Why CosmoQuest?

[dapifo]

Did you read the other post of the other people...?

I just was trying to end with this thread....with some conclusions...

[R.A.F.]

But the rules has to be respected always !!!... but they also can be changed !!!

Then present the reasons why those rules should be changed....simply "shouting" change the rules, will not get you anywhere.

[Nereid]

No, but why would that be a problem? If they misbehave (and everyone sees that..), they get a public warning. The debate continues, and if they do it again, either a last chance warning or suspension/banning, just as happens elsewhere here. Their behavior and inability to properly debate is there for all to see - a good thing, I reckon...

If it's done well, then the reason they are taken out of the debate (and therefore lose it unless perhaps another person is willing to step into their shoes and take it over) is very clear and in my opinion that would be a useful addition to the body of information available for public purview.. A couple of forums do it, and it seems to work. I'll see if I can find a good example..

The problem isn't so much about whether it can work, it's more about having available (and willing and interested) moderation capacity, and coming up with the rules...

From my own perspective, I think it would be a good thing.. sorta like a cut-down, forum-based version of JREF's $1m challenge.. And as an example, I think some of us here will know that a certain 'debate' at IMDB gets rolled out from time to time, to point out a certain person's 'methodology'. That's a useful 'data point' but suffers because it is on what is essentially an offtopic arena, isn't a recognised forum, and some of the important posts were removed. Having such a forum available here would mitigate almost all of that..

Only problem is, due to the dwindling number of, say Apollo-deniers, I'm not sure there would be many takers..

(bold added)

Perhaps a bigger challenge - for whoever has the task of selecting topics, debate moderator(s), debaters, writing the debate topic (no small challenge that!), etc - is how to ensure that those (few) takers have not already included the debate as part of a carefully crafted marketing campaign?

Someone else, recently in this thread, pointed out that there's an astonishing amount of naivete in some of the suggestions. As Moose's post hints, and as just about every (past and present) mod who's had to moderate ATM threads can testify, there are plenty of cranks, crackpots, vested interests (some with extremely deep pockets), quasi-religious cults, etc who salivate at the mere thought of leveraging BAUT's name/Google-search-prominence/whatever for their own ends. In short, how do you prevent any such capability from being gamed, big time?

[caveman1917]

I don't understand why not. I mean, the contents of the ATM section are ~199 parts garbage, ~1 part possibly science-based. Unless and until there's a feasible method of raising the ratio of science-based to garbage - by even just an OOM (i.e. to ~19 parts garbage, ~1 part science-based) - what's the point of keeping it?

You probably mean that the contents of the proposals in the ATM section are 99.5% garbage. I'm not just saying that to nitpick, i think most of the value of the ATM section, and a reason for keeping it, is not in the quality of the proposals themselves but in the way they are handled. It provides a public view "under the hood" of science so to speak and therein lies some educational value. Take for example this recent thread. The proposal is garbage, but the way it was handled shows how science is done. How experiments are scrutinized and repeated, and how the logic (or lack thereof) in ideas is analyzed.

I don't think the value of the ATM section should be sought in the quality of the proposals therein, but in providing a picture of the way science operates with handling proposals. While my sample is of course too small, i have the impression that the public at large thinks that science is done by scientists thinking of an idea and then writing a book about it which is simply accepted. The mere existence of the ATM section as showing how the scientific process works is value by itself.

[Nereid]

What is the best way to find like-minded people, with whom you could discuss a half-baked ATM idea offline (via PM)?

In the spirit of DoggerDan (an "honest opinion"): somewhere other than BAUT/CQ.

[Nereid]

Well... I think that you got a lot of proposals and constructive criticism... this is now in your hands to do what you deem most appropriate according to the objectives and editorial line of this forum.

I will summarize here:
- To give a little more freedom to users (always respecting the rules and forms).
- Possibility of creating a space to develop new ideas and proposals which can participate people freely (could possibly be rated by participants, not the originator, to assess their interest... and posible close it if the rate - 0 to 10-is minor than 5 after...some days)

Continuing in the spirit of DoggerDan: I don't think you actually read Moose's post, did you?

I mean, right there, in bold, the conclusion reads: "It's safe to suggest that any proposal to modify ATM rules that does not effectively (and self-evidently) address that long history of abuses is very likely to be rejected out of hand. I also feel very safe in suggesting that it's probably not worth the time of proposing anything that would require additional effort on the part of the mods. I'd further recommend that any such proposal work entirely within the parameters already set out by the site owners."

If you have a concrete proposal, and can show that your proposal "effectively (and self-evidently) address[es] that long history of abuses", and does not "require additional effort on the part of the mods", by all means, put it on the table! {insert smilie here}

On the other hand, if you do NOT have such a concrete proposal, ...

[caveman1917]

How is that a rebuttal?

It isn't, and cannot be, because your statement, whilst true, does not argue the point and thus cannot be rebutted.

I posted that this board need not be all things to all people.

Which is true, but is not an argument as to why a specific proposal should or should not be accepted. It's a pretty meaningless statement on the face of it, unless you have some hidden assumptions to go with it?

It'll never see the light of day without evidence, so really what is the purpose?

Why must it have purpose to you before you'd allow others to do something?

You can go to any number of boards and do the same thing openly.

Why do you have to do it here??

Why don't you ask PetersCreek:

But let's say a proponent wants the input of certain members from this board. They could (and some have) discuss it via PM or take the discussion off-site. There are alternatives.

Which creates a predicament since you can hardly spam the entire membership by PM to ask if someone is interested to discuss it that way.

Sorry that any criticism of your idea must be my fault/my inability to read.

I don't mind criticism of my idea, the problem is that you didn't criticize my idea. You criticized an idea that allows "another place to promote junk science" and "means that as long as an ATM proponent believes what he says, he should be accomidated by this board", neither of which was part of my idea. So in as far as your response was directed at my idea, it was arguing a strawman.

If you expect to be taken seriously, insults are not the "way" to go...simple as that

Actually that wasn't meant as an insult since i honestly supposed that in a haste to respond you had misread part of what i was proposing. Why else would you argue things that i never said?

[caveman1917]

...

It's really simple: If you make a claim, you defend it. If you just want to ask if someone is interested in discussing an idea by PM, then you simply ask that. And since any further discussion would need to be private, the thread can just as well be closed then.

Seriously, what is so wrong with that?

[R.A.F.]

It isn't, and cannot be, because your statement, whilst true, does not argue the point and thus cannot be rebutted.

Semantics....this is a science board. There is simply no reason for this board to allow non-scientific ideas AT ALL.

If you have convincing reasons for why this board should be changed, then present those reasons.

....but is not an argument as to why a specific proposal should or should not be accepted. It's a pretty meaningless statement on the face of it, unless you have some hidden assumptions to go with it?

Then let me make it very clear....this is a science board, and if that changes because of a few "complainers", it will become a worthless "joke".

It ain't gonna happen.

Why must it have purpose to you before you'd allow others to do something?

This is not the "argument" i would use if you are trying to change how things are run on this board, because if it has no purpose, then why should the mods put up with it?

Why don't you ask PetersCreek:

First time I've seen an "argument from authority" when the authority was a mod.

Irrelevant...he was trying to be helpful, and ever since, you and others have used that as a "club" to demand rule changes.

Which creates a predicament since you can hardly spam the entire membership by PM to ask if someone is interested to discuss it that way

This is a science board...it is under NO OBLIGATION to make things easier for anti-scientists.

I don't mind criticism of my idea, the problem is that you didn't criticize my idea.

Express your "idea"...be very specific. If it involves starting a thread that is immediately locked just so YOU have the convienience of meeting with like minded people....well, that isn't an idea that will ever "fly".

It just won't...not on a SCIENCE BOARD.

[R.A.F.]

It's really simple: If you make a claim, you defend it. If you just want to ask if someone is interested in discussing an idea by PM, then you simply ask that. And since any further discussion would need to be private, the thread can just as well be closed then.

Seriously, what is so wrong with that?

I don't care if the thread is immediatly locked or not...If gives the ATMer a "free" chance at promoting their agenda...

...and if that happens, then this whole board might as well close down, because the ATMers will have "won".

[Van Rijn]

You probably mean that the contents of the proposals in the ATM section are 99.5% garbage. I'm not just saying that to nitpick, i think most of the value of the ATM section, and a reason for keeping it, is not in the quality of the proposals themselves but in the way they are handled. It provides a public view "under the hood" of science so to speak and therein lies some educational value. Take for example this recent thread. The proposal is garbage, but the way it was handled shows how science is done. How experiments are scrutinized and repeated, and how the logic (or lack thereof) in ideas is analyzed.

Yes, and I would add that I've learned quite a bit by reading other folk's explanations about the real science behind a subject. Also, I've learned a lot in my own research when I looked at something, had some general ideas about why it was wrong, but then researched it in some detail so I could verify that and properly explain it.

That applies to ATM and CT. I learned a lot about Apollo researching it.

[caveman1917]

Semantics....this is a science board.

Then let me make it very clear....this is a science board, and if that changes because of a few "complainers", it will become a worthless "joke".

It just won't...not on a SCIENCE BOARD.

Consider this: what segment of the people with ATM ideas do you think would rather ask for private discussion of their ideas? What segment would in fact realize enough that they are unable to defend their idea in full to want to go that route? What segment would be most likely to be persuaded and educated in the aspects of science relevant to their idea?

Would it be the hardcore crackpots with vested interests? Or would it be those who happen to have ideas they want to discuss but just don't know enough about the relevant science?
What good is it for a crackpot just looking for a way to generate publicity to ask for a private discussion?

Then tell me, would it be better for a science board to provide a way for those people to connect with people knowledgeable in those fields, or would it be better to send them to non-scientific forums where i'm sure the true crackpots will see to a decent review and discussion of their ideas?

First time I've seen an "argument from authority" when the authority was a mod.

Just because i'm quoting a mod doesn't mean i'm arguing ad verecundiam. I was pointing out how that suggestion creates a certain problem (as exemplified by TOEfetish running into it), and proposed a solution.

This is a science board...it is under NO OBLIGATION to make things easier for anti-scientists.

if that happens, then this whole board might as well close down, because the ATMers will have "won"..

It's a true war between scientists and a homogeneous mass of hardcore crackpots, isn't it?

If it involves starting a thread that is immediately locked

It really doesn't matter that much whether it gets locked or not, i suggested it because of the argument from increased work for the moderators, and a closed thread doesn't require moderator attention.

[caveman1917]

If gives the ATMer a "free" chance at promoting their agenda...

Nothing is stopping an ATMer from starting a thread right now to never post in it again, at which point it will eventually also become locked. What's the difference? There is room for abuse, but it is the exact same room for abuse as there is now, so what does it matter?

[Moose]

Nothing is stopping an ATMer from starting a thread right now to never post in it again

I think you'll find that the mod team has a number of effective options for stopping this.

[R.A.F.]

Nothing is stopping an ATMer from starting a thread right now to never post in it again, at which point it will eventually also become locked. What's the difference?

The difference is that as the rules stand now, the ATMer is either compelled to support his claims, or retract those claims...under your "new" rules, we invite ATMers to make ATM posts...


Is it really so hard to understand that this is a science board, and there is no reason to make things "easier" for those promoting ATM ideas?

[caveman1917]

I think you'll find that the mod team has a number of effective options for stopping this.

Other than deleting the thread from public view or impersonating the user to make other posts, the net result is the same.

[Gillianren]

However my experience with ATM hasn't been so bad, sure there have been a couple of bad cases, but overall i can't complain. However given that i've been here for only about two years, that begs the question as to who should update their view on it. I believe you that it was really bad when the rules were more lax, but now they aren't lax anymore, and it doesn't seem so bad to me.

Which suggests, to me at least, that the rules are doing their job. I'm sure any one of us arguing against changes in the ATM/CT rules can explain to you exactly which threads we're thinking of--and I will promise you that most of us have two or three specific threads in common among those we're citing for why rules are the way they are. I personally would have no problem with permission to start a thread saying, "I have an ATM idea relating to [X broad aspect of science]. I can provide further details by PM if anyone wants to discuss it with me and help me with it." However, I do have a problem with permitting any kind of detailed explanation in that thread. Really, I think all several proponents have wanted has been to present their ideas in a place that draws the attention of various Google bots and so forth.

[caveman1917]

The difference is that as the rules stand now, the ATMer is either compelled to support his claims, or retract those claims

As they will remain.

Is it really so hard to understand that this is a science board, and there is no reason to make things "easier" for those promoting ATM ideas?

Is it really so hard to understand that i have not proposed allowing any extra promotion of ATM ideas other than the rules already in place?

[R.A.F.]

Is it really so hard to understand that i have not proposed allowing any extra promotion of ATM ideas other than the rules already in place?

Then we are in agreement...no need to change anything about how ATM is handled by this board.

[caveman1917]

Then we are in agreement...no need to change anything about how ATM is handled by this board.

Let's make that specific, so you have no problem with allowing someone to post something along these lines:

"I have an ATM idea relating to [X broad aspect of science]. I can provide further details by PM if anyone wants to discuss it with me and help me with it."

[caveman1917]

Which suggests, to me at least, that the rules are doing their job. I'm sure any one of us arguing against changes in the ATM/CT rules can explain to you exactly which threads we're thinking of--and I will promise you that most of us have two or three specific threads in common among those we're citing for why rules are the way they are. I personally would have no problem with permission to start a thread saying, "I have an ATM idea relating to [X broad aspect of science]. I can provide further details by PM if anyone wants to discuss it with me and help me with it." However, I do have a problem with permitting any kind of detailed explanation in that thread. Really, I think all several proponents have wanted has been to present their ideas in a place that draws the attention of various Google bots and so forth.

It needn't be a broad aspect of science, it could as well be as specific as one wants if one doesn't provide the actual detailed ATM idea. For example

I have an ATM idea relating to the way electrons around an iron nucleus behave...

That still doesn't have them actually present their idea for drawing attention to Google bots, but at least provides a bit more detailed information for others to decide whether to respond to the invitation or not.

[Swift]

I don't care if the thread is immediatly locked or not...If gives the ATMer a "free" chance at promoting their agenda...

...and if that happens, then this whole board might as well close down, because the ATMers will have "won".

I am not speaking as a moderator when I say the following, but that is a little harsh. This isn't "us" against "them".

[Gillianren]

It needn't be a broad aspect of science, it could as well be as specific as one wants if one doesn't provide the actual detailed ATM idea.

I can even go that far, yes. Now, if the mods think that's too much trouble for them and aren't interested, I'm okay with that, too. However, I think "as specific as one wants" is subject to a great deal of manipulation by those inclined toward it.

[caveman1917]

I can even go that far, yes. Now, if the mods think that's too much trouble for them and aren't interested, I'm okay with that, too. However, I think "as specific as one wants" is subject to a great deal of manipulation by those inclined toward it.

Perhaps something along the lines of "you can state specifically which scientific theory or aspect of a theory you're looking to replace, but you can't go into what exactly you want to replace it with"?

[SRH]

Question: If these proposed "PM me for discussion" threads are deleted after 30 days (and NOT archived), would they still be picked up by the Google-bots?
If they are not picked-up, then it wouldn't really matter how much detail is presented in the OP, because a spammer/promoter would not be able to get the Google-search effect that people are worried about.

[R.A.F.]

Let's make that specific, so you have no problem with allowing someone to post something along these lines:

I have no problem with Gillianren's proposal.

For instance...I would be fine with something like the following...Please PM me if you would like to discuss the Iron Sun* idea.

But I wouldn't allow anything further than that....nor is there any reason why it should go further...


*just an example.

[caveman1917]

I have no problem with Gillianren's proposal.

For instance...I would be fine with something like the following...Please PM me if you would like to discuss the Iron Sun* idea.

But I wouldn't allow anything further than that....nor is there any reason why it should go further...


*just an example.

Then our entire discussion has been for nothing as it has been my proposal from the start.

[R.A.F.]

Then our entire discussion has been for nothing as it has been my proposal from the start.

Not at all....we now understand each other a bit better, and I wouldn't call that "nothing". (smile face with 36 ears)

[caveman1917]

Not at all....we now understand each other a bit better, and I wouldn't call that "nothing". (smile face with 36 ears)

Fair enough :)

[Tobin Dax]

I have no problem with Gillianren's proposal.

For instance...I would be fine with something like the following...Please PM me if you would like to discuss the Iron Sun* idea.

But I wouldn't allow anything further than that....nor is there any reason why it should go further...


*just an example.

For something like that, would it be better to put that line in a user's signature instead of creating a one-post thread? I don't see that as being any different than putting a website in your signature (like grav does, for instance).