Trigger happy mods?

[QuantumT]

Aren't the mods here a bit too eager and fast to close threads?
I fully understand that many threads can be too fringe or exotic to be considered science, but that's not what I'm talking about!

A genuine scientific thread might start with misconceptions and be on the border to the rules, but can still serve as educational to both the OP and the readers, while the errors in it are corrected by the peers on this site. But they never get the chance!

I used to be filled with curiosity, ideas and theories, but after having several threads here closed for petty reasons, I have come to a stale. It sucks. I miss the old avid me. The me that had ideas all the time. Not always good ones, but always ones worth a debate.
And I learned from my mistakes. Until I came here. Now I am just mistaken. Case closed.

I realise a place like this needs rules. I just wonder if some mods here aren't interpreting them too rigid?

Edited February 19, 2019 by QuantumT

[Mordred]

I can honestly tell you the mods on this forum are far less rigid than many other forums I visit. On forums with less rigidity the posters run amock with all sorts of rules violations and a total lack of any actual science. 

 I find this forum has a decent balance between enforcing the rules, and allowances depending on the nature of the posts. It is the primary reason this forum is my preferred choice. 

Edited February 19, 2019 by Mordred

[QuantumT]

15 minutes ago, Mordred said:

I can honestly tell you the mods on this forum are far less rigid than many other forums I visit. On forums with less rigidity the posters run amock with all sorts of rules violations and a total lack of any actual science. 

 I find this forum has a decent balance between enforcing the rules, and allowances depending on the nature of the posts. It is the primary reason this forum is my preferred choice. 

I see your point, and I've been places where I was shut down instantly.

But from a scale from -10 to +10 where 0 is perfect, we are maybe at a +2 here.

Edited February 19, 2019 by QuantumT

[Phi for All]

Why would anyone want to discuss a "theory" of yours that was based on misinformation? If you want to continue talking about an idea like that, just 1) fix the mistakes, 2) gather more supportive evidence, and 3) open a new, better thread! We close the bad ones so we don't waste time on the under-supported and poorly founded concepts. These are easy to spot because the poster starts soapboxing and repeating the same poor points.

Petty reasons? Having bad information and trying to build a theory from it is hardly petty. You don't build a house on a poor foundation.

Instead of crying about spilt sour milk, you should be figuring out a better way to present a fresh, thoughtful, rigorous approach that might better persuade skeptical science-minded folks your idea has merit. If at first you don't succeed... remember that one? Only a fraction of human ideas are right, after all. 

[QuantumT]

2 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

1) fix the mistakes, 2) gather more supportive evidence, and 3) open a new, better thread!

Deal!

No whining, just improvement. I can deal with that.

But I still think you are a bit too fast closing them sometimes 

[koti]

1 hour ago, QuantumT said:

But I still think you are a bit too fast closing them sometimes 

Phi for all is one of those mods who is extremely observant and thinks things through before he moderates. I think you either have him confused with someone else or you have no idea what you are talking about.

[Mordred]

Here is a few handy rule of thumb, if your unsure of something ask it in a question mode. Don't hijack threads to do so however its best to create your own thread when asking questions unless its particular to the OPS post.

If your answering questions make sure you can back up every answer you provide with a peer review source, believe me the number of times I've had to defend my answers over the years this is a crucial step. 

If you want to Speculate on a non mainstream (Ie found in textbooks) idea, start a thread but within the Speculation forum and be prepared to follow the guidelines. A good theorist wants people to blow holes into his idea, it saves him from years of work if someone can point out flaws that he cannot account for. One of those guidelines is never reply in another persons thread with your own speculation. I tend to take this one step further, to never reply with personal favourite models but reply with an answer you know you can find existing in a textbook.

 

Edited February 20, 2019 by Mordred

[Phi for All]

53 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

But I still think you are a bit too fast closing them sometimes 

How long should we leave a thread open if it's misleading or unscientific? How much time would you like to waste on misunderstandings the OP refuses to correct?

I think you're thinking a breakthrough can't happen if we shut the discussion down. It's more like a breakthrough can't happen if you don't get the science right from the start. 

[Mordred]

Unfortunately the majority of Speculation posts rarely ever get the science right...I highly enjoy the ones that do regardless of how unlikely the possibility is. In my personal view the threads I enjoy the most are the ones that the OP listens and learns from.

[zapatos]

3 hours ago, QuantumT said:

I used to be filled with curiosity, ideas and theories, but after having several threads here closed for petty reasons, I have come to a stale

Give me a break.

[Sensei]

3 hours ago, QuantumT said:

Aren't the mods here a bit too eager and fast to close threads?

Yes, they are. Recently. Guy made thread, went to sleep, didn't manage to log in back, and the less than 24h later "thread closed". C'mon!

Wait at least a week to see if somebody is revisiting forum and logging at that time (and reluctant to reply for questions), prior closing his/her thread..

 

 

Edited February 20, 2019 by Sensei

[hypervalent_iodine]

1 hour ago, Sensei said:

Yes, they are. Recently. Guy made thread, went to sleep, didn't manage to log in back, and the less than 24h later "thread closed". C'mon!

Wait at least a week to see if somebody is revisiting forum and logging at that time (and reluctant to reply for questions), prior closing his/her thread..

 

What thread are you talking about? 

[Ten oz]

While the internet is human's greatest tool for distributing information it also is our greatest tool for distributing falsehoods. Theories which rejected known information (anti science) very often masquerade or start off a scientific theories their originators insist are serious. Flat Earth, anti vaccination, Moon Landing hoax, and the Mandela Effect just to name a few are the sort of garbage masquerading as science Moderators here need to keep an eye for. 

The system here is not perfect but all things considered I think it is fair. In my experience provided a poster have a specific question they are inquiring about or a specific line of discussion thread's stay open. It is when thread stack falsehoods or only exist are preaching platforms (soapbox) for their originator that thread's typically get close. For example a thread specifically discussing the observable distance of the horizon is specific while a thread about the the horizon being a hoax because it looks different from a plane introduces layers of falsehoods and will most likely fail. 

If you are creating thread's which have been closed or are participating in thread's you enjoy which get closed I recommend thinking carefully about what specific bits can be discussed in isolation and starting a thread about those. Often people start a single thread to discuss an idea which should actually be a few different threads. 

[swansont]

11 hours ago, koti said:

Phi for all is one of those mods who is extremely observant and thinks things through before he moderates. I think you either have him confused with someone else or you have no idea what you are talking about.

Yes, he is, but QuantumT is using "you" to refer to all mods, and specifically referring to me in terms of shutting threads down. If the speculative thread dealt with physics, I'm the mod most likely to have interacted with you (over the years)

 

Is it too fast? Well, that depends. We have received comments where people have complained about threads being left open too long, and begging us to close them. The people whose thread was shuttered rarely agree that they should have been locked. Bottom line is that there is no moderation strategy that will please everyone. The mods use their best judgement, built upon doing this for a number of years, and seeing a lot of people come and go.

You in particular? In your first thread I tried to nudge you into compliance with our rules. That you needed to be more forthcoming with information. The thread was shut down after you announced "I will not participate in this open forum anymore"

But you weren't true to your word. You came back, and to be honest, you lose a certain amount of goodwill from the mods when you pull a stunt like that. Once again, you were not forthcoming with information needed to support your position. That thread was closed, with a note that said if you did present supporting information, you could re-introduce the topic. I don't see where you took us up on the offer.

The last one shut down was where you admitted you didn't understand the physics, and yet had a conjecture. I explained that this was not living up to our expectations, and at this point you had twice been given feedback on the matter of being able to support your ideas. Thus I had zero confidence that simply giving some feedback and letting the thread continue would improve matters. That was your third strike. The fact that you are placing the blame elsewhere tells me you haven't absorbed this feedback at all.

So the question that I have is how many chances do you expect, when you show no improvement in your behavior?

[QuantumT]

13 hours ago, koti said:

Phi for all is one of those mods who is extremely observant and thinks things through before he moderates. I think you either have him confused with someone else or you have no idea what you are talking about.

I did not mean him specifically.

13 hours ago, Phi for All said:

How much time would you like to waste on misunderstandings the OP refuses to correct?

None. If the OP refuses to learn from his mistakes, you are right to shut him down.

2 hours ago, swansont said:

You in particular? In your first thread I tried to nudge you into compliance with our rules. That you needed to be more forthcoming with information. The thread was shut down after you announced "I will not participate in this open forum anymore"

But you weren't true to your word. You came back, and to be honest, you lose a certain amount of goodwill from the mods when you pull a stunt like that.

I meant it, when I said it, but I changed my mind.
I actually expected people to confront me with that, but it didn't happen, until now.
It is not an honorable thing to do, and I'm not proud of it, but I was too fast giving up back then.
If we get to know each other better in the future, you will see that I am a man of my word, and that that was a rare exception.

Edited February 20, 2019 by QuantumT

[beecee]

Perhaps this is more about not "being able to please all of the people all of the time"?           And of course that old adage of it being a thankless job is certainly true.

Do we need Mods? Yes.

Are Mods going to make decisions that you are going to agree with 100% of the time? No

I participate here because it is a science forum, and as such I would hope that the scientific methodology reigns supreme, particularly when ego driven people continually claim they have "bettered" some incumbent theory or model. More then likely they have not. Afterall if anyone really believes they have "bettered" GR for example, why would they announce it on some remote science forum. They would be taking it out to the world and preparing themselves for Stockholm in November and the Nobel prize! In essence science forums being open to any Tom. Dick or Harry, should only be considered as vehicles for asking science based questions, and giving mainstream explanations and reasons by those that know.

Also of course many science forums such as this, also have sub forums such as Speculation, Politics etc, noting of course that the governing premise is the scientific method and whatever critical review of said views is needed.

There are forums far more stringent then this forum, and also some far more lax. I can certainly direct people to one in particular that has far more discussions on ghosts, Goblins, Alien origin UFO's and conspiracy nonsense such as faked Moon landings and 9/11 alternative crap. 

Mods are human and sometimes make decisions that all of us are not going to agree with. I certainly did not agree with my forced 3 day holiday and believed it was wrong  obviously. But I also recognise my shortcomings in that I will not tolerate bullies and will always give as good as I get, and see the necessity to refute vigorously those that love to attempt to denigrate some aspect of science, wrongfully and without reasonable cause.  In doing that I recognise that on occasions I may go beyond reasonable criticism. I am trying to eliminate that undesirable feature of my otherwise incredible persona. 

As humans, we all I believe have agendas of some sort...some have religious agendas [closeted and un-closeted] and will inevitably love getting on their white charger and conducting crusades against the evil Atheist and the science he pushes...Others simply have over-inflated egos and believe they are capable of usurping current scientific theories, with tiresome 100% certainty and are incapable of accepting any criticism...My agenda is simply science and the scientific method and despite my "forced holiday"  believe that in general, this rightly also appears to be the agenda of the Mods and Admins on this forum. And that's why you still have me!!!

Edited February 20, 2019 by beecee

[QuantumT]

I agree with beecee.

For my part I am still here because I am deeply in love with science, and because this place is the most tolerant forum of its kind. I announced my departure prematurely, mostly because I was used to even more tolerant forums of diverse kinds, and I regretted it and came back, because I realized that the scientific method cannot be bent to our wishes or ideas. I realized that I was wrong in my approach and needed to learn more.

And learning more is partly why I made this thread. How can I learn more, if I'm shut down due to faulty details? Why not teach and correct me instead? Make a thread with partial errors educational! That's how I would approach misinformation.

Edited February 20, 2019 by QuantumT

[Phi for All]

47 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

And learning more is partly why I made this thread. How can I learn more, if I'm shut down due to faulty details? Why not teach and correct me instead? Make a thread with partial errors educational! That's how I would approach misinformation.

*sigh* Again, it's not the faulty details themselves that get a thread locked, it's the unreasonable adherence to them in the face of contrary evidence. EVERYONE involved in the threads is trying to teach, but only some are willing to learn.

It's a shame that all this comes off as "trigger-happy moderation" instead of the attempt to enhance science discussion it's meant to be. Breaks the heart.

[QuantumT]

2 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

It's a shame that all this comes off as "trigger-happy moderation" instead of the attempt to enhance science discussion it's meant to be. Breaks the heart.

I'm sorry to make you feel blamed. Like swansont mentioned, this is mostly between him and me.
But I had to address it widely and open to be taken even remotely serious. I hope you can understand that.
If I had only addressed him, it would have gotten neither of us nowhere.

[Phi for All]

1 minute ago, QuantumT said:

I'm sorry to make you feel blamed. Like swansont mentioned, this is mostly between him and me.
But I had to address it widely and open to be taken even remotely serious. I hope you can understand that.
If I had only addressed him, it would have gotten neither of us nowhere.

Make a note: professional physicists take science very seriously. Dr Swanson gives us a generous portion of his time, and he's happy to discuss science in a meaningful way with anyone, for as long as it takes. But time he spends here is time spent away from the Naval Observatory's atomic clocks, so he's a resource we don't like to waste on wild west guesswork and intractable crackpots. 

I swear, every time we get someone who thinks GR is wrong, the GPS satellites go out of sync, and Google Maps tells me I'll never arrive at my destination.

[QuantumT]

7 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Make a note: professional physicists take science very seriously. Dr Swanson gives us a generous portion of his time, and he's happy to discuss science in a meaningful way with anyone, for as long as it takes. But time he spends here is time spent away from the Naval Observatory's atomic clocks, so he's a resource we don't like to waste on wild west guesswork and intractable crackpots. 

I swear, every time we get someone who thinks GR is wrong, the GPS satellites go out of sync, and Google Maps tells me I'll never arrive at my destination.

I appreciate your efforts. I truly do! Don't let a fool like me stop you. That goes for you too, swansont.

And for what it's worth, I support GR all the way. But I am very curious about quantum gravity theories.

[iNow]

25 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I swear, every time we get someone who thinks GR is wrong, the GPS satellites go out of sync, and Google Maps tells me I'll never arrive at my destination.

Does it apologize to you by saying it’s Siri?

[Phi for All]

9 minutes ago, iNow said:

Does it apologize to you by saying it’s Siri?

Not sure why it does that. Next time it happens, Alexa.

[swansont]

2 hours ago, QuantumT said:

And learning more is partly why I made this thread. How can I learn more, if I'm shut down due to faulty details? Why not teach and correct me instead? Make a thread with partial errors educational! That's how I would approach misinformation.

If you wish to be taught, ask questions. If you start lecturing, though, you’d better know what you’re talking about. We don’t have a WAG subforum.

 

[QuantumT]

6 minutes ago, swansont said:

If you start lecturing, though, you’d better know what you’re talking about.

You must be referring to my simulation thread. Yes I came off a bit too confident on that one. My bad.