Over moderation

[Luckmeister]

There are places where the reality of Apollo can be discussed, without needing some HB to trigger the discussion with (what is usually) another re-hash of the same old claims.

(This is why I don't like the idea of preferring suspension of non-responsive HB'ers while leaving their threads open for "last words" or whatever. If members want to discuss Apollo - just do it. The hoax claims themselves have usually been dealt with in the first page of responses anyway.)

I think the CT section has been very valuable. Even with lighter traffic, it still has value we don't see. I wonder how many Moon hoax advocates and UFO fans come here to "educate" us and leave without posting after seeing how well the CTs are debunked. It may be more than we think. Without the CT section to browse through, they wouldn't be as apt to see the discussed topics -- it's a good reference area.

[Tensor]

I'm just wondering if some of the staleness is the result of seeing Jarrah White's (or Bill Kaysing's, or Bart Sibrel's, etc)" quotes about what was wrong with the Apollo landings or "Einstein is wrong, read my 50 page, single space, no equations web page that has all these diagrams that show it", for the 50th time. That said, a couple of weeks ago, I was looking back at some old threads, for some examples for another thread, and noticed that there were some discussions of somewhat ATM ideas or the discussion of an idea was going on longer than 30 days, and there didn't seem to be any overt acrimony. There is no place for those kind or length of ATM discussion here anymore, and that may be part of the "staleness" also. I'm not suggesting there should be, as that would do nothing but cause more work for the mods. Of course, those kind of discussions were rare, and due to the majority of the discussions, we ended up with the "must answer" and "30 day" limit among others. As a result, the current moderation we have was, I believe, forced on the forum by the complaints of long time posters about the inappropriate behavior ( which was inappropriate) of those posters in conspiracy and ATM who kept posting or refused to answer. I don't like it either, but I just can't see a solution to the problem, as I don't want the two fora closed down, if for nothing else than as a reference area.

[Swift]

<snip>
There is no place for those kind or length of ATM discussion here anymore, and that may be part of the "staleness" also. I'm not suggesting there should be, as that would do nothing but cause more work for the mods. Of course, those kind of discussions were rare, and due to the majority of the discussions, we ended up with the "must answer" and "30 day" limit among others.

We have, on rare occasion, allowed ATM threads to last longer than 30 days, if the discussion was good and on-going.

[Gillianren]

(This is why I don't like the idea of preferring suspension of non-responsive HB'ers while leaving their threads open for "last words" or whatever.

I want people held accountable for their behaviour, which in this case includes accepting that the rules they have agreed to follow by posting here means answering questions. Besides, just closing the thread and telling them not to do it again manifestly doesn't work. That's why the general response has frequently been that the OP just starts another thread exhibiting the same behaviour.

[Middenrat]

I venture it's not entirely coincidental the moderation has changed its character during Jay's hiatus.
Such is that fellow's wisdom and reputation that the flow and thrust of CT threads has altered, with rather more strident debating surfacing, esp using the rulebook to whack proponents.
It could even be said it's a bit rich, really. So come on Jay, just get back with the great content and get on with steering the ship.

p.s. I love to hang out here and don't want anymore retirements like cjsf, seemingly. Don't do it man.

[JayUtah]

There are places where the reality of Apollo can be discussed, without needing some HB to trigger the discussion with (what is usually) another re-hash of the same old claims.

But those discussions generally don't occur without the trigger. Just like no one studies until there's a test. No one works until there's a deadline. How many people would have gone out to study human visual perception if it hadn't been for UFO proponents constantly belaboring eyewitness testimony? The original BABB was all about controversial claims. That's why many of us initially joined. Would anyone miss the Proving Grounds? Yes -- I would.

[pzkpfw]

But those discussions generally don't occur without the trigger. Just like no one studies until there's a test. No one works until there's a deadline. How many people would have gone out to study human visual perception if it hadn't been for UFO proponents constantly belaboring eyewitness testimony? The original BABB was all about controversial claims. That's why many of us initially joined. Would anyone miss the Proving Grounds? Yes -- I would.

Even if the trigger is a now-closed CT thread, one can still start a new thread in the appropriate place to continue discussing the science behind the claim.

[Luckmeister]

Even if the trigger is a now-closed CT thread, one can still start a new thread in the appropriate place to continue discussing the science behind the claim.

So then, when the original CT claimant follows along and wants to argue a point, he will be told that he can't do that because it's not in the CT section? That looks to me like a recipe for disaster.

[Van Rijn]

Even if the trigger is a now-closed CT thread, one can still start a new thread in the appropriate place to continue discussing the science behind the claim.

What would be the appropriate place, and would we be allowed to reference the previous discussions for the purposes of discussing the science and technical aspects?

[pzkpfw]

So then, when the original CT claimant follows along and wants to argue a point, he will be told that he can't do that because it's not in the CT section? That looks to me like a recipe for disaster.

There's no one way that's going to make everyone happy.

In the example you provide, the person might start getting infractions (especially if they've already had "enough" warnings in their CT thread) for posting CT outside of CT, and end up suspended or banned; which is what some people here wish would happen sooner (in the CT thread), anyway.

[pzkpfw]

What would be the appropriate place, and would we be allowed to reference the previous discussions for the purposes of discussing the science and technical aspects?

If you want to follow up with a question, put it in Q&A.

If it's a very technical thing maybe Science and Tech.

If it's a bit more specific, put it somewhere like Astronomy.

There's lots of BAUT.

Sure you could reference the CT thread, just don't turn the non-CT thread into a CT thread by proxy.

[NickW]

Sure you could reference the CT thread, just don't turn the non-CT thread into a CT thread by proxy.

Isn't that exactly what that would do?

[pzkpfw]

Isn't that exactly what that would do?

No, not at all.

Say an HB comes along and says "Apollo was fake because space suits can't cool the crew well enough" (in a CT thread).

The CT thread goes wibble (e.g. the HB never quanitifes what "well enough" actually means, and besides that, doesn't understand different ways of cooling) and gets shut down.

Well, there's no reason someone with an interest can't start a Q&A thread where they ask "Please explain how the evaporative cooling of space suits works".

Or a Science and Technology thread where they write "Let's compare the efficiency of different cooling methods".

There's no reason those threads have to become CT threads by proxy, just because they start with "I was reading this CT thread and wanted to ask...".

(And note that the closed CT thread will already, by the time its closed, contain much of the requisite information anyway).

[Swift]

Even if the trigger is a now-closed CT thread, one can still start a new thread in the appropriate place to continue discussing the science behind the claim.

In fact, we just did this. KhashayarShatti started one of his threads in S&T that was closed because it went ATM. People complained they wanted to continue the discussion on the mainstream aspects of this. I suggested they start a thread in S&T about that, someone did, and it has been chugging along. No problem

[Glom]

This talk about continuing a thread in a mainstream forum is there is good discussion to be had. It makes BAUT sound like the DMV.

"Now you must take an L-4-0-1 form a go to the line over there. You'll get it stamped, then you can get W-5-3-8-B form and go to the line over there."

[NEOWatcher]

I think the CT section has been very valuable. Even with lighter traffic, it still has value we don't see. I wonder how many Moon hoax advocates and UFO fans come here to "educate" us and leave without posting after seeing how well the CTs are debunked. It may be more than we think. Without the CT section to browse through, they wouldn't be as apt to see the discussed topics -- it's a good reference area.

Absolutely. CT is what brought me to this board in the first place (BABB at the time). It was that horrible Fox show. I watched the moon landings with zeal, and was completely disgusted at that show. I knew they were wrong but didn't completely understand why. The point by point discussions, especially with Jay's knowledge, were what I needed.

Yes. What you seem to miss is the interesting material that comes up in response to the moonhoaxers and others. Though the way it's been going, there's been a trend of less and less allowed CT discussion, so in practice, it's in the process of being closed down anyway. I don't like that, but that's what I'm seeing.

That's what I see too. But; while I do see some abrupt responses to the hoaxers, what I do see more often is "But it says it here" and "didn't you read the link?"
If they came here to discuss, then I believe the problem would go away.

[JayUtah]

When a poster posts a YouTube link, we tell him that's not good enough; he has to summarize the relevant arguments at BAUT. When he posts a link to a web site, we tell him he has to bring the relevant arguments to BAUT. We recognize the value in where the arguments are located as a requirement of good debate. Therefore we recognize that making a reader go elsewhere tends to diminish the strength and value of the debate. One of the factors in recent First Amendment (free speech) litigation in the United States is that "separate but equal" doesn't hold. If government tells one party that its speech must appear elsewhere than the speech to which it responds -- no matter apparently "equal" the venue -- you have violated that party's right to free speech. Now that ruling doesn't govern the private activity of BAUT, but it does provide insight into how a civilized society values speech. If a charge is made in one thread, the answer and subsequent discussion rightly should appear in the same thread, not in some separate-but-equal thread.

I came to BAUT the other day and noted that there had been some new threads created on topics I found interesting. Sadly most had been opened, argued, and closed within about a day -- not because the poster had committed some offense, but because a moderator had judged the thread to have no further value and the original poster likely to have nothing further to say on the subject. What about other posters who have something to say but who missed the Augenblick in which it was open to discuss? Now someone has to get the attention of a moderator and mount a case for why his voice should be heard. That's a barrier to free contribution. On any other thread, the only justification I need to make my voice heard is the desire to do so and the time to type it.

In the thread where I admonished Dastardly to be original, there were some claims made that might have merited a response, no matter how ineptly and inattentively argued the claims were. After airing my complaints here about how the moderation had stifled an important point there, I went back to address the still-unaddressed points he had raised, only once again to find the thread locked because the original poster was thought not likely to return, and because -- again in the moderator's sole judgment -- the thread had run its course and served no further purpose. How anxious am I now to write that response when I have to clear the barrier of convincing someone that my contribution is worthwhile? Not nearly as excited I was when the thread was open.

Sure, I can go over to some other part of the forum and write my response there. But who, reading the original thread, is going to know to go find it? A visitor to BAUT sees Dastardly alleging that the lunar module couldn't be found, and sees the only responses being requests to clarify the source -- no material responses to the charges. That visitor may go away thinking that it's the best BAUT can do, but only because the would-be responders had to move the discussion to parts unknown, or because they were simply cut off.

Google crawls the BAUT Proving Grounds several times a day. People read it -- a lot. They have a right to hear what its contributors want to say, including some of the warts. Someone in this thread or elsewhere said the forum belonged to its "owners and moderators." There's the problem right there: when the notion arises that a forum exists to be moderated, then it has de facto become overmoderated. The forum belongs, at least in one sense, to the many hundreds of people who generate its content.

[Click Ticker]

I'm not a regular contributor, but in reading the forum a fair amount - I think I can lend a little perspective on what has changed.

When I first started reading years ago, CT wasn't closed to just astronomy related conspiracies. Some of the better threads were the 9/11 and the global warming threads. Those appear to have been ruled either too politically charged and/or non-astronomy related. So really, when it comes to astronomy related CT's - we have the moon landing "hoax", and what else? Some stuff on UFO's I guess. So an entire section of the forum dedicated to two main CT's. I wouldn't even say UFO's are conspiracies. They seem more ATM than CT, but that's just one posters perspective and likely just splitting hairs.

We've also got a lot of long time posters and active participants here that have heard just about every argument there is to hear about the moon landing and have seen all of them systematically dismantled by some really great posters. I think some of the moderators maybe get their guard up a little quick when they see CT brough up that they've seen debunked thousands of times in the past.

To keep the forum active, there seem to be two options. One would be broaden the definition of allowed CT's to discuss. Take it out of just astonomy and open things up to the 2nd gunman on the grassy knoll and various other well known CT's. Or, allow threads to run their course. If Jay Utah is comfortable explaining (again) to another HB who hasn't posted here before why the shielding on the the moon landing missions was sufficient - then let him. Otherwise pretty much every point and counterpoint has been made on the allowable CT's for this forum (HB's and UFO's) and that section may as well be locked and left available for searching previous discussions only.

I guess I forgot Chem Trails. I think those are still allowed. Maybe?

Familiarity can breed contempt and some of the locking of threads just might stem from that. "Been there, done that. YAWN! Locked."

My final thought on this I think echo's some previous comments. A lot of the really "strong" HB's do seem to avoid this place, which does make for a less lively thread. Not as much debate from a high school kid who's buddy told him the moon landings were fake and thinks it would be cool to go to an astronomy forum and echo that belief. I have a nephew that did that once. The debate wasn't all that lively and I think I cured him pretty quickly. Wouldn't have made for much of a thread here.

[NEOWatcher]

Familiarity can breed contempt and some of the locking of threads just might stem from that. "Been there, done that. YAWN! Locked."

I agree, and it's not just the moderators that respond in that manner.

Too many time have I seen members quick to post a response in the form of "not this again, don't you know it's all be said?". We get enough of those up front, or general questions about intent or the poster's understanding or sources that the conversation quickly deteriorates in multiple vague questions with vague answers.

And then there are various aspects of that vague question that everyone wants to throw in for themselves, and the OP gets overwhelmed and defensive because it just gets way to broad to answer.

A lot of times, I just see "we've discussed this before, I'm not going to look at the link" instead of starting with some specific overview of what we have said, or specific questions about the poster's understanding.

Of course, the OP needs to cooperate and not just spout something as a 3rd party. But; I think we have some responsibility to be civil and concise until we determine that.

I'm not sure if it's more or less than before, but it is something that I have noticed.

[Luckmeister]

A lot of times, I just see "we've discussed this before, I'm not going to look at the link" instead of starting with some specific overview of what we have said, or specific questions about the poster's understanding.

Yes, when someone shows up with a tired old CT argument, there's a tendency to think, "How many times do we have to tell you people....?" But many, if not most of them, have not yet heard the debunking arguments. Dealing with them requires some patience repeatedly and that is one of the things that impressed me the most with Jay's posts (along with his knowledge and communication skill).

I cannot begin to list how much I have learned on so many topics during my six years on BAUT. This board still has great value and, as Jay pointed out, it gets massive Google hits. It would be a terrible loss if owners lost interest in its continuation.

[sts60]

I'm sure I'll regret this, but what the hey....

I am sure you are sincere, but I'm not feeling the love. For the upteenth time I'm wondering why I bother with this.

Aw, c'mon over here (applies bear hug and noogie).

As multiple people have complained, I too find BAUT less interesting than it used to be. I'm sure you will all feel this is self-serving, but I don't feel it is because of the moderation (except for the work and grief) and I actually think the BA had a lot more tighter moderation on BABB, which was basically one or two strikes and you were banned.

I'm not sure I agree. I think there may have been fewer strikes allowed, but the strike zone was smaller - although that's pretty subjective.

I just don't find much interesting content any longer. Space Exploration is filled with endless meaningless debates about HLVs and pointless debates about hypothetical vehicles, and little about current Space Exploration. Little actual science seems discussed in S&T; mostly it seems philosophy of science stuff.

You have a point there. The CT subforum in particular gets fewer "lively" and persistent HBs. But some of us think that has something to do with tighter moderation. I can't imagine the Moon Man thread, which generated a lot of good information responding to Moon Man's blustering, lasting more than a day now.

And for those of you who feel we have lost touch with what the BA wants, well, given the fact that it is many years since he has any participation here, maybe that's not shocking (and Fraser is close to that zero level). I would love for his guidence, but he isn't giving it. If he wants the keys back, he can have 'em. Meanwhile, we are doing the best we can; but given that someone hates every decision we make, no matter that direction that decision goes, it is 100% no win.

Suck it up and enjoy the fast cars, faster women, and Dom Perignon fountains which compensate you as a BAUT moderator. No wait, what I meant to say is that you are in a tough position for a volunteer job, especially without guidance. But in case anyone cares, I don't "hate" anybody's positions; I just think the moderation setpoint needs some tweaking. Which is tough without explicit guidance from a board owner.

[Glom]

I'm not a regular contributor, but in reading the forum a fair amount - I think I can lend a little perspective on what has changed.

When I first started reading years ago, CT wasn't closed to just astronomy related conspiracies. Some of the better threads were the 9/11 and the global warming threads. Those appear to have been ruled either too politically charged and/or non-astronomy related. So really, when it comes to astronomy related CT's - we have the moon landing "hoax", and what else? Some stuff on UFO's I guess. So an entire section of the forum dedicated to two main CT's. I wouldn't even say UFO's are conspiracies. They seem more ATM than CT, but that's just one posters perspective and likely just splitting hairs.

We've also got a lot of long time posters and active participants here that have heard just about every argument there is to hear about the moon landing and have seen all of them systematically dismantled by some really great posters. I think some of the moderators maybe get their guard up a little quick when they see CT brough up that they've seen debunked thousands of times in the past.

To keep the forum active, there seem to be two options. One would be broaden the definition of allowed CT's to discuss. Take it out of just astonomy and open things up to the 2nd gunman on the grassy knoll and various other well known CT's. Or, allow threads to run their course. If Jay Utah is comfortable explaining (again) to another HB who hasn't posted here before why the shielding on the the moon landing missions was sufficient - then let him. Otherwise pretty much every point and counterpoint has been made on the allowable CT's for this forum (HB's and UFO's) and that section may as well be locked and left available for searching previous discussions only.

I guess I forgot Chem Trails. I think those are still allowed. Maybe?

Familiarity can breed contempt and some of the locking of threads just might stem from that. "Been there, done that. YAWN! Locked."

My final thought on this I think echo's some previous comments. A lot of the really "strong" HB's do seem to avoid this place, which does make for a less lively thread. Not as much debate from a high school kid who's buddy told him the moon landings were fake and thinks it would be cool to go to an astronomy forum and echo that belief. I have a nephew that did that once. The debate wasn't all that lively and I think I cured him pretty quickly. Wouldn't have made for much of a thread here.

Not that I participated in them, but I understand the 9/11 conspiracy theories got a bit hairy, which is why they were proscribed. Such topics were never allowed on BABB anyway so it's no that particular restriction that bugs me. In fact, I think it's appropriate.

It's the rigidity in the discussions that are allowed, which is getting people's hackles up. The old school master approach to moderation ("Sit up straight! Hands on desk! Eyes to the front! *thwack with the wooden ruler* Eyes to the front, Bostwick!"). There is less scope to just have fun with it than back in the BABB days. Sure, banning the countdowns to banning seems fair enough, but what would my Lord of the Conspiracy Theories thread be allowed now? More urgently, would many of the great tangents into logic and critical thinking be allowed now? There were some great discussions yonder about critical thinking that happened in threads started for more mundane reasons. Today, it seems like they would be slapped down as derailing the thread or worse as "meta-discussion".

[NEOWatcher]

You have a point there. The CT subforum in particular gets fewer "lively" and persistent HBs. But some of us think that has something to do with tighter moderation. I can't imagine the Moon Man thread, which generated a lot of good information responding to Moon Man's blustering, lasting more than a day now.

Moon man's blustering was in his own words and was willing to discuss things even if they were backed up and explained with nonsense. I rarely see that anymore.

[Noclevername]

Space Exploration is filled with endless meaningless debates about HLVs and pointless debates about hypothetical vehicles, and little about current Space Exploration. Little actual science seems discussed in S&T; mostly it seems philosophy of science stuff.

Where would be the appropriate places to discuss these things, if not where they are being discussed now? The fact that they are so debated means there must be a lot of interest in those topics, should they perhaps be spun off into separate sections?

[Swift]

I just don't find much interesting content any longer. Space Exploration is filled with endless meaningless debates about HLVs and pointless debates about hypothetical vehicles, and little about current Space Exploration. Little actual science seems discussed in S&T; mostly it seems philosophy of science stuff.

You have a point there. The CT subforum in particular gets fewer "lively" and persistent HBs. But some of us think that has something to do with tighter moderation. I can't imagine the Moon Man thread, which generated a lot of good information responding to Moon Man's blustering, lasting more than a day now.

You are probably right about the Moon Man thread. But is that a bad thing (that it wouldn't last so long)? I know it was amusing, like a train wreck, but is that what people want? (I'm truly asking)

I just think the moderation setpoint needs some tweaking. Which is tough without explicit guidance from a board owner.

And I'm willing to tweak - we've done it before, the one I particularly remember is the more public information about why someone was being infracted.

I can make no promises for other moderators, but I'll try to leave threads in CT open longer, and we'll see how that flies.

[Swift]

Originally Posted by Swift
Space Exploration is filled with endless meaningless debates about HLVs and pointless debates about hypothetical vehicles, and little about current Space Exploration. Little actual science seems discussed in S&T; mostly it seems philosophy of science stuff.

Where would be the appropriate places to discuss these things, if not where they are being discussed now? The fact that they are so debated means there must be a lot of interest in those topics, should they perhaps be spun off into separate sections?

They are exactly the right places for them and nothing needs to be spun off to elsewhere. My comment was as a member, not as a moderator, and I was just saying I don't find those topics interesting.

Personally, I don't think there is "a lot" of interest in HLVs, for example, I just think there are a few people who like to talk about them a lot. But it doesn't matter. I'm not complaining that those topics are discussed too much, I'm complaining about the lack of other discussions. Others were complaining about how BAUT is now less interesting than it used to be, those were my thoughts about that.

I've tried to do what I can, for example, posting interesting science news in S&T. But I don't see a lot of other content I find interested; it seems I used to. I wonder if part of the problem is that Fraser and the BA used to post content here, and now they do it on their blogs.

[Gillianren]

Not that I participated in them, but I understand the 9/11 conspiracy theories got a bit hairy, which is why they were proscribed. Such topics were never allowed on BABB anyway so it's no that particular restriction that bugs me. In fact, I think it's appropriate.

Um, that's not true. I distinctly remember discussing 9/11 on BABB, ditto Kennedy. I'd have to go looking for the specific threads, of course, but the "space only" restriction is a recent development which didn't apply to either of the pre-merger boards so far as I know.

I think there's a Glory Days mentality among certain posters--everything was perfect in the Old Days. And I think that, in some cases, people aren't remembering those Old Days as they really were, just the way they wish things were. I prefer having moderation to just Phil, though I also feel that Phil has in many ways abandoned us. It's almost certainly true that, if it weren't for the mods, this board wouldn't exist at all anymore, because neither Phil nor Fraser seem interested. I also like that decisions are now the result of a group of people, not just one. I like and trust Phil, but what if you didn't? The board could be exactly what you were looking for, but what if you had, oh, been bullied by him in first grade? (Not that Phil bullied people in first grade--that I know of.) And if I have a problem with a few things, well, it's outweighed by the things I like.

I also think that the quality of conversation overall has declined; it used to take me at least an hour to go through the board in the morning, and now, it can take as little as ten minutes. On a weekday.

[Glom]

Um, that's not true. I distinctly remember discussing 9/11 on BABB, ditto Kennedy. I'd have to go looking for the specific threads, of course, but the "space only" restriction is a recent development which didn't apply to either of the pre-merger boards so far as I know.

Really? I distinctly remember the post merger CT forum being filled with 9/11 conspiracy rubbish whereas before the merger, it was all clean, family friendly Apollo hoax. But then again, pre-merger, the Apollohoax was in the Lunar Conspiracies forum. That stuff may have been discussed in BABBling perhaps. I don't remember. Either way, I don't have a problem with it being gone.

[antoniseb]

To some degree these things are less interesting now because NEW crazy(*) ideas are being generated much more slowly than we are addressing them. This has always been the case, but the backlog is gone.

* by "crazy" I simply mean conspiracy theory or ATM. I do not mean to imply a cognitive handicap on the part of the proponent.

[Strange]

Aw, c'mon over here (applies bear hug and noogie).

Seconded. Although I'm a bit cautious about the "noogie" bit; I'm not sure I even want to google it.