Why CosmoQuest?

[Gillianren]

Honestly, a single thread might be a decent idea. If you were interested in collaborating on an ATM idea, you could send a PM to a mod/admin and inform them of such. The mod could then unlock the thread, post your interest and mod-approved synopsis (as discussed above), and relock the thread. This would enforce "no promotion" on several levels. People who were willing to collaborate on others' ATM ideas could keep an eye on that thread, which could be a clearinghouse. Easier for people willing to collaborate than seeking out anyone whose sig line indicated their ATM idea. Easier to police for the mods. And if you, the ATM proponent, had a specific person in mind, you could always send that person a PM, though I would imagine that would get fairly tedious for certain people. I suspect certain members would get approached relatively regularly, whether they're interested or not.

[R.A.F.]

Honestly, a single thread might be a decent idea. If you were interested in collaborating on an ATM idea, you could send a PM to a mod/admin and inform them of such. The mod could then unlock the thread, post your interest and mod-approved synopsis (as discussed above), and relock the thread.

Stop reading my mind. (vulcan mind meld smillee)


Seriously, though...this is exactly the way I would do it. The mods have final "control" and the ATMers get to discuss their ideas via PM.

[Perikles]

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

Actually, I think it could be improved considerably. I've seen how often things get totally confusing because too many people engage in a disordered fashion, representing a broadside attack. If the board had one or two nominated responders to an ATM idea who pose fundamental objections which need answering, along the lines of "please explain how your idea has any connection with reality" or "please supply some mathematics to support your handwaving", or a more specific question which needs answering, then it would make sense not to allow others to post until such a fundamental question is answered. That way, most of these threads will be holed below the waterline within one page.

[Tobin Dax]

Honestly, a single thread might be a decent idea. If you were interested in collaborating on an ATM idea, you could send a PM to a mod/admin and inform them of such. The mod could then unlock the thread, post your interest and mod-approved synopsis (as discussed above), and relock the thread. This would enforce "no promotion" on several levels. People who were willing to collaborate on others' ATM ideas could keep an eye on that thread, which could be a clearinghouse. Easier for people willing to collaborate than seeking out anyone whose sig line indicated their ATM idea. Easier to police for the mods. And if you, the ATM proponent, had a specific person in mind, you could always send that person a PM, though I would imagine that would get fairly tedious for certain people. I suspect certain members would get approached relatively regularly, whether they're interested or not.

That's definitely better than my suggestion.

[Moose]

If the board had one or two nominated responders to an ATM idea who pose fundamental objections which need answering[...]

Q1: Who, exactly, determines who these people should be?

Q2: Who, exactly, determines which of these "qualified posters" is assigned to which threads?

Q3: What happens when these qualified posters go on vacation, get run over by a bus, or are otherwise too busy to participate? What happens when (not if) the proponent claims to win by default?

Q4: Who prevents a non-qualified poster from asking a question anyway?

Q5: What stops a qualified poster from failing to ask an important question?

[...]then it would make sense not to allow others to post until such a fundamental question is answered.

Q6: Who monitors who is allowed to post and who isn't?

Q7: When (not if) there's a disagreement on whether or not a question is fundamental, who judges the merit of the question?

If the answer to any of these questions is "the mod team", then I can only suggest you please search on the term "qualified poster" for the many times this very flawed idea has been proposed, and the response.

[Perikles]

I read between the lines that you don't think it's a good idea. Maybe not. But I have very often seen an ATM thread started where the second post has fundamental questions Q1, Q2, and so on, which are totally ignored by the OP. Then others wade in with Q10, Q11... Q345663 which are totally pointless until Q1 and Q2 are answered. I think this is a flawed process as well, because the OP should perhaps answer questions sequentially so we can follow a logical sequence of argument. It never happens that way.

[HenrikOlsen]

I read between the lines that you don't think it's a good idea. Maybe not. But I have very often seen an ATM thread started where the second post has fundamental questions Q1, Q2, and so on, which are totally ignored by the OP. Then others wade in with Q10, Q11... Q345663 which are totally pointless until Q1 and Q2 are answered. I think this is a flawed process as well, because the OP should perhaps answer questions sequentially so we can follow a logical sequence of argument. It never happens that way.

You're assuming a well-organized ATM poster with no agenda, no emotional investment in the idea, with a thorough education in the relevant field and a willingness to play by the rules.

99+% of the ATM proponents fail on one or more of those assumptions, many on all of them.

If every ATM proponents answered every question in the order asked, after actually working out what the questions mean, without hand-waving them away, then the rules for ATM wouldn't be needed.

[Moose]

You're assuming a well-organized ATM poster with no agenda, no emotional investment in the idea, with a thorough education in the relevant field and a willingness to play by the rules.

*chuckle* Such people exist, but they post to some site called "peer review".

[Perikles]

If every ATM proponents answered every question in the order asked, after actually working out what the questions mean, without hand-waving them away, then the rules for ATM wouldn't be needed.

True, and most ATM threads would be less than a page. As it is, some are entertaining for their absurdity value and others are impenetrable, well, for me anyway.

[Moose]

I read between the lines that you don't think it's a good idea.

I can't conveniently think of something I'd have less rather do.

[chrlzs]

In short, how do you prevent any such capability from being gamed, big time?

There are several ways to do that - even a simple Yes or No vote by the moderators (with reasons publicly given) as a very simple example. And obviously it would be up to the forum administrators to pick and choose the topics/combatants, so I don't think there is that much risk of it being abused. I have no real motivation to push the idea aggressively, but it does seem to work elsewhere, and I do think that it could be a useful way to help dispel the alleged 'one-against-thousands' fear factor or perceived 'unfairness'. Yes, I know it's NOT actually unfair to have your claims exposed to the world of reality, but let's be real here - am I right in suggesting that the audience we wish to attract and engage is more non-scientist than scientist?

Just as an aside, one of the reasons I think it would be good idea is this.. (gets ready to duck..) I've noticed that on topics where tinfoil or conspiracy theories are being presented by an experienced 'artist', some of the very learned posters here (inc. me) fall for their techniques, particularly the one where the 'artist' presents multiple new topics so as to drop other topics before they are properly fleshed out and conceded. So one of the biggest problems of having one against many is that the one can easily use this to their advantage, knowing that as they introduce a new topic to distract from one they might be losing, new combatants will enter the fray eager to discuss the new topic - thereby helping the earlier topics to be left unfinished and forgotten.

But that technique vanishes in a properly managed debate.. Although this isn't really a direct analogy, may I refer to the recent Marcus Allen thing at the BIS. I didn't agree with that event being held (for similar concerns as outlined here), and yet the outcome was that Marcus Allen was forced to publicly concede that his theories about Apollo were wrong - even though the debate had flaws, it was better managed than I expected and Allen was, basically held to account.

Now, how many times have you seen, say, an Apollo denier (eg fattydash/dastardly/cosmored/jarrah/etc) held to account in that way here? How many times have you ever seen them even concede a single point? That's because they are not forced to properly follow the rules of debate..

As I said, I think few would be brave enough to take it up, but I think it is worth thinking about.. BTW, while my online time can be very erratic, I'd (gulp) volunteer as one of the sides in some selected debating topics, so I'm willing to walk the walk.. (I hope I don't end up regretting that..) :P


BTW, it also occurs to me - this could be an alternative to a banning or suspension - if someone is clearly using deliberate techniques like the above, then why not offer them a few choices - suspension, banning, closed thread.. OR the chance to try again in a fully moderated and structured one-on-one debate thread.

[HenrikOlsen]

There are several ways to do that - even a simple Yes or No vote by the moderators (with reasons publicly given) as a very simple example. And obviously it would be up to the forum administrators to pick and choose the topics/combatants, so I don't think there is that much risk of it being abused.

Which fails because it's requiring extra work for the moderators and administrators, all of whom have too much to do already.

[chrlzs]

Which fails because it's requiring extra work for the moderators and administrators, all of whom have too much to do already.

??????

Well then I think we need an announcement to the effect that no new ideas are to be offered unless they involve less staff and less effort. This site must shrink, from now on...

[mutleyeng]

I tell you what Chrizs .... get jarrah to agree to a written debate, and I know a website that would happily host and moderate it for you (you could always link to it in a post here)

[R.A.F.]

If the board had one or two nominated responders to an ATM idea...

Then this would cease to be a discussion board, and become something else. It would become a spectator "sport", involving only certain posters.

Like I said...not a discussion board.

[R.A.F.]

That's because they are not forced to properly follow the rules of debate..

Please tell us how you would compel alternative thinkers to "follow the rules of debate"?

Heck, "we" can't even get them to follow the rules of evidence.

[R.A.F.]

I tell you what Chrizs .... get jarrah to agree to a written debate, and I know a website that would happily host and moderate it for you (you could always link to it in a post here)

I'd love to see that....it'll never happen, but I'd love to see it.

Jarrah knows that he would get his hat handed to him in an actual structured debate....as a great number of alternative thinkers realize. He has no interest in proving himself right, only in making his little "tube" videos. It is his safety zone, where he answers to no one. He would never agree to an actual debate.

Sorry for the "side-track".

Chrizs, it basically boils down to "will it create more work for the mods/admin"? If your answer comes anywhere near "yes", then you can forget it...there simply are not enough hours in the day to put more of a work load on their "shoulders".

[Moose]

??????

A 'simple' yes/no vote, if it's to be an informed vote rather than a blanket 'no' or coin flip, would require the entire mod team to read each and understand every ATM proposal within a reasonable amount of time (no less than 24 hours) of it having been posted.

Well then I think we need an announcement to the effect that no new ideas are to be offered unless they involve less staff and less effort.

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.

[Gillianren]

Now, how many times have you seen, say, an Apollo denier (eg fattydash/dastardly/cosmored/jarrah/etc) held to account in that way here? How many times have you ever seen them even concede a single point? That's because they are not forced to properly follow the rules of debate..

No. No, it isn't. It is because they have no intention of ever conceding a single point. You cite Marcus Allen, but I can name you literally dozens of prominent or prominent-in-specific-circles people who have participated in exactly what Allen did or exactly what you're describing and never conceded a thing. That's why we all thought the Allen thing was such a bad idea and why we were all so astonished at the results. You cannot force someone to concede a point if they don't think they're wrong. Most of these people cannot be convinced that they're wrong, and if you do somehow manage to do so, you cannot force them to accept the loss of face in admitting that they know they're wrong.

[Swift]

Honestly, a single thread might be a decent idea. If you were interested in collaborating on an ATM idea, you could send a PM to a mod/admin and inform them of such. The mod could then unlock the thread, post your interest and mod-approved synopsis (as discussed above), and relock the thread. This would enforce "no promotion" on several levels. People who were willing to collaborate on others' ATM ideas could keep an eye on that thread, which could be a clearinghouse. Easier for people willing to collaborate than seeking out anyone whose sig line indicated their ATM idea. Easier to police for the mods. And if you, the ATM proponent, had a specific person in mind, you could always send that person a PM, though I would imagine that would get fairly tedious for certain people. I suspect certain members would get approached relatively regularly, whether they're interested or not.

I'll circulate the idea in moderator-land and see where it goes. I make no promises.

[Nereid]

What follows is not - as it stands - a serious suggestion; however, I invite CQuestians (?) who've participated in this thread (at least in the last few days), excluding mods and those who've been mods (and Gillianren, and R.A.F.), to imagine that it is ... and that you are one of the chosen ones ...

Suppose the mod powers of the CQ discussion forum were to be amended to allow a CQuestian to be a mod of just one section, the ATM section. Suppose the "ATM mods" could also re-write the ATM rule(s).

What would the experience be like, do you suppose DoggerDan, if you were the sole such ATM mod* for a month? a year? What if you could recruit just one other such ATM mod, or two? Now to truly appreciate the (imaginary) experience, add in this: ~50+% of those who've posted ATM ideas before - and 100% of the most persistent such folk - become aware of your new mod powers within a day of you joining the mod-hood.

Can you get your head around this, dapifo? What more, chrlzs, do you need to undertake such Gedankenexperiment? How do you think you'd fare, Perikles? Etc (I'm not picking on you three/four, but concrete examples are needed ...).

To give you just one tiny aspect that may not have occurred to you: image a CQuestian - me, for example - reports every post in the ATM section which they perceive to be a violation of the ATM rule(s), and that each such Report Post is a minimum of 400 characters long. Oh, and imagine there are ~200+ new ATM posts per day. And that one out of every three infractions which you issue results in a new thread in the Feedback section, infractions you issue to both "ATMers" and to "anti-ATMers". And that every one of these "about ATM feedback" threads is lively, generating ~20+ posts a day. (There's more, of course, but I'll stop here).

Part of the reason why I'm suggesting this is, obviously, that I feel very few CQuestians who have not had to actively deal with the ATM section, for an extended period of time, as a mod, seem to have much of a clue as to what it's actually like (there are, obviously, notable exceptions such as Gillianren).

Or, to put this another way, Moose did NOT make this stuff up.

* the only mod, or admin, help you'd have would be in dealing with spamsters and with technical problems

[Nereid]

Just as an aside, one of the reasons I think it would be good idea is this.. (gets ready to duck..) I've noticed that on topics where tinfoil or conspiracy theories are being presented by an experienced 'artist', some of the very learned posters here (inc. me) fall for their techniques, particularly the one where the 'artist' presents multiple new topics so as to drop other topics before they are properly fleshed out and conceded. So one of the biggest problems of having one against many is that the one can easily use this to their advantage, knowing that as they introduce a new topic to distract from one they might be losing, new combatants will enter the fray eager to discuss the new topic - thereby helping the earlier topics to be left unfinished and forgotten.

If I am not mistaken, you are referring to the Gish Gallop^WP, or some variant.

But that technique vanishes in a properly managed debate..

Actually, I think you'll find that Gish himself became quite adept at using this in "a properly managed debate"; part of his "success" in such environments has to do with the fact that the debate can be spun - beyond the venue of the debate itself - to great effect to certain audiences.

As I said, I think few would be brave enough to take it up, but I think it is worth thinking about.. BTW, while my online time can be very erratic, I'd (gulp) volunteer as one of the sides in some selected debating topics, so I'm willing to walk the walk.. (I hope I don't end up regretting that..) :P

An offer that I, for one, appreciate you making. And it touches on something which caveman1917 and Van Rijn both mentioned earlier (no, I haven't forgotten, and yes, I did read your posts ... though it'll take me a while to respond), the educational value of the ATM forum. In this case, the suggestion I made in my last post was aimed at educating CQuestians such as yourself, so that you may learn something of the reality of moderating ATM ideas (outside peer review).

[Moose]

Or, to put this another way, Moose did make this stuff up.

Missing a word there, Nereid?

[Nereid]

Missing a word there, Nereid?

{insert embarrassed smilie} Oops! Yes, clearly my fingers were not listening to my brain; bad fingers!

Fixed.

[Moose]

Thanks. *chuckle*

[mutleyeng]

well hang on,
So far as the subject of debates are concerned - I asked the question as to whether they had ever been considered before. I was given the answer to that and have no argument as the reason given was one of philosophy, not practicality.
If the conversation ever got as far as discussing practicalities, then the issues you talk of would be addressed.
Even I as a commoner CQer have some appreciation that it requires management. The devil is in the detail, but we never got that far.
I would also just like to point out that there is the world of difference between written debates and face to face public debates - which so far as i am concerned are next to useless for anything more than casual amusement.

[Moose]

So far as the subject of debates are concerned - I asked the question as to whether they had ever been considered before. I was given the answer to that and have no argument as the reason given was one of philosophy, not practicality.

The answer is yes, they have been considered many times. They've been tried here, too, a rare few times. We're not speaking entirely from philosophy. We're speaking from seven or eight years of direct experience. It's a bad idea for many reasons. The exclusionary nature of such a debate is only one of the many problems.

[mutleyeng]

that wasnt the point. It was a response to the rebuke which I didnt think was entirely fair.

[Nereid]

well hang on,
So far as the subject of debates are concerned - I asked the question as to whether they had ever been considered before. I was given the answer to that and have no argument as the reason given was one of philosophy, not practicality.
If the conversation ever got as far as discussing practicalities, then the issues you talk of would be addressed.
Even I as a commoner CQer have some appreciation that it requires management. The devil is in the detail, but we never got that far.
I would also just like to point out that there is the world of difference between written debates and face to face public debates - which so far as i am concerned are next to useless for anything more than casual amusement.

On the point of practicality of written debates, also some nuts and bolts: how would you ensure that either debater stuck to the script/rules? For example, how would you - the moderator - ensure that no extraneous points (i.e. not directly relevant to the cleanly and clearly stated scope) were introduced? And if they were, what would you do?

[mutleyeng]

On the point of practicality of written debates, also some nuts and bolts: how would you ensure that either debater stuck to the script/rules? For example, how would you - the moderator - ensure that no extraneous points (i.e. not directly relevant to the cleanly and clearly stated scope) were introduced? And if they were, what would you do?

To be honest, i didnt want to keep this topic going in this thread as its clearly off the agenda. (I know, I'm not doing a good job on that)
But to answer your question, it isnt actually necessary that you do - the only thing necessary is that there are consequences if you fail to address specific points addressed to you. The value of this I think has been adequately outlined in previous posts by Chrizs, remembering that it is for the benefit of the person reading, not to have any futile notion that the protagonist may see the light.