"The Management Reserves The Right ..." (DRAFT)

[Nereid]

Just as in a real-life café, the management needs to set some standards for acceptable behaviour; just as in a real-life café, going over the line here in The Asterisk Café may result in a patron being removed from the premises, or even declared persona non grata.

*** This thread is a work-in-progress, developing those standards ***

First, spam is not welcome. Indeed, we have a very low tolerance of spam ... if a patron comes here to spam, not only will their post(s) or thread(s) be removed forthwith, but they will be banned, permanently.

Second, the same rules posted in Discuss an Astronomy Picture of the Day (APOD) section apply here; there are two such - the six "The Rules: read these before posting" and a scope statement ("Welcome to an APOD Discussion Forum").

Third, be polite, don't attack people, and don't swear.

Fourth, the usual - respect copyright, respect others' privacy, don't be disruptive, etc.

And last, once again, this is a scientific forum, devoted to discussing astronomy.

*****
Suggestions and comments welcome!

[ckam]

I dont understand the part about scope. I thought you are going to move here everything that is out-of-scope. Such as "what does Osama Bin Laden haircut look like" or "how do you grow Bonsai trees"

Any way, I always thought that the only rule that is needed in a forum is something like "the management reserves the right to kick your ass".

[craterchains]

Most of the signs in cafes read;
The management reserves the right to refuse service to anyone."

Many forums use this statement in this fashion;
"The management reserves the right to serve refuse to anyone."

Norval (jk)

[Martin]

Ckam -LMAO

[Nereid]

I dont understand the part about scope. I thought you are going to move here everything that is out-of-scope. Such as "what does Osama Bin Laden haircut look like" or "how do you grow Bonsai trees"

Any way, I always thought that the only rule that is needed in a forum is something like "the management reserves the right to kick your ass".

It's a good question, but no, the scope of this whole forum is astronomy, with most of it devoted to discussion of APODs and the NSL project.

I understand that a common problem in fora that are too loose with regard to scope is that they can all too easily become yet another place to argue religion or politics (or both), topics which quickly lead to all kinds of nasty things, like flame wars. And we certainly don't want discussion of UFOs (for example) to be off-limits in the rest of this forum, only to be perfectly OK here!

In any case, it seems that people who have posted in this forum have done so largely in an on-topic, harmonious way (spam attacks aside).

So all we really need is a general statement (to the effect that 'the management reserves the right'), a scope statement, and (maybe) something about copyright? Later, if something specific needs to be addressed, the rules could be amended.

Also, I now think that calling attention to spam, by having a specific rule against it, is not needed - it's behaviour which everyone recognises as bad, and is already covered in the rules:

6. Do not post advertisements of any kind without securing the express consent of the administrators beforehand. Do not use this bulletin board as a vehicle to promote your own website, product, or forum, nor to sell merchandise. Advertising and this kind of promotion are egregious offenses which will result in the deletion of the offending posts and banning of the author(s) responsible.

[Nereid]

How to deal with what I call 'promotion' threads, and posts, here in the Café?

You know the sorts of things - page after page of crank or pseudoscience or fringe science material, presented over and over and over and over again. There's no discussion of most of this - questions about the ideas, as presented, are not answered; challenges to the ideas, as presented, are not addressed. Irrespective of the intentions of those who post the material, the way the internet works, these repetitive posts serve to boost the rankings of the source sites' Google (and other search engine) rankings.

I feel this is an abuse of The Asterisk*, and Night Sky Live, because we are linked directly to a set of webpages that has huge daily traffic.

So maybe we need a clear rule, for posting in the Café, to deal with this?

Here's an idea: all threads need to start with one or more open questions, or present some new development in astronomy ('news'); subsequent discussion in the threads must stay focussed, and the content limited to mainstream astronomy.

What do you think?

[cosmo_uk]

how about a separate section of the forum for "against the mainstream" as they do on bad astronomy - that way as soon as the discussion becomes cranky it can be moved there.

[makc]

that would make no difference. why don't you just rename "cafe" in "crank-fe" then?

[craterchains]

How about just leaving it as it is, a "Cafe". There are many conversations that would do well with out the interjection of the moronic insults of the underachievers calling others "woo woos" and so on.

Many that think "outside of the box" get set upon by these ones that only want to detract from the ideas presented for their own agendas. Now I wonder why that is? hmmmmm?

APOD has used the publics input to attempt to solve some some of the questions and mysteries that the government's scientists weren't able to. That causes me to wonder why also?!?!

I find the study and dissecting of forums postings and methodologies of posters to be a fascinating subject personally.

[Nereid]

how about a separate section of the forum for "against the mainstream" as they do on bad astronomy - that way as soon as the discussion becomes cranky it can be moved there.

At least two other internet discussion fora tried this approach - PhysicsForums (PF) and BAUT (aka 'bad astronomy').

Both subsequently substantially changed their rules - PF now has an Independent Research section, where folk who do research independently of an academic or research institution can have their ideas stress-tested (and where those which pass can go on to be published in relevant peer-reviewed technical journals, as some indeed have); BAUT now requires new threads to be new 'against the mainstream' ideas, or to present genuinely new material to support an idea presented in an old thread, and all threads are automatically locked after 30 days.

Even more than BAUT, I want to make sure The Asterisk* does not become a venue for free promotion of pet (astronomy, cosmology) theories. To this end, if an idea had already passed muster in BAUT, or even more so, in PF's IR section, then I think we should welcome continued discussion of it here. Of course, if there are papers published in relevant peer-reviewed journals ... !

However, unlike PF or BAUT, we don't have the resources to properly address pet theories, even if we were to somehow limit the number which get presented.

That's one set of reasons why I like makc's suggestion, about threads needing to start with one or more open questions, or present some new development in astronomy ('news').

[makc]

...Many ...get set upon by these ones that only want to detract from the ideas presented for their own agendas.

That's exactly what my suggestion was about. You see, we had at least two threads that have grown ridiculously large because of this. In essence, people from both sides continuosly re-stated their ideas, never providing any constructive response to the questions, and questioned each other intelligence.

Let me quote my message to Nereid here:

disallowing all threads that are not questions. consider this logic: if people need to discuss a subject, that means they dont know something about it, and requiring them to state that in their post in a form of question is not a big deal.

Then, if we can keep other posts of the thread addressing only question in original post, and not attacking each other, this issue will never be discussed again.

Now, the other bit about what kind of responses are legit (mainstream). I was going to attribute that bit to Nereid, but I just rememberd that it was my idea as well:

if you do not want unscientific stuff discussed here, please have some balls and put that straight into forum rules, reserving full right (and responsibility) for determining what is or is not scientific for yourself

Indeed, since the Nereid de facto rules this board, I don't see why she can't decide what material is appropriate. It may or may not be inline with my (or yours) likings, but I do believe that it will cut crappy threads full of personal attacks, so it has to be somewhat good.

Finally, question to Nereid: starting when this rule is going to be enforced?

[FieryIce]

You see, we had at least two threads that have grown ridiculously large

Makc, straightforward banning the assholes would just be way too simple of a resolution. I guess competency demands continued prodding and probing for the politically correct procedure instead of uncomplicated action.

[craterchains]

Information acquisition and control is what these forums are all about. So, based on that premise some of these suggestions would just be aiding and abetting that acquisition and control. These posters I call IAC Agents, that is Information Acquisition and Control Agents. They are readily identified by their methods and types of postings. Quite the pattern really.

Often times many haven't heard of an alternative that goes against the mainstream because of that control. As an example, the information is buried in a bunch of non relevant questionings and reasoning. (Like Harry does all the time) After several years of researching and building a data base of these IAC agent's methodologies when presented with a truth that is to be kept from public view, they become transparent and easily recognizable. An example of that was the water oceans on Mars and the implications of it having been massively flooded more than once, and in recent history. It took several years before mainstream stopped calling woo woo on those of us that had all ready discerned that Mars had these floods, and the water is still there. Call the tactics what you will, yet the fact remains, there are reasoning and extrapolations of answers that some don't want others to even think about.

The problem with what you are trying to accomplish is that it only "controls" the flow of information. Let the cafe take care of it's self, with moderator intervention only as necessary. Many like to have a public conversation with just a few of the posters and NOT some of the posters. Also using the private messaging system can help in setting up conversations. This board is not set up to allow only certain posters to post to specific threads as some can.

Requirements of fully filled out profiles of relevant information about the poster would be great also. I want to KNOW who I am posting with, and thus would help me in formulating the answer to them.

ohhh hell, gets off the soap box, , well?

[Doum]

Craterchain

The problem with what you are trying to accomplish is that it only "controls" the flow of information. Let the cafe take care of it's self, with moderator intervention only as necessary.

The problem is that any who start a new post on what ever particular subject, there are people like "Harry" who join in to say it aint the truth or i don't beleive that. They do that on almost all post. They were trying to keep all post on that subject (It's a form of control.) That was the problem. We want to talk about something else and they keep bringing it back. Recently it has been less invasive. Now how to forbid imposition on a discussion without imposition in doing so.

[Edit by Nereid: [ quote ] tags edited, to enclose the quote from craterchains' post.]

[Doum]

i forget to close the quote. Sorry.

[makc]

Many like to have a public conversation with just a few of the posters and NOT some of the posters... This board is not set up to allow only certain posters to post to specific threads as some can.

I like your idea. Have you seen any sites that work like this, or you came up with it on your own? Chats work like that, but they rely on instant replies and mostly no history is preserved online.

[hishadow]

Craterchain

The problem with what you are trying to accomplish is that it only "controls" the flow of information. Let the cafe take care of it's self, with moderator intervention only as necessary.

The problem is that any who start a new post on what ever particular subject, there are people like "Harry" who join in to say it aint the truth or i don't beleive that. They do that on almost all post. They were trying to keep all post on that subject (It's a form of control.) That was the problem. We want to talk about something else and they keep bringing it back. Recently it has been less invasive. Now how to forbid imposition on a discussion without imposition in doing so.

[Edit by Nereid: [ quote ] tags edited, to enclose the quote from craterchains' post.]

Is it the independent research or conspiracy theorist posts that are most troublesome? Personally I think it's a bit rude of people with little or no experience/education to come here and "pose" as experts. As a non-expert it can be a bit hard to detect self-experts because of heavy jargoning.

[Doum]

I'm no expert but if i ask a question about dark matter i expect an answer relative to the question. Not an opinion about it to be true or not and that the theory i'm refering to aint true. I'm not against other theory and to search other theory is good. But it must stay on a post relative to that subject. Electric univers can have its own post i suppose. But to talk about it everywhere in all post is too much interfering. At a certain level of interference people might stop to post because of it. If someone have an interest in it then they can go to that post and talk about it.

For now, it look to me that the EU is a religion more then a science. I will continue to read about it and try to understand it.

No hard feeling here on anyone. I hope i'm not rude neither. If we have to be an expert to post in the forum then i will shut up.

[makc]

competency demands continued prodding and probing for the politically correct procedure instead of uncomplicated action

If that's a finger pointing to Nereid, I have said a few times already, it seems that she actually enjoys the process I would like to put an end to. Oh well, we'll see how it turns out in its time...

[craterchains]

Try looking at the DISCUS boards, , very good for multiple levels of postings.

http://www.discusware.com/index.html

[Nereid]

competency demands continued prodding and probing for the politically correct procedure instead of uncomplicated action

If that's a finger pointing to Nereid, I have said a few times already, it seems that she actually enjoys the process I would like to put an end to. Oh well, we'll see how it turns out in its time...

Speaking personally (not wearing any hat), I have been interested in the extent to which there's anything to the, at times quite fierce, 'agin the mainstream' material that one can find so readily on the internet.

I mean, in a scientific sense.

And in regard to astronomy (astrophysics, cosmology, plantary science, ..).

Through two, > one year long, involvements in what seem(ed) to me to the the leading forums where any such could reliably be found (PF and BAUT), I have concluded that if there is, it is extremely hard to find. Conversely, the vast majority of what's claimed seems to me to reflect little more than profound ignorance of the relevant parts of astronomy or physics, and all too often an equally profound resistance to do anything concrete about that ignorance.

That leaves one question that I'm currently interested in - what lies at the heart of these 'agin the mainstream' things, in terms of what the proponents see as the nature of science (as it relates to astronomy).

So far, to my own satisfaction, I've addressed pretty much all the EU crowd, and a great many others besides ... IMHO, the basis for their ideas bears little resemblance to modern science, especially in relation to the role of theory and the importance of accounting for high-quality astronomical data quantitatively.

I estimate but a few days, or weeks, will suffice to show none of those from the 'agin' camp have approaches that can even remotely be called science ...

[craterchains]

I estimate but a few days, or weeks, will suffice to show none of those from the 'agin' camp have approaches that can even remotely be called science ...

whatever, , ,

[FieryIce]

Fascinating
Yet the facts still remain.

[Nereid]

[snip]

If we have to be an expert to post in the forum then i will shut up.

Questions are always welcome ... there are many folk who post here who are, in fact, au fait with the relevant astronomical (astrophysical, cosmological, ...) scientific work, and are only too pleased to help answer the questions.

Answers to questions, and opinions in general ... well, in keeping with this being a scientific forum, the expectation is that the perspective from which the answers will come includes familiarity with the relevant astronomy (as science) results ... which, in the final analysis, means papers published in relevant, peer-reviewed journals.

What we seem to be getting closer to is a clear bifurcation ... several regular posters here seem to be interested in little more than using this Cafe as a place to promote various a- or anti-scientific views (a.k.a. 'pet theories'). Such posting is, or soon will be, inappropriate.

Personally, I would like to ensure that all such promoters of pet theories be given every chance to back up their claims, ultimately with the contents of appropriate papers published in relevant, peer-reviewed, journals (and discussion thereof). I freely acknowledge that this is, to some, a far too permissive stance.

[Doum]

Agreed and thank-you for your response. I will be open to new theory if i see something that convince me of it. Wich must include the majority of scientist on astronomy and physics who happen to be those who bring us the mach 5 speed airplaine and computer and atomic energy and everything else. Some of them (New inventions and new application of science) might be bad for human kind but those bad use of new science happen in all the time of human history. It has always been up to us human to stop it in time before.... Now lets continue...for the best...