What don't you like about SFN?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

The trouble is that only administrators can make the exceptions, and there are quite a few requests. I've already gotten four or five.

 

Judging by the success of the Religion forum -- 17 threads, almost 700 posts, no thread closures or major problems -- I think it would be safe to lower the requirements, but also to make absolutely clear that the privilege can be revoked for misbehavior.

[Mr Skeptic]

Hm, I wonder what the effect of a "speak with a moderator" thread would be?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Would this thread be for airing complaints, asking questions, or just talking about threads?

[Rickdog]

About this issue, I`m just going to say this and nothing more, since I don`t want to give the impression as if I want rules to be changed, around here.

 

The reason why I posted my opinions about the exclussion rules, its`that those issues with restrictions, will always be interesting and highly attractive, and I think that for everyone who has come in here (SFN), has liked them also, since we get the priviledge to see how things are treated in them, full of respect even if opinions are diferent in them without fighting, it is highly attractive, but it also gives you the temptation to add your own opinions, and with the exclussion rules, of course you can`t, which is highly annoying and frustrating. I think that probably for the purpose of it, you can put in it all the restrictions that you wish, but don`t make them available to be read by whom can`t participate in them. Kind of like the moderators forum, which is not available for all. By this, you avoid the existence of that frustration, and therefore all the complaints that arise from time to time.

 

This is like grabbing a piece of meat and passing it under the nose of a dog and not letting him eat it. Highly frustrating for the mutt. No wonder that after you do this after a while, the dog simply attacks and bites you afterwards, not even being interested in the meat at all.

 

:-)

[Mr Skeptic]

Would this thread be for airing complaints, asking questions, or just talking about threads?

 

Whatever is appropriate. I think the existence of such a thread would make the place look friendlier and more transparent to newcomers, and give an impression of the mods being accessible (which they are). I'm not sure what sort of rules would be best for it.

[michel123456]

I don't understand why the speculation entity is placed so far from science, under "other topics". To be honest, IMO speculation should be the most important part of any science forum. Explaining the standard model is good, but should not be the main purpose. The main purpose should be to create a tool for inventive minds. At this moment, inventive minds are systematically rebuted next to the trash can. Why such a phobia?

[swansont]

If you can ban, censor, delete posters in Science, which does happen from their first post (Megabrain, a reputable English moderator and former NASA advisor, from another Science Forum, thread was dropped to speculation and quit), then you can certainly punish or ban a member on their first or second post on any sub-forum.

 

Having a thread moved to speculations is not the same as banning someone and is not punishment. Megabrain posted more than a dozen times over a period of longer than a week after having a thread moved there, and has 39 posts overall; s/he was not banned, much less banned after one or two posts. I don't think your account of history is accurate.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

If you can ban, censor, delete posters in Science, which does happen from their first post (Megabrain, a reputable English moderator and former NASA advisor, from another Science Forum, thread was dropped to speculation and quit), then you can certainly punish or ban a member on their first or second post on any sub-forum.

 

It takes four moderators to agree before a member can be banned, and bans can only occur after previous attempts have been made to change the member's behavior. (For example, after numerous in-thread warnings or private messages.) In general, we prefer one-week suspensions over permanent bans, if possible.

[Genecks]

... *reads and reads*.

 

@ Phi for All

 

That's why choices should be provided.

I want forum skin choices. :3

What may be hard for you to read may be easier for me to read.

We need various color schemes around here. Maybe some greens, some pinks, some yellows, some reds...

More forum skin choices, pleeease.

[Phi for All]

I don't understand why the speculation entity is placed so far from science, under "other topics". To be honest, IMO speculation should be the most important part of any science forum. Explaining the standard model is good, but should not be the main purpose. The main purpose should be to create a tool for inventive minds. At this moment, inventive minds are systematically rebuted next to the trash can. Why such a phobia?

I think this is a reasonable request, to move Speculations to the bottom of the Science section, after Other Sciences. It still looks like the ugly sister and still bears a description that puts it on a par with pseudoscience. The people who object most to their posts being moved to speculations might think they are being taken more seriously, and it was never our intention to stuff anyone's ideas in a trunk.

 

It's just that so many people who end up there do so because they reject many of the principles of physics in favor of intuition, and that's not fair to the many members who have taken the time to study those principles. We need those who seek, those who have sought, and those continue to do both.

 

... *reads and reads*.

 

@ Phi for All

 

That's why choices should be provided.

I want forum skin choices. :3

What may be hard for you to read may be easier for me to read.

We need various color schemes around here. Maybe some greens, some pinks, some yellows, some reds...

More forum skin choices, pleeease.

I think this is reasonable, as long as Cap'n doesn't mind taking the time to do it, or can let you design something that can be made available to those who don't like the standard. Is this doable, Oh Captain my Captain, or would this be more along the line of, "ZOMG, this will cost me a couple of points on my GPA!!!"

[jackson33]

Having a thread moved to speculations is not the same as banning someone and is not punishment. Megabrain posted more than a dozen times over a period of longer than a week after having a thread moved there, and has 39 posts overall; s/he was not banned, much less banned after one or two posts. I don't think your account of history is accurate. [/Quote]

 

 

swansont; I'm afraid Mega may have passed on, was very ill, in his seventies, at about that time and am not going back over the treatment he received here, but to him, as I guarantee it would be to you, he felt punished. He did go on though and may have been my imagination....

 

 

CR; I was emphasizing the point, a poster out of line, under any sub forum, can be handled, 1 post 10 or 100. Just checked, he went on longer than I knew of, 32 post and I knew he was never banned, no doubt held in good standing.

 

I had the following written earlier and will now post, for what little its worth....

My goodness, poker time.............

 

 

Judging by the success of the Religion forum -- 17 threads, almost 700 posts, no thread closures or major problems -- I think it would be safe to lower the requirements, but also to make absolutely clear that the privilege can be revoked for misbehavior.[/Quote]

 

This really should NOT be a surprise. In a quick review of a couple, one with a high International membership and yet science oriented, believe it or not NO Moderation in my four years there, has 3994 Religion Threads, an astonishing number of post at 96,800 for that few threads. If you think controversy here is bad, imagine what can happen, when Jews/Muslims/Evangelicals/Atheist all go after each other. The same for there politics sub forum, where near 4000 threads with a 100k post. All their science forums combined won't add up to either. Another strictly Political Forum with 27,000 threads/1.6M post, has a "Religion" sub forum with 5200 threads, view with over a quarter million post, second only to the Political. This bunch is highly moderated, as are most forums, do ban a few, but closing threads or locking is almost unheard of, with the recent exception of one and I've never noticed any requirement for accessing any sub forum.

[Mr Skeptic]

That's why choices should be provided.

I want forum skin choices. :3

What may be hard for you to read may be easier for me to read.

We need various color schemes around here. Maybe some greens, some pinks, some yellows, some reds...

More forum skin choices, pleeease.

 

Hm I think you can change the skins yourself using CSS (for any website that uses CSS). You can override a website's CSS with your own, so you can change any website to your liking. It may be a good idea since most of the internet is going to be light colored pages. You can share the CSS you make with others, or with the site admins.

[swansont]

swansont; I'm afraid Mega may have passed on, was very ill, in his seventies, at about that time and am not going back over the treatment he received here, but to him, as I guarantee it would be to you, he felt punished. He did go on though and may have been my imagination....

 

The feeling that being moved to speculations is a punishment is something beyond my control, but is not uncommon. It's one of the reasons we dropped "pseudoscience" from the name. The alternative of not moving the post, however, is not acceptable, for that would mean that an unsubstantiated hypothesis is being given equal standing with tested and accepted science, and the non-expert who is reading the thread might get the impression that the hypothesis is legitimate.

 

I agree that the staff member moving the thread should make an effort to explain the move, at least in borderline cases, but even when that happens we get complaints about it. I fear there is no solution that simultaneously upholds the scientific rigor and integrity and makes everyone happy.

[jackson33]

Megabrain 4/20/09, just after thread was dropped to PS

 

Why is it psuedo science to ask what proof if any there is that the universe is still expanding? when the only data we have is mega old? - Please put it back immediately.

 

Better still leave it where it is, I'll quetly leave.[/Quote]

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=39928&page=2

 

swansont; This was his 6th or so post and when I left SFN, for quite awhile, feeling the action may have been a result of my own contributions, not his. He was or is an Electrical Engineer, helping to design the Voyager Communication Systems, if my memory is correct, an adversary of many of my opinions (imagine that), but a delightful person to discuss issues with. Except for an occasional informational post, I've not posted under Science since. I'm not here to argue, this forums policy or would it be my place to do so. What I am suggesting, this threads topic, is control over posters can be addressed, rightfully or not IMO, after any number of post on the forum, the count not important.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

The issue comes when people think they have a brilliant idea that happens to be wrong. Putting it in Pseudoscience is essentially saying "Your idea sucks."

 

Naming it "speculations" is better, but perhaps there's another solution. I'll have to think about it.

[Phi for All]

The feeling that being moved to speculations is a punishment is something beyond my control, but is not uncommon. It's one of the reasons we dropped "pseudoscience" from the name.

But the description on the Community page still reads, "Pseudoscientific or speculatory threads belong here." Pseudoscience is still the leading concept and it's very common for people to stop reading when they see a word they don't think applies to them.

 

I say let's put a decent description of what we want Speculations to be about and move it under Sciences. We let everyone know that if a speculatory idea requires a significant departure from normal scientific methodology, it will be considered pseudoscience and will be moved to an appropriate section. If people still wish to discuss the idea in that regard, then let them. The pseudoscience section would not be under Sciences (it could go under Other Topics, where Speculations is now).

[swansont]

Megabrain 4/20/09, just after thread was dropped to PS

 

 

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=39928&page=2

 

swansont; This was his 6th or so post and when I left SFN, for quite awhile, feeling the action may have been a result of my own contributions, not his. He was or is an Electrical Engineer, helping to design the Voyager Communication Systems, if my memory is correct, an adversary of many of my opinions (imagine that), but a delightful person to discuss issues with. Except for an occasional informational post, I've not posted under Science since. I'm not here to argue, this forums policy or would it be my place to do so. What I am suggesting, this threads topic, is control over posters can be addressed, rightfully or not IMO, after any number of post on the forum, the count not important.

 

Due respect to Megabrain and others who fall into this category, but there's a fair amount of hubris in insisting that your idea is right, despite the inability to point to where there is experimental confirmation of your idea which has appeared in some peer-reviewed journal.

 

In the thread in question, I think lucaspa and Martin pointed out quite clearly that the speculative notions included matter disappearing when temperature got within a Planck temperature of absolute zero (which is trivially wrong, as pointed out by Martin). What is particularly frustrating from a moderation standpoint is that Megabrain insinuated that this was not mainstream science thinking a few posts earlier. Add to this some rude behavior on Megabrain's part (an infraction was issued), and what it looks like to me is someone getting mad because they were shown to be in error.

 

You can't accommodate everyone. Civil discourse does not extend all the way to walking on eggshells to accommodate fragile egos.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

But the description on the Community page still reads, "Pseudoscientific or speculatory threads belong here." Pseudoscience is still the leading concept and it's very common for people to stop reading when they see a word they don't think applies to them.

 

I agree, we should do something about that, but I fear it will not solve the problem of the "that description can't possibly be referring to me!" syndrome. Anyone who presents their speculation as being obviously true, no further discussion needed — and that applies to a lot of them — seem to have the attitude that they aren't speculating. These are the ones who get huffy when you ask them for evidence.

 

Perhaps wording along the lines of "not accepted by the mainstream." I'd say "not found in textbooks," but there are too many (U.S) textbooks out there that indulge the antiscience crowd. The bar needs to be higher.

Edited March 27, 2010 by swansont
Consecutive posts merged.

[Mr Skeptic]

How about "speculative, unsupported, poorly supported, or outright false ideas". I think the big problem is not so much the nature of the ideas but the nature of the arguments in favor of them. This description gives them the choice of considering their idea poorly supported or unlikely to be true, and hopefully they choose to support it better.

[michel123456]

I fear there is no solution that simultaneously upholds the scientific rigor and integrity and makes everyone happy.

 

As I suggested before, put Speculations under the Science entity. If you whish, you could divise Speculations into different entities, going from "Speculations with recognized scientific background" to "Speculations without any backround" (i.e. gribble-grabble), with intermediate "Speculations based on new physics". Pseudoscience being something totally different.

[D H]

The issue comes when people think they have a brilliant idea that happens to be wrong. Putting it in Pseudoscience is essentially saying "Your idea sucks."

Being brutally honest, the vast majority of the stuff that is pushed into what is now nicely called "Speculations" does suck.

 

I have long advocated splitting the merely speculative from the outright garbage. Now that the name is just "Speculations" rather than "Speculations and Pseudoscience", I think we need to be a bit more heavy-handed with the "Your idea sucks" axe. Doing so would benefit the lay members of the Science Forums community. Lumping idiotic ideas with the merely speculative does our lay members a disservice. They don't have the skills to distinguish one from the other.

 

Being a bit more heavy-handed with the "Your idea sucks" axe would also make our job as administrators, moderates, and science experts a bit easier. No more stupid debates with someone who *thinks* they just proved relativity wrong, or think that the Earth is growing like a tree, or think that we didn't land on the Moon, or ... The speculations forum is peppered with such garbage, and even though locked, that garbage does not belong there. It's garbage, not speculation.

[swansont]

Being brutally honest, the vast majority of the stuff that is pushed into what is now nicely called "Speculations" does suck.

 

I have long advocated splitting the merely speculative from the outright garbage. Now that the name is just "Speculations" rather than "Speculations and Pseudoscience", I think we need to be a bit more heavy-handed with the "Your idea sucks" axe. Doing so would benefit the lay members of the Science Forums community. Lumping idiotic ideas with the merely speculative does our lay members a disservice. They don't have the skills to distinguish one from the other.

 

Being a bit more heavy-handed with the "Your idea sucks" axe would also make our job as administrators, moderates, and science experts a bit easier. No more stupid debates with someone who *thinks* they just proved relativity wrong, or think that the Earth is growing like a tree, or think that we didn't land on the Moon, or ... The speculations forum is peppered with such garbage, and even though locked, that garbage does not belong there. It's garbage, not speculation.

 

The drawback of this is that it does nothing to counter the argument that science is dogma, a position many posters of these ideas hold. Plus, I suspect that there would be more caterwauling about ideas being discarded, not less.

[bobhikes]

But I've been a member of Religious forums for over a year.

 

They have a my Reply and my Threads button that allow you to easily follow your posts. Do you have such a thing I have been unable to find it. Thanks

[jackson33]

Having just reviewed your, Astronomy/Cosmology sub forum in the "Physics" section, 'michel123456' makes a lot of sense. There aren't very many threads (A&C) that couldn't, probably wouldn't, have been placed in a "Questions-Speculation", or where the slight movement with in a topic would hurt anyone's feelings, if it was simply an additional sub-forum. This probably true for Biology and Chemistry, as well noting most people are in fact testing an idea or asking a question. An additional benefit, would be an upgrading from speculation, if the thread develops into something relevant or promising. I would also suggest the words 'Temporarily Moved' could be used occasionally, when demoting a thread, rather then a rant about the rules...if you stick with the current system.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

But I've been a member of Religious forums for over a year.

 

They have a my Reply and my Threads button that allow you to easily follow your posts. Do you have such a thing I have been unable to find it. Thanks

 

If there's a thread you're interested in following, pop up to the top of the page, to the Thread Tools menu. (Just above and on the right of the first post on each page.) Click Subscribe to This Thread.

 

In your User CP is a page with a list of threads you are subscribed to, and in the Options page you can choose to subscribe to threads you post in automatically and to receive emails about them.

[D H]

The drawback of this is that it does nothing to counter the argument that science is dogma, a position many posters of these ideas hold.

There is a drawback to making a site kook-friendly as well. It comes down to the question of what kind of person this forum wishes to attract. Do you want to make this site attracting to the tinfoil-hatted kooks who think everyone is out to smash their ideas or to the kinds of people who truly do have an interest in science, either from a lay perspective or from working in the field? You can't have it both ways.

 

Plus, I suspect that there would be more caterwauling about ideas being discarded, not less.

Tough. Not all ideas are created equal; some are utter nonsense.