There are exactly two people on this website that I am willing to refer people to, one is almost nonexistant any more (the B.A.) and the other is Jay...


Wakeup call to the mods.....

(When I get the usual high school `we never went to the moo n- and believe me- if you have anything to do with teenagers, that is a very often asked question- most teens have a 50/50 belief in the moon landings from my personal experience)

I dont google moose or psphpk (or whatever)
I dont even bother googling the BA anymore

I point them at clavius

That alone should be a wakeup call that alls not well at baut

(and when jay says hang on..)

well...

[Swift]

what I simply find incredible is that both some mods and users are arguing the point with THE J.U...

hello how many of you have both worked with and are founding members of the very website you are posting on...

I havent had the pleasure of meeting him, (met the B.A. in Canberra) but IF such a full on member says (what many other `minor' members have said before disappearing)

wouldn't THAT make me think - `hang on a second, maybe something isnt as good as it is assumed to be'

after all we have many members saying baut is overmodded (compared to the `good old days' but when its just some skippy from down under, that makes it less important...)

but when THE JayUtah says it is over modded- HELLO PEOPLE...

There are exactly two people on this website that I am willing to refer people to, one is almost nonexistant any more (the B.A.) and the other is Jay...


Wakeup call to the mods.....

Have you actually read any of the rest of this thread? Both active administrators and virtually every active moderator has participated in this discussion (as well as many members). As best as I can remember from a quick review, every single point Jay, and other members, have brought up has been addressed. And there actually have been some explicit changes in practice (link, link) and rules (link) based on the discussion in this thread. I'm actually a little insulted that you think we just ignored it.

On the flip-side, one of the common complaints against BAUT moderation over the years is that we "play favorites"; that people like JayUtah (for example) are allowed to get away with things that CTers or ATMers (for example) can't, or have more influence on moderation and moderators. I have personally worked hard not to fall into that sort of behavior. Jay's opinions about this forum are important, but no more important than those of any of our other active members.

[boppa]

Have you actually read any of the rest of this thread? Both active administrators and virtually every active moderator has participated in this discussion (as well as many members). As best as I can remember from a quick review, every single point Jay, and other members, have brought up has been addressed. And there actually have been some explicit changes in practice (link, link) and rules (link) based on the discussion in this thread. I'm actually a little insulted that you think we just ignored it.

On the flip-side, one of the common complaints against BAUT moderation over the years is that we "play favorites"; that people like JayUtah (for example) are allowed to get away with things that CTers or ATMers (for example) can't, or have more influence on moderation and moderators. I have personally worked hard not to fall into that sort of behavior. Jay's opinions about this forum are important, but no more important than those of any of our other active members.

I have read all the thread from its first post to its last (I actually have been biting my tongue to not reply since jay first posted)

I just wanted to add my POV that not `everyone' is happy with the (IMHO) increased overmoderation (as I have made clear last time I was on) and to have what is (again IMHO) such a serious dissmissal not only by the mods but by baut ((not BA ) members was just plain rude

I seriously wonder if the BA came here and complained if anything would change...

(and yes I saw the very (minor imho) changes made since then, again I would seriously send any current `moon hoaxers' of which there are far too many, over to clavious rather than here. )


I first came here at the bad astro bbs, to dispell the nancy lieder garbage, and sen many planet x's over here to `quell their fears'

these days, I send them to Clavious moon base for the facts, and argue their cases on glp...

sadly for those that believe that there `aren't any moon hoaxers around no more'

when the people that are arguing your case find a forum unpleasant to visit- wonder why no hoaxers visit???


LOL

:-(

[djellison]

h the (IMHO) increased overmoderation

You think this is overmoderation?
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread....11#post1994311

That guy was given chance after chance after chance to stick to the rules. He didn't.


This is the simple truth - there are rules. Stick to them.

Making people stick to the rules isn't over moderation. Period.

[Usher]

what I simply find incredible is that both some mods and users are arguing the point with THE J.U...

hello how many of you have both worked with and are founding members of the very website you are posting on...

I havent had the pleasure of meeting him, (met the B.A. in Canberra) but IF such a full on member says (what many other `minor' members have said before disappearing)

wouldn't THAT make me think - `hang on a second, maybe something isnt as good as it is assumed to be'

after all we have many members saying baut is overmodded (compared to the `good old days' but when its just some skippy from down under, that makes it less important...)

but when THE JayUtah says it is over modded- HELLO PEOPLE...

There are exactly two people on this website that I am willing to refer people to, one is almost nonexistant any more (the B.A.) and the other is Jay...


Wakeup call to the mods.....

(When I get the usual high school `we never went to the moo n- and believe me- if you have anything to do with teenagers, that is a very often asked question- most teens have a 50/50 belief in the moon landings from my personal experience)

I dont google moose or psphpk (or whatever)
I dont even bother googling the BA anymore

I point them at clavius

That alone should be a wakeup call that alls not well at baut

(and when jay says hang on..)

well...

Personally, I would find that blind allegiance to a particular member's opinion or position is less healthy than active discussion and honest dissent.

[boppa]

Personally, I would find that blind allegiance to a particular member's opinion or position is less healthy than active discussion and honest dissent.

so lets google usher and see how you fare..

google Jay Utah and see the difference?


look at the join dates for both members..

look at their post numbers

see who (has) their face on tv doing the serious moon hoax K.O.


now who shall I put more faith in...

(not to disparage (sp) you but Jay has a little (just a bit) more `streetcred'

in fact, he has `just a bit more' than anyone else here except fraser and phill......



all mods included....

[Usher]

so lets google usher and see how you fare..

google Jay Utah and see the difference?


look at the join dates for both members..

look at their post numbers

see who (has) their face on tv doing the serious moon hoax K.O.


now who shall I put more faith in...

(not to disparage (sp) you but Jay has a little (just a bit) more `streetcred'

in fact, he has `just a bit more' than anyone else here except fraser and phill......



all mods included....

Blind allegiance (and rudeness) noted.

[Swift]

so lets google usher and see how you fare..

google Jay Utah and see the difference?


look at the join dates for both members..

look at their post numbers

see who (has) their face on tv doing the serious moon hoax K.O.


now who shall I put more faith in...

(not to disparage (sp) you but Jay has a little (just a bit) more `streetcred'

in fact, he has `just a bit more' than anyone else here except fraser and phill......



all mods included....

You may slam me and my moderation as much as you like, but if you even hint at another negative comment about another non-moderator member in this thread again, even with feeble "not to disparage" added comments, you will be severely infracted. How do you like that for overmoderation!

[slang]

so lets google usher and see how you fare..

google Jay Utah and see the difference?

If you insist.... (Sorry Jay!)

[Luckmeister]

I think the more strict moderation tone may be a result of less interesting discussion rather than a cause of it. The quality of visiting conspiracy proponents seems to have declined, along with their willingness to answer questions and engage in debate. I feel that many closed threads were actually allowed to continue longer than they deserved.

[chrlzs]

I agree with Luckmeister that a big part of the problem is that conspiracists, ufo=alien believers, apollo deniers and the like are:

1. Dwindling rapidly
and/ or
2. Not posting to forums populated with logical, sciency folk as they are being forced to debate properly and methodically, which is the one thing they really don't like.

And of course that increases the troll/genuine ratio...

But from my own point of view, I think Jay nailed what I think is the biggest problem with moderation here:

thread closure seems to be the rule, often leaving misbehaving claimants to have the last word and precluding further enlightening discussion.

That is SO frustrating! The OP is often reprimanded, gets a few warnings, but if s/he continues, it's usually not a suspension that comes, it's a thread closure. And then of course they open a new thread - witness the latest very obvious example - check the posting history...

Closure of the thread is, imo, an insult to all those who have put the effort into posting and may wish to post further, and punishes the innocent. How about punishing the cause of the problem?

{Hint - I think the 7 day suspension is underused...}

[Jason Thompson]

I agree that thread closure seems to be an excessive response. It can be very frutrating to contribute to a thread, then come back to it and find that you have been insulted/challenged or even simply responded to or questioned but you have no way to respond because the thread has been closed. It also stifles further discussion of any interesting points that may have been raised in the course of the thread.

I'm all for keeping things on-topic and for dealing effectively with rude or otherwise unacceptable behaviour from cotributors, but to close the thread and deny us the right to respond to challenges or queries is often even more annoying than the original problem contributor.

[astromark]

You do need to be careful.. All to often I have come charging in like a idiot.. and get what I deserve..

but I do agree that luckmeister, JayUtah, and chrlzs.. 'things' have died here.. something is lost.. ( and its not me.)

It might be time to openly discuss what are the goals and aims..

What was and is the intended purpose of this site ?

For if it is to educate and further the knowledge of astronomicle science..

or to push back the foolish and ill informed..

Then maybe it needs to broaden the tolerance of matters for discussion.

The ATM page is so controlled its impossible to discuss anything...

When I see some fools idea... I can not say so. Even politely.. How that helps is beyond me...

I think it is right that some greater good could be attained by tolerating a greater discussion..

of things both religious and political.. what do you all think ?

They pulled the iron certain down.. there should be no barriers.. just certitudes. and decorum.

[tusenfem]

One of the things about the "over moderation" is that we also get LOTS of complaints through the report button from both the ATM and CT threads, at least 10 new reports PER DAY (which does not count multiple reports of the same post, as these get automatically collected in the same thread). Looking at the few discussions there are, actually, this shows that there is something very wrong in these sections.
Most of these reports are about "not answering questions" and about "insults" and about "not going anywhere" etc. etc.

We don't even act on all the reports that we are receiving, which may or may not leave some members feel they are left "out in the cold."
So actually, one may say that there is "under moderation," however restricting even more would not be the solution.

Yes, there are a lot of closed threads in ATM, however, not so in CT, where on the front page there are only 4, one of which is a moon-landing thread. The thread that is about "astronauts not landing on the moon" by Dasterdly is NOT going anywhere, which has NOTHING to do with over moderiation, but all with the OP not backing up his claims, answering in one liners. If you want this kind of "discussion" that's fine, but I hardly see a point in it.

[Jim]

Some very valid points have been raised, and I hope you can appreciate the fine line Mods have to walk.

It would be great if we could leave a thread open for reasoned, meaningful discussions. But, as evidenced by the recent flurry of threads by one Member in CT, we also get the dross.

I know the argument has been made that we should issue points, suspend, even ban rather than close a thread. But that puts us in the position of eliciting the behaviour we later decide to infract; someone gets a warning but the thread is left open. They continue and get a point, but the thread is left open. And so on.

And it's also not fair to tell some, "I'm leaving the thread you started open but you should not participate." (Boy, have I wanted to do that!)

Rock. Hard place.

Devil. Deep blue sea.

Oh, and tusenfem is right. Very few CT threads are closed, and the vast majority of closed ATM threads have "timed out." So, we are talking about exceptions rather than rules.

And, all closings can be reported and a reason given to reopen. It has happened before and - pending a good reason - will happen again.