Rules discussion

[Whirlpool]

Phffft!

Heh . I don't know how to call it . Sometimes I hear my American Boss talking to his colleague and they're talking in "English" , but somehow there are words that I don't understand during their conversation . From what I see it , it's a friendly talk that they have invented, words that cannot be found in the English dictionary.

Violated? No. But I would feel that my trust in that person was misplaced. And, as Van Rijn indicated, in the medium of the conversation. On the internet, never ever assume full privacy, not even when rules guarantee it. For example, someone might guess one of the admin's password, and publish their email. In such a case not only the admin's privacy is compromised, but also that of everyone who sent him stuff that ended up in his inbox. Not to mention the many ways that one's one PC might be compromised.

Violated > I used it as a general term to cover Right and Trust . My Right is violated and so is my Trust . From the word I used "confided" , that means it is understood that it is meant between me and the person I PM'd only.

FWIW, unless it's clear from the contents (yes, that's ambiguous), or by clear request to keep it private, I assume that a PM sent to a mod or admin concerning the forum may be discussed between them. Like in a restaurant, if I tell a waiter that my soup is cold again, I expect that to be discussed with the chefs, or a supervisor. If I have a complaint about the behavior of the guests sitting on the next table, I expect the waiter to act on it, or to notify his boss. OTOH, if I knew a waiter personally, and I confide in him that I fancy the new girl at the bar, I don't expect him to blabber about it. Generally, I expect the staff to use their judgement.

Funny though, so much discussion about a rule change that everyone so far agrees with.

Just as Mugaliens explanation.

However, private messages to a moderator about forum administration issues are an exception to this rule.

and
A PM to one is a PM to all, at least when it comes to official business.

That's it! That's the only exception that's mentioned - and by mentioning the exception (administration issues / official business), it implies that unless a PM meets this exception, the mods are bound by the same standards of not sharing PMs as are the rest of us.

[mugaliens]

If he had given you and Ad hom , yes you HAVE the right. But in other conversations DONE over PM , sharing with other people WITHOUT your permission is Not Appropriate.

So you're saying it requires users to use sound judgment?

I'd recommend that people always think about what they send. Always.

So you're saying people need to use good judgment?

A person should not assume that just because they think their PM isn't about official business that the mod will always think the way they do.

So you're saying people need to use good judgement?

Phffft!

So what you're saying is Phffft?

Generally, I expect the staff to use their judgement.

So what you're saying is that you expect the staff to use good judgement?

Funny though, so much discussion about a rule change that everyone so far agrees with.

So far. Is it just me, or did I catch a hint of some common thread of understanding, somewhere?

[Jeff Root]

I think people need to use good judgement.

-- Phffft, which is a Bill The Cat term, not a slang term

__________________
Sometimes, some people actually *do* use good judgement.
.

[Jeff Root]

I avoid the problem by trying not to say something about someone
behind their back, if I wouldn't want that person to know I said it.

A few minutes ago, while reading another thread, I thought of the
possibility of asking one of the regulars on BAUT his or her opinion of
another regular on BAUT. I hadn't yet thought about how I might word
the question, but it could plausibly include something like "Do you think
this person is just an airhead?" Any of you regulars reading this thread
might be either the person whose opinion I want or the person I want
to ask about. What do you think of this situation?

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[Whirlpool]

So you're saying it requires users to use sound judgment?

Yes . I suppose people of this board still has that?

[Whirlpool]

A few minutes ago, while reading another thread, I thought of the
possibility of asking one of the regulars on BAUT his or her opinion of
another regular on BAUT. I hadn't yet thought about how I might word
the question, but it could plausibly include something like "Do you think
this person is just an airhead?" Any of you regulars reading this thread
might be either the person whose opinion I want or the person I want
to ask about. What do you think of this situation?

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

If you ask a person who has a negative impression of that person you are talking about , you will receive a Negative comment, and that it will validate or deny the way you think this person is ; and if you ask a person who sees the person you are talking about is Reasonable and has a Good Impression on him , sure you'll know what will be his comment.

Bottom line , after getting comments from both sides of the coin , your opinion and how you see this person matters.

[geonuc]

What do you think of this situation?

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

I see no problem asking the opinion of others, particularly those here that you yourself hold in high regard. That is, in fact, one of the primary means I use to form opinions (on anything, not specifically the character of other BAUTzens) - I ask my trusted friends what they think.

[Tucson_Tim]

It is Private and a Someone has the right to say whatever they want.

And I have the right to forward it to a Mod, which I did.

This particular PM was unsolicited and the guy called me names, something he couldn't do in a thread. I forwarded it to a Mod and he suggested I take the "high road" and not respond. I took his advice. The PMer was later suspended, but not for the PM offense. BTW, if a person receives a PM that is threatening, that member should be reported and, if necessary (creepy enough), the police called in.

And that's all I'm going to say about this.

[R.A.F.]

And I have the right to forward it to a Mod, which I did.

I'd go further (farther?) than calling it a "right"...I'd call it a responsibility to report bad behavior particularly if it was done "underhandedly" ie. in a PM.

...as far as this subject...why would a PM to a mod concerning board business not be shared with other mods?

[Tucson_Tim]

. . . the binders containing the various rules governing the actions of myself and others occupy more than two feet of shelf space . . .

Are you the author?

[hhEb09'1]

For the better part of a couple of decades I've worked in various positions where the binders containing the various rules governing the actions of myself and others occupy more than two feet of shelf space, and I and many others are responsible for each and every rule.

Yeah, Lockheed Missiles and Space. I knew those binders inside and out, but I didn't start out to. It just happened.

'Course, the design specs for a smallish project had to be carried by forklift.

In contrast to the design proposal for the U2, which according to company lore, was a few pages.

Only 4-5 rules, and they "just don't get it?"

I don't get it...

What don't you get?

[Moose]

...as far as this subject...why would a PM to a mod concerning board business not be shared with other mods?

Just to reassure everyone, we don't quote PMs casually and we don't gossip about them. You may safely assume only PMs that are directly relevant to an ongoing situation, or otherwise need to be recorded will be seen by other mods.

Generally, situations where a PM might be quoted or described are going to fall into one of four categories: PMed warnings (which obviously need to be recorded), responses to those warnings (which can speak to mitigation or aggravation), mediation (when we think there's room to avoid major sanction), or complaints (otherwise, no corrective action is possible.)

It's also a fair assumption that the more public controversy being churned up by whatever event or participant is being documented, the more likely a brief description won't be sufficient.

PMs about non-official matters aren't mentioned nor quoted. To be blunt (in an kindly way): We're not that into you all. Life's too short to play voyeur.

[Gillianren]

I have a lot of friends with whom I PM. In those PMs, we discuss all kinds of things we couldn't in open forum. I suspect that, for the most part, no one cares. It's all voluntary, we never take the business into open forum, and the conversations let off steam for all of us. (It's always so much more satisfactory to complain about things to someone who knows what you're talking about. Complaining to my real life friends requires so much setup.) If there's starred swearing, talk about politics or religion, ad homs about other members--well, in that case, if it bothers one of us, the other can just say, "Hey, that bothers me. Could you knock it off?"

So far, so good, right? Here's where the mods might get involved. If I told one of those people that I didn't want to, oh, hear all about their political beliefs, and that person didn't stop, I would forward the message to the mods. Now, that's not enough reason for me to shut off PMs completely; I still want to get the PMs from my other friends. I don't know if it's an option--I think it is--but I wouldn't want to limit PMs to just those on my friends list, either. Too many people PM me asking for grammatical advice or whatever; I don't want to shut myself off as a resource or require them to open a thread about one quick question. And, obviously, that person has not taken my request onboard and is still doing the thing that bothers me.

People have received spam by PM. That, rightly, got reported to the mods.

And if, like Tucson Tim, I received an abusive PM, I would report it to the mods. You do not have an absolute right to say whatever you want to whomever you want via PM. I have continued locked conversations into PM once or twice, and if the person didn't want to hear about it from me and I persisted, I would expect that person to report me to the mods. Common courtesy in a case like that would be to talk to me first, but if you start out in attack mode, I'm not sure common courtesy applies or should apply.

Oh, and "pfft" is onomatopoeia for a sound of annoyance, disgust, or disbelief.

[01101001]

Just theoretically, pathologically, suppose one of the mods vanished -- had an unfortunate need to be away, dropped out without saying, went to a higher astral plane with better forums, got banned, whatever.

What would be done with what could be on-going PM correspondence that might be of moderator-type business? Destroy it unread? Have someone go through it? Let it be and just ask anyone involved in correspondence to take it up with another mod?

[Moose]

What would be done with what could be on-going PM correspondence that might be of moderator-type business?

If the mod hasn't made the other mods aware of the conversation, and that mod were to get kidnapped by MechaBarbaraStreisand (hypothetically, of course), the conversation will have "never happened" for the purposes of continuity. That's pretty much why we have to document moderator actions and official conversations.

From a practical standpoint, there's no way we can peek into anybody's inbox.

[mahesh]

And I have the right to forward it to a Mod, which I did.
... if necessary (creepy enough), the police called in. And that's all I'm going to say about this.

A couple of years ago, such an event did take place here, TT!
Are you referring to that?

It was serious enough for Fraser to get involved.
Don't think the police were called-in, but it was on the cards. Pretty close. Serious stuff.

It's a real shame when one / (BAUT) is subjected to such an occurence.

And thanks Gillian for

..."pfft" is onomatopoeia...

Font of knowledge!

[mugaliens]

I think people need to use good judgement.

I think that's a swell idea!

-- Phffft, which is a Bill The Cat term, not a slang term

Gotcha...

Any of you regulars reading this thread might be either the person whose opinion I want or the person I want to ask about. What do you think of this situation?

Well, phffft! Sounds like you're in a quandry, until you make a move. You could always throw the issue on the table and let people comment as if they were one or the other, but I'm not sure if that would be using sound judgement.

I suspect you'll use your best judgement.

Are you the author?

Heck, no!

Actually, I've contributed to around half a dozen...

[Tucson_Tim]

A couple of years ago, such an event did take place here, TT!
Are you referring to that?

It was serious enough for Fraser to get involved.
Don't think the police were called-in, but it was on the cards. Pretty close. Serious stuff.

It's a real shame when one / (BAUT) is subjected to such an occurence.

Wow. No, I wasn't aware of that. Either it happened before I registered or I was just unaware of it.

[Veeger]

Don't think the police were called-in, but it was on the cards. Pretty close. Serious stuff.

Cyber-bullying doesn't just happen to 14 year old girls. It is a very real problem in some circles.

Interestingly, the internet is very much a frontier area with very little law enforcement. As a consequence there is a growing wave of internet vigilantism.

[Moose]

Wow. No, I wasn't aware of that. Either it happened before I registered or I was just unaware of it.

It wasn't widely disseminated.

[peter eldergill]

Hah! Rule "0"... I love it!

Way to go Daneel!

Pete

[ToSeek]

Hah! Rule "0"... I love it!

Way to go Daneel!

Pete

Swift's suggestion based on something Henrik posted, some wording tweaks from me.

[mahesh]

It, so neatly, encapsulates BAUT!

[Buttercup]

I'm going to add Rule -1.

Whatever that is.

[hhEb09'1]

I'm going to add Rule -1.

Whatever that is.

Two words, in red, in the attached thumbnail to this post

[NEOWatcher]

I'm going to add Rule -1.

Whatever that is.

Now that's just adding more negativity toward the rules.

[Buttercup]

Two words, in red, in the attached thumbnail to this post

And now for Rule -2: You need to hurry up and post again, so your Count flips over to an even 10,000.

That 9,999 is bugging me.

[forrest noble]

hope I'm commenting in the right place.

I think there's something seriously wrong with the ATM forum. Many if not most of the responders reply with the zeal of "defenders of the faith." This I think is the result of how the forum is moderated. Moderators try to be impartial but often do not seem to understand statements made by the OP which are sometimes plainly understood by those who know and agree with some, part, or the whole of the proposal. Of course moderators decisions can be challenged but I think the problem runs deeper than that.

In my opinion many good ATM proposals are made on this forum. In my judgment possible 5% of those proposals on the ATM forum have at least some merit. Often times it seems that the proposer does not know how to adequately explain or defend his proposal. If somebody else understands the details of the alternative theory/ hypothesis better, and chimes in to explain it better, he or she rightfully could be questioned further. After a couple of comments a moderator may jump in (usually based upon a complaint of somebody believing they are a defender of the faith) and says something like a "highjack of the thread" and "start your own thread".

I am often times in partial agreement with at least one thread being proposed on the ATM at any given time. I believe my comments and others in partial agreement with the OP could be very valuable for an improved discussion of ATM ideas or proposals. If the OP is in agreement concerning the help being offered and he or she continues to make their own comments I don't see the problem with others chiming in to help the OP with information and related links supporting the OP's proposal or the general idea of it.

I understand this process is supposed to be some sort of a preliminary peer review but those that only know mainstream theory sometimes have no more than a clue concerning the possibilities of some ATM proposals and sometimes cannot intelligently comment on the proposal without a greater in-depth understanding which such additional comments by others might provide. I find myself not commenting on many interesting ideas because I believe I will be chased away by the moderators and I believe many others feel the same way. I think many moderators also believe they are "defenders of the faith" which accordingly would be the mainstream theory on any particular subject.

I think there are many insurmountable problems with mainstream cosmology and related theory and would like to see more real discussion where those that agree to some extent with the OP can add valid comments/ information as long as any continuing discussion is done with the agreement of the OP. Most people don't have the time to argue an issue for a month even though in some cases such arguments are evidence-based and could go on intelligently for many years.

I agree with the 30 day limit but not with chasing off those agreeing with the OP who add completely valid comments directly related to the subject. It is my opinion that from such extended considerations more productive discussions can be made that will not necessarily be a joint effort to defeat the OP, instead alternative ideas will have a real voice and those that do not have time to argue for a month can add there related comments to discussions they are interested in.

Does anyone have comments or additional ideas on this matter.

respectfully, forrest

[HenrikOlsen]

I agree with the 30 day limit but not with chasing off those agreeing with the OP who add completely valid comments directly related to the subject.

When I've chased people away it's because they've commented in a way that highlights they own, only vaguely similar, ATM idea rather than explain the one being questioned.

[Moose]

Exactly. One is not permitted to hijack someone else's thread with their own ATM. If it's a new (finished) ATM, make your own thread to present it. If you've already presented it, then you've already presented it. One gets 30 days to promote. That's it.