Thread Hijacking and Staying On Topic

[Robittybob1]

 

I don't think you provide enough benefit to justify all the time you suck from reasonable, qualified scientists on this site. You force crackpot ideas in where they don't belong, you can't seem to keep information given to you in your head for more than a couple of posts so you keep asking for it over and over, and you pick on things like our moderation of thread-hijacking, like you don't understand why anyone would actually want you to stay on topic.

 

Some of the very people you're criticizing now with this stupid, stupid, incessant badgering just don't deserve it. Your signal to noise ratio requires sifting through your posts to find any relevance. I just can't believe you get kicked out of so many discussion sites for this kind of behavior, yet you never change, you never seem to equate the two. "What trouble have I caused?" Clues = 0.

 

As you can tell, I've lost all patience with you. I'm amazed (and saddened) that you still get such excellent replies, though you mostly ignore them.

Who have I been criticising? Swansont and I are just trying to establish facts. I can't recall that many conversations between you and myself over the years, but Swansont and I seem to discuss similar topics, so we have had many discussions.

You just would not know the amount of respect I give him, but that does not mean I won't question him, we question each other.

I think that's right. The split happened because you had hijacked the thread. It could not be split off before your hijack; it had to happen after. The decision to split and to revoke your posting took time, because we had to discuss the issue, namely that you had ignored all of the commentary to the effect that you were hijacking, again, and what we should do about it.

 

 

And you will notice that Strange's comments were directed to Dan and concerned his conjecture, in an attempt to understand the scenario described by his hypothesis. Something you were decidedly NOT doing.

No, not in the thread, if it means you are changing the course of the discussion. It was in speculations. You were interrupting the discussion rather than adding to it. Asking those question is not one of the three things you can do, which I am not going to repeat yet again.

In my recall it was only the question about the mass that I really wanted to know the answer to, was it like Dan's idea in the binary or like Strange, somewhere else in between the binary and the Earth.

From the viewpoint of Dan and myself when whole papers and book references are thrown into the conversation that also feels like changing the topic.

 

I'll read the 2nd split off thread and see if I can recall the issues and take in the advice you have given me.

[dimreepr]

Everyone’s free to question, it’s the not listening part that folks tend to grow tired of.

[swansont]

In my recall it was only the question about the mass that I really wanted to know the answer to, was it like Dan's idea in the binary or like Strange, somewhere else in between the binary and the Earth.

From the viewpoint of Dan and myself when whole papers and book references are thrown into the conversation that also feels like changing the topic.

Since we have a written, time-stamped record of who said what and when, you do not need to rely on your recollection.

[Robittybob1]

Since we have a written, time-stamped record of who said what and when, you do not need to rely on your recollection.

I'll check it out then. I'll try and understand the subtleties of what constitutes a change in topic and hopefully we can continue having these challenging conversations on science rather than on moderation.

Thanks.

[Robittybob1]

@swansont - I have read the "Guidelines for Participating in Speculations Discussions" and the associated discussion thread.

Looking specifically at the guidelines particularly to the section:

 

 

To all of those responding to Speculations posts:

Remember that non-participation is always an option. If you have nothing constructive to add to the conversation, please stay out of it. Posts that simply state "word salad" add no value. Accusations of trolling or crackpottery, or other snide remarks, are similarly devoid of useful content, and depending on how you phrase the post, can be considered personal attacks. Focus on pushing the thread in the direction of science rather than creating noise.

Responses should be in terms of accepted science, not your own personal theory.

Don't use the post to raise independent questions of your own those belong in a new thread. All conversation should be addressing the original concept, or correcting/clarifying responses to that.

Are these the rules as such or are there others?

[swansont]

@swansont - I have read the "Guidelines for Participating in Speculations Discussions" and the associated discussion thread.

Looking specifically at the guidelines particularly to the section:

Are these the rules as such or are there others?

 

The rules governing the entire forum apply. Most relevant are:

 

2.5 Stay on topic. Posts should be relevant to the discussion at hand. This means that you shouldn't use scientific threads to advertise your own personal theory, or post only to incite a hostile argument.

 

2.8 Preaching and "soap-boxing" (making topics or posts without inviting, or even rejecting, open discussion) are not allowed. This is a discussion forum, not your personal lecture hall. Discuss points, don't just repeat them

 

2.10 Keep alternative science and your own personal conjecture to the appropriate forum (Speculations). Threads in the ordinary science forums should be answered with ordinary science, not your own personal hypothesis. Posting pet "theories" in mainstream science forums is considered thread hijacking.

 

But "Don't use the post to raise independent questions of your own those belong in a new thread." is particularly on point here, because that's precisely what you were doing.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

RB,

While you may have inspired this thread, this is not a conversation that was directed specifically at you. It was a thread intended for general advice on an issue that has been seen rather a lot lately. If you want specific advice on specific moderation of a specific thread, PM someone or open a new thread. Whatever you do, you are to stop derailing this discussion.

Do not respond to this mod not within the thread. My irony meter just can't handle this level of abuse.

[Robittybob1]

 

T.....

 

But "Don't use the post to raise independent questions of your own those belong in a new thread." is particularly on point here .....

That was the specific rule I wanted you to define.

It is not banning the asking of any questions assisting to understand the topic, is it? So what does "independent questions" really mean?

Define an independent question please. Like if we are allowed to ask a question, how can we tell if it crosses the boundary and becomes an independent question?

Edited March 24, 2016 by Robittybob1

[dimreepr]

If you're unsure, ask it anyway, a good question of topic will get split, otherwise it will just get answered; either way listening to the answer is far more important than the question.

[Robittybob1]

If you're unsure, ask it anyway, a good question of topic will get split, otherwise it will just get answered; either way listening to the answer is far more important than the question.

Did you mean off topic? "a good question of topic will get split" or "a good question off topic will get split"??

 

I wouldn't dare ask an off topic question.

[iNow]

It is not banning the asking of any questions assisting to understand the topic, is it? So what does "independent questions" really mean?

Define an independent question please. Like if we are allowed to ask a question, how can we tell if it crosses the boundary and becomes an independent question?

I can't define it, but perhaps an example will help. Here's how I tend to see it going down:

 

Thread Topic: Cooking hamburgers

Some post after the OP: Putting cheese on them is nice

 

You: What is cheese made of? How did it originate? Do we understand lactose intolerance yet?

 

Others: Well, here's a basic answer about cheese and lactose, but that's sort of off-top...

 

You: Well, can we treat lactose intolerance?

 

Mods: Okay, stop. Just stop. That's enough. The topic is about cooking hamburgers and this hijack about cheese and lactose intolerance is getting annoying. Don't get us wrong. It's an interesting question to explore. Feel free to ask about cheese, but open a new thread to do so.

 

You: Am I not allowed to ask questions...

 

Lather, rinse, repeat. Dead horse continues to get beaten even worse.

[swansont]

If you're unsure, ask it anyway, a good question of topic will get split, otherwise it will just get answered; either way listening to the answer is far more important than the question.

 

Please don't do this. You aren't in a position to interpret the rules. The staff will split threads, but not if this becomes a chronic problem.

 

 

That was the specific rule I wanted you to define.

It is not banning the asking of any questions assisting to understand the topic, is it? So what does "independent questions" really mean?

Define an independent question please. Like if we are allowed to ask a question, how can we tell if it crosses the boundary and becomes an independent question?

I have clarified this THREE freaking times already, in explaining what you can post in a speculations thread. (See post 12 of this thread, in bold)

 

That you either didn't read those posts, didn't understand them, or just don't remember, I can't tell, but it seems to be one of the main problems here, because this is happening over and over again.

[Robittybob1]

I can't define it, but perhaps an example will help. Here's how I tend to see it going down:

 

Thread Topic: Cooking hamburgers

Some post after the OP: Putting cheese on them is nice

 

You: What is cheese made of? How did it originate? Do we understand lactose intolerance yet?

 

Others: Well, here's a basic answer about cheese and lactose, but that's sort of off-top...

 

You: Well, can we treat lactose intolerance?

 

Mods: Okay, stop. Just stop. That's enough. The topic is about cooking hamburgers and this hijack about cheese and lactose intolerance is getting annoying. Don't get us wrong. It's an interesting question to explore. Feel free to ask about cheese, but open a new thread to do so.

 

You: Am I not allowed to ask questions...

 

Lather, rinse, repeat. Dead horse continues to get beaten even worse.

That was a pretty dramatic example. Thanks. "Dead horse continues to get beaten even worse." that is a rather unusual saying!

.....

I have clarified this THREE freaking times already, in explaining what you can post in a speculations thread. (See post 12 of this thread, in bold)

 

....

from #12

 

There are three things you can do when responding in speculations: defend the proposal, ask questions to clarify the proposal, or post accepted physics to disprove the proposal. That's it. If you don't agree with the proposal but can't contradict it, you have nothing to discuss. Don't post anything at all.

I am trying to compare what you say in #12 to the rules. Asking questions to clarify the proposal is allowed. Questions of that type are therefore not "independent questions".

.

Edited March 24, 2016 by Robittybob1

[swansont]

 

from #12

I am trying to compare what you say in #12 to the rules. Asking questions to clarify the proposal is allowed. Questions of that type are therefore not "independent questions".

.

 

 

That's correct. If you ask the person who made the conjecture to clarify something about their speculative science, that's fine.

 

It's pretty simple: don't interrupt a conversation to talk about what you want to talk about. In speculations, the conversation is centered around that speculation. Don't interrupt to ask about something else.

[Robittybob1]

 

 

That's correct. If you ask the person who made the conjecture to clarify something about their speculative science, that's fine.

 

It's pretty simple: don't interrupt a conversation to talk about what you want to talk about. In speculations, the conversation is centered around that speculation. Don't interrupt to ask about something else.

It didn't say you were only allowed to direct questions to the OP. You are allowed to ask questions (to anyone on the forum discussion I presume) to help clarify the proposal.

It is possible for a moderator to not see the immediate relevance of the question to the proposal, but that question is still within the rules.

[swansont]

It didn't say you were only allowed to direct questions to the OP. You are allowed to ask questions (to anyone on the forum discussion I presume) to help clarify the proposal.

It is possible for a moderator to not see the immediate relevance of the question to the proposal, but that question is still within the rules.

 

 

No, it's not. A moderator is telling you it's not.

 

Compounding this, you were told to stop and you ignored it. If you're going to sit there and argue that you're right, then we're at an impasse. Why should we keep someone who has de facto declared that he is going to ignore the rules when he decides they don't apply to him? And fight the staff at every turn? You are either unwilling to follow the rules or incapable of doing so because you can't comprehend them. I find the latter hard to believe, but it doesn't matter because the end result is the same.

[Bells]

It didn't say you were only allowed to direct questions to the OP. You are allowed to ask questions (to anyone on the forum discussion I presume) to help clarify the proposal.

It is possible for a moderator to not see the immediate relevance of the question to the proposal, but that question is still within the rules.

 

You were asking questions that were not pertinent to the subject matter of the thread.

 

For example (or hypothetically speaking), say a thread is about the sun. You then come along ask questions seeking to clarify a proposal about planetary rotation because someone said the word "planets" in their response. In other words, Bob, you are asking questions about something completely unrelated to the actual subject as detailed in the OP. What you should do instead is do some research and if you still aren't clear about planetary rotation (as an example), you start a different thread about it, which would be within the rules.

 

If you asked questions about the sun itself within the parameters set in the OP, you would not be breaking the rules. What is very apparent is that you are asking questions about subjects that are not related to the thread itself in any way. - Please note, this is just a simple example/hypothetical. So please do not now turn around and say you never did exactly what I just set out in this example/hypothetical.

 

They have explained this to you numerous times. It's not that hard.

 

Have a little system in place if you are not sure..

 

1) Look at the thread topic and opening post of any given thread that you are participating in.

2) Then ask yourself if the question or what you wish to discuss falls within the parameters set down in the opening thread.

3) If the answer is yes, then ask the question or post your commentary.

4) If the answer is no, start a new thread or try and find if another thread already exists which is discussing what it is you wish to discuss or ask questions about.

 

Simple steps.

[swansont]

You were asking questions that were not pertinent to the subject matter of the thread.

 

For example (or hypothetically speaking), say a thread is about the sun.

 

 

It's a little different because it was in speculations. So it would be more apt to say the thread was about how the sun functions by some newly-proposed means, and responses saying, no the sun uses fusion. If you don't understand how fusion actually works, that thread would not be the place to ask questions about it. That's not the topic of the thread.

 

Hijacking in a speculations thread is a little different than hijacking in a mainstream thread.

[StringJunky]

 

 

It's a little different because it was in speculations. So it would be more apt to say the thread was about how the sun functions by some newly-proposed means, and responses saying, no the sun uses fusion. If you don't understand how fusion actually works, that thread would not be the place to ask questions about it. That's not the topic of the thread.

 

Hijacking in a speculations thread is a little different than hijacking in a mainstream thread.

Perhaps one could say: If my thoughts don't add value and continuity to to the OP, I will desist.

[Robittybob1]

 

 

It's a little different because it was in speculations. So it would be more apt to say the thread was about how the sun functions by some newly-proposed means, and responses saying, no the sun uses fusion. If you don't understand how fusion actually works, that thread would not be the place to ask questions about it. That's not the topic of the thread.

 

Hijacking in a speculations thread is a little different than hijacking in a mainstream thread.

Well, what about this in the above example, if someone replies to the OP and says "no the Sun uses fusion", can another person if that person thinks that is wrong (by some possible misunderstanding) ask a question of the member "what type of fusion do you think is happening?" So that is clarifying the topic under discussion. The "dumb person" is trying to decide who's argument is right.

Edited March 25, 2016 by Robittybob1

[StringJunky]

....The "dumb person" is trying to decide who's argument is right.

In science, you decide on the basis of the evidence presented. If you are truly ignorant about the subject at hand, and one of the conversants has that subject in their field of professional expertise, learn from their position. It's not ideal but the odds are better towards them. I think it's silly to argue a contrary position when one is not sufficiently competent and the other person is.

[Robittybob1]

In science, you decide on the basis of the evidence presented. If you are truly ignorant about the subject at hand, and one of the conversants has that subject in their field of professional expertise, learn from their position. It's not ideal but the odds are better towards them. I think it's silly to argue a contrary position when one is not sufficiently competent and the other person is.

You are right when there is an obvious error in the speculation and it is handled by an expert.

 

The topic under consideration could be one where there is no known answer. So there is no expert, the participants are debating based on other examples of science to speculate what could be happening somewhere else. The real question then is whether all views can be questioned? The OP has made a speculation, there are responses from other members, can they both be asked by a third party to clarify their points? Do the questions just have to be directed to the OP? I feel for a proper discussion everyone contributing needs to be able to answer questions clarifying their view.

Edited March 25, 2016 by Robittybob1

[Bells]

 

 

It's a little different because it was in speculations. So it would be more apt to say the thread was about how the sun functions by some newly-proposed means, and responses saying, no the sun uses fusion. If you don't understand how fusion actually works, that thread would not be the place to ask questions about it. That's not the topic of the thread.

 

Hijacking in a speculations thread is a little different than hijacking in a mainstream thread.

 

I stand corrected.

[swansont]

Well, what about this in the above example, if someone replies to the OP and says "no the Sun uses fusion", can another person if that person thinks that is wrong (by some possible misunderstanding) ask a question of the member "what type of fusion do you think is happening?" So that is clarifying the topic under discussion. The "dumb person" is trying to decide who's argument is right.

 

 

le sigh

 

There are three things you can do when responding in speculations:

A) defend the proposal

B) ask questions to clarify the proposal,

C) post accepted physics to disprove the proposal.

That's it.

 

You keep asking if there's a fourth category There isn't.

 

If someone tries category c and gets it wrong, you can correct it — if you know what you're talking about. But if you have to ask, then OPEN A NEW THREAD TO TALK ABOUT IT.

 

I feel that this is a very consistently-presented position. You keep posting scenarios, as if to elicit some new answer, when it's always going to be the above.

[Robittybob1]

 

 

le sigh

 

There are three things you can do when responding in speculations:

A) defend the proposal

B) ask questions to clarify the proposal,

C) post accepted physics to disprove the proposal.

That's it.

 

You keep asking if there's a fourth category There isn't.

 

If someone tries category c and gets it wrong, you can correct it — if you know what you're talking about. But if you have to ask, then OPEN A NEW THREAD TO TALK ABOUT IT.

 

I feel that this is a very consistently-presented position. You keep posting scenarios, as if to elicit some new answer, when it's always going to be the above.

It happened the other day, when someone thought they were "posting accepted physics to disprove the proposal" but that in itself was wrong and was corrected by another person other than the OP.

So that correcting action is not covered by your 3 categories.