Why CosmoQuest?

[HenrikOlsen]

As the Gish Gallop demonstrates, addressing specific points is not a sufficient conditions for ordered debate, as each response can be used as a start to introduce extra points.

[DoggerDan]

Hey...he did the same thing to me.

I didn't mean to, R.A.F. Or to you, Swift. My apologies!

[Nereid]

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)

Um, not really.

If you spend half an hour or so, and are good with searching, you'll find lots of threads, in this forum, in which all manner of alternatives have been proposed and discussed. And you'll find, I think, that many - perhaps most - are similarly "OT".

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.

Um, no.

If you spend a few dozen hours (minimum) going through the ATM archives, you'll find plenty of threads in which "ATMers" make it quite clear that they have absolutely no intention of abiding by debate rules that may be set. Further, if you allow an "opening statement" they'll use that opportunity to promote their pet theories (or whatever), regardless of any restriction or sanction. IOW, you, the moderator, have been forced into a corner; the debater has, in their very first post, explicitly violated the rules - do you delete the whole thing (and permaban the debater)? or allow it to stand, perhaps with a stern statement from you?

And what if the opening statement has been carefully crafted to skirt the rules, but not (obviously) break them?

Etc.

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.

Sure.

Except that this ignores the very real possibility that the audience the debater is writing for is not regular CQuestors! E.g. they're going to use the publicity provided by the CQ venue for their own marketing purposes ...

[DoggerDan]

Well, in his defense, the names are so similar and the avatars look so much alike ...

It's disrespectful comments like this that shame the board, not the honest feedback I shared which seemed to unleash a cavalcade of backlash. That it unleashed any backlash at all indicates there's something wrong with this forum. Earlier, before post 43, I'd mentioned I'd noticed a serious flaw. I expected an open discussion of the flaw. Instead, I've seen close to 140 examples of the flaw, floating on the backlash.

What am I supposed to think? What everyone here tells me to think? How would that be open, honest, or objective?

Here's what I think: This is what happens when PC is embraced in lieu of reality. Apparently, it's no longer PC to tell the truth.

I'll stick with the truth, thank you very much.

[R.A.F.]

I didn't mean to, R.A.F. Or to you, Swift. My apologies!

No worrise...

[PetersCreek]

It's disrespectful comments like this that shame the board, not the honest feedback I shared which seemed to unleash a cavalcade of backlash.

I can't fathom how the comment you quoted is so disrespectful as to shame the entire board. I read it as having a bit of harmless fun with your case of mistaken attribution. I suggest you take it in that vein and dial back the drama.

[mutleyeng]

Nereid, I dont doubt that what you say is true. There are two issues here. One is the actual format itself, rules and such like. The other is how broadly it is used.
When I raised the question, i never had in mind that debates would replace the ATM section. To be honest, i wasnt even thinking about the ATM section. In my mind it would be a useful asset for a forum for specific cases, something that would be applied for and be given consideration. Part of that consideration is the having an outline of the opening argument, which is also used to fine tune rules to avoid such things as Gish Gallop.
So far as marketing is concerned, you would hope that it would be read outside of CQers. Some will have an audience that no matter what, would think their champion won the day. Those people don't matter. The only people who do matter are the few onlookers who are on the verge of being sucked in but still open to rational argument.
That said, I am not trying to advocate it for this forum - its not deemed a good idea, and thats fine. I am just defending the concept of written debates

[natattack]

I just went back and re-read IreneAnt's post after all this.

My conclusion? It still stands as a valid description of CosmoQuest. I'm throwing this in here because I think it deserves some discussion. It should perhaps be noted that I'm coming to this as an original CQer and not a transplanted BAUTian.

When I say that it still stands, I'm considering CQ to be the whole site and not just the forum. I see some of the objections to IreneAnt's post as confusing the two. In particular, consider the following:

...
We encourage collaboration and cross fertilization of ideas between the various research components that make up CosmoQuest, be it Moon Mappers, Saturn Investigators, or anything else this community decides to pursue.
...

She's referring to concrete projects, both present and future. CQ as a whole is about projects and learning (and more, but I'm going to leave it at that). In this way, BAUT is a great tool for learning as it provides a wealth of resources in terms of both people and knowledge. It provides quite a lot of history too, as has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread.

Now this is just speculation (and I'm not entirely sure this will be helpful but I'm sure you'll let me know if it isn't), but one way we could think about the relationship between CQ and BAUT is to consider BAUT to be a project in itself under the CQ umbrella, concerned with explaining science/debunking bad science, to put it very broadly. This is most certainly understating the importance of BAUT in this infant stage of CQ, but I'm trying to express something that I haven't seen clearly articulated elsewhere while trying to get a feel for this new board, so that's just a general stab at it.

What do you all think?

[mutleyeng]

I think i agree with you, with the addition of promoting discussion.
I know there are a number of people here that have interesting things to talk about, some with past or present experience in the space industry... BAUT members could even think of taking on some of CQs ideas, such as hangouts

[DoggerDan]

I can't fathom how the comment you quoted is so disrespectful as to shame the entire board.

I find flippant retorts to honest opinions to be shameful.

I read it as having a bit of harmless fun with your case of mistaken attribution.

Perhaps you know the individual who said it much better than I. If so, you recognize it as "a bit of harmless fun." Those of us who don't know him don't recognize it that way.

I suggest you take it in that vein and dial back the drama.

Since I don't possess the level of familiarity you obviously have with him, I suggest you reconsider how you would feel if a relative stranger walked up, insulted you, and punched you in the arm. If he did that with you, you'd know it was friendly comraderie. When he does that with a stranger, it doesn't feel like friendly comraderie.

To me, it felt like an insult and a punch in the arm.

[PetersCreek]

If you honestly perceive an insult, our rules provide a means of reporting it. Likewise, if you wish to take exception to moderation comments, the rules also specify a means for doing that. Responding in-thread is not one of them.

[Perikles]

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.

I hear what you say, or rather I read what you write. But (from my point of view) a chaotic discussion is far worse than an orderly and very short spectator sport. The ATM threads I have read tend not to be what I would call a discussion anyway.

Judging from the reactions of several seasoned posters, I can see that I have contributed to scratching an old wound. Sorry about that, I shall return to silent lurking mode.

[Moose]

I find flippant retorts to honest opinions to be shameful.

It should be pointed out, DoggerDan, that misattribution is widely considered one of the more serious breaches of netiquette. Once, mistake, sure. It's forgivable if you fix it upon discovery. But twice? And (still) without fixing them? There are many upon many internet communities where a single flippant remark would be getting off very easy.

[R.A.F.]

I hear what you say, or rather I read what you write. But (from my point of view) a chaotic discussion is far worse than an orderly and very short spectator sport.

If everyone isn't (at least given the opportunity) to participate, which is what you are advocating, then this wouldn't be a discussion board....plain and simple...

The ATM threads I have read tend not to be what I would call a discussion anyway.

It can be difficult to get people with "agendas" to cooperate with the discussion format. Most just want to "promote" their idea without interferrence.

Judging from the reactions of several seasoned posters, I can see that I have contributed to scratching an old wound

It's just that this has been discussed before, and no one here seems to "want" it. (exclusive one on one discussions).

Sorry about that, I shall return to silent lurking mode.

There's no need for that...even though we might disagree, that does not mean that the opinions of everyone are not welcome, here.

I certainly don't want to be the "pot" calling the "kettle", black by being exclusionary. (smile face smiling)

[Nereid]

Nereid, I dont doubt that what you say is true. There are two issues here. One is the actual format itself, rules and such like. The other is how broadly it is used.

Well, I'd say at least three issues (e.g. add feasibility), but OK.

When I raised the question, i never had in mind that debates would replace the ATM section. To be honest, i wasnt even thinking about the ATM section.

Oops! It seems, then, that I rather thoroughly misunderstood what you intended to say {insert embarrassed smilie}

In my mind it would be a useful asset for a forum for specific cases, something that would be applied for and be given consideration. Part of that consideration is the having an outline of the opening argument, which is also used to fine tune rules to avoid such things as Gish Gallop.

In line with what natattack wrote, in the post following yours, that's perhaps a good idea, worth discussing further.

Rather than have debates (however organised) as part of the "BAUT" forum, make them something like a completely separate project, under the CQ banner.

So far as marketing is concerned, you would hope that it would be read outside of CQers. Some will have an audience that no matter what, would think their champion won the day. Those people don't matter. The only people who do matter are the few onlookers who are on the verge of being sucked in but still open to rational argument.
That said, I am not trying to advocate it for this forum - its not deemed a good idea, and thats fine. I am just defending the concept of written debates

Yes, when viewed in a broader light, ignoring BAUT's ATM section (and even a discussion forum with the format of BAUT), all that might be very relevant, and debates a VERY GOOD IDEA.

But why don't we take this discussion further in a separate thread? One devoted exclusively to it?

[R.A.F.]

Rather than have debates (however organised) as part of the "BAUT" forum, make them something like a completely separate project, under the CQ banner

.

Having debates under the CQ banner changes nothing...they would still need to be moderated, thereby increasing the mods "work load".


...and without a VERY GOOD reason that just isn't gonna happen.




edit to add...unless I am completely misunderstanding what it is you are saying...

[DoggerDan]

If you honestly perceive an insult, our rules provide a means of reporting it. Likewise, if you wish to take exception to moderation comments, the rules also specify a means for doing that. Responding in-thread is not one of them.

While I find your response wholly appropriate, I also find it completely void of any of the issues I raised.

[DoggerDan]

It should be pointed out, DoggerDan, that misattribution is widely considered one of the more serious breaches of netiquette.

I see. So, you (collectively) insult me, 153 posts to date, to be exact, and when I respond to the collective, you (the collective) arbitrarily take it personally, then claim grievance of "misattribution?"

Good grief, Moose! The one (single, uno) misattribution I did make was noted, and I appologized for it.

You know what? It's become apparent to me by the volume of the posts in this thread that none of you are interested in discussing science at all. You're certainly not willing to discuss feedback. Apparently, all you want to do is argue.

Ta-ta, as I've better things to do with my life, but before I depart, I'll ask you one final departing question: How many other straight-forward folks like myself have you chased away with these tactics?

[Noclevername]

I see. So, you (collectively) insult me, 153 posts to date, to be exact, and when I respond to the collective, you (the collective) arbitrarily take it personally, then claim grievance of "misattribution?"

I do so love being a Borg.

[DoggerDan]

I do so love being a Borg.

(snorkle) well, yeah, with all due respect, you're not exactly borgckle. You're a fresh breath of air, though!

[Perikles]

There's no need for that...even though we might disagree, that does not mean that the opinions of everyone are not welcome, here.

I know that, but I also know from other forums how exceedingly annoying it is when some bright spark comes up with a non-brilliant idea which has already been discussed ad nauseam in recent years. Some of this could be avoided by searching for previous discussions on the topic before posting, which I confess I did not do. I admit I find the vBulletin search function extremely unhelpful so I don't often try to use it.

[Nereid]

.

Having debates under the CQ banner changes nothing...they would still need to be moderated, thereby increasing the mods "work load".

True ... unless those who moderate debates are not the same as those who moderate the discussion forum (a.k.a. the old BAUT).

Think of it like this: the project scientists who run Moon Mappers (to take one example) are not the same people as those who moderate the discussion forum*, nor do they need to be. If the CQ owners feel that having a separate "debate stream" or "debate project" (we could have a competition for the best name) is a good idea, they could choose moderators (etc) for that project from wherever they liked ... and their decision may be to have no overlap with the discussion forum mods.

edit to add...unless I am completely misunderstanding what it is you are saying...

Not completely, but you did assume that there's only one group of CQ mods ...

* well, they might include one or two who are, but my point is that there is no necessary relationship between the two sets (other than that they both work within CQ)

[SRH]

It's kind of ironic that the early part of this thread posted feedback with the idea to make the forum more open to ATM-type discussion (and possible collaboration) and quickly turned into the idea of whether or not there should instead be a rigid-structure, formalized debate process whereby ATM ideas can efficiently be shut down (i.e. if the debater ignores a specific question, etc.). Just thought that was funny.

[R.A.F.]

If the CQ owners feel that having a separate "debate stream" or "debate project" (we could have a competition for the best name) is a good idea...

Why would they think that?


See that's the thing...lots of ideas as to how this board could change, but no reasoning as to why there needs to be a change.

Without a very good argument, there is simply no reason to change to accomodate a very small percentage of posters.

...they could choose moderators (etc) for that project from wherever they liked ... and their decision may be to have no overlap with the discussion forum mods.

So essentially your "answer" is get more mods?

I'd be very suspecious of anyone who "wanted" the job.

...you did assume that there's only one group of CQ mods ...

The only thing I assumed is that this will be a "hard sell" no matter who you get to do the "heavy lifting" that would be involved.

[mutleyeng]

Toefetish- just because an early post mentioned ATM dosnt mean the thread was about ATM - Seeing as it was started even before the merge, I dont see any irony here.

[R.A.F.]

The one glimmer of hope that such an idea might have is that Astrostu...

Before "submitting" his name, perhaps you should ask if he is even interested in taking on such a task.

Just sayin'.

[mutleyeng]

fair point RAF..i will edit it out

[R.A.F.]

No need for that...


edit...ok, now my response makes no sense...

[captain swoop]

While I find your response wholly appropriate, I also find it completely void of any of the issues I raised.

Please do not comment on moderation in thread. IF you have any comment or wish to discuss moderation then use the report function or PM the Mod concerned