Alpha rules - An idea for improving the quality of discussions

I propose an experiment in moderation.

I'm thinking of setting up some tighter rules that thread starters can optionally engage. The idea is that if someone wants to have a discussion with less rough and tumble, they can do so.

So with those goals in mind, here are some draft rules:

• Alpha rules may be engaged when making a new thread, by putting "(Alpha)" before the main thread title.
• Alpha threads should be interesting, original, and appropriate for Physics and Maths.
• In addition to the Alpha rules, all ordinary posting rules apply. The Alpha rules have precedence if there is a conflict.
• The interpretation of the rules is at the discretion of the moderator. Suggestions regarding interpretation may be made, and the moderator will consider those suggestions, but the final say is the moderator's alone.

• Violations
  Please use the !report button to notify myself and James if you think a post in an Alpha thread violates Alpha rules.
  Posts to a labelled Alpha rules thread that violate the rules will be deleted, edited, or moved to a "Rules violations" thread at the moderators' discretion.
  • Only trivial posts that clearly violate the rules will be deleted.
  • Edits to posts will be footnoted by the moderator. For major edits, a copy of the unedited post may be PMed to the author.
  • Rulings can be discussed in the Rules violations thread. Alpha rules also apply to that thread, except that violations will be either deleted or edited, not moved

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    .
• Alpha Rules
  • No hijacking.
    The thread may be sidetracked, but only within reason and as long as the sidetrack is about some point in the main thread.
  • Be Polite.
    No insults, profanity, threats, abuse, demeaning or fight provoking behavior. Attacking claims and arguments is OK. Attacking people is not.
  • Defend your statements.
    Direct questions regarding your statements must be clearly addressed in a timely manner (within reason... sometimes too many questions are asked at once). "I don't know" is a valid answer.
    The relevance of a question must be demonstrated on request. Questions that lead to extensive sidetracks might be considered hijacking in some cases.
  • Be clear
    Say what you mean. Try not to be coy, or overly subtle.
    Most importantly, request for clarification must be answered. Politely.
  • No plagiarism.
    If you copy anything (words, pictures, even an idea) from anywhere else, you should say so.
  • Try to be rational.
    This one is more a guideline than a rule. Breaches of this rule might only be addressed by a PM. What I'm aiming at is:
    • Try to avoid logical fallacies
    • When your argument is challenged, seriously consider the possibility that you were wrong, in whole or in part.
    • When someone demonstrates a point you made is wrong (it happens to everyone!), acknowledge that it was shown to be wrong and don’t keep repeating it. If you've made a mistake, thank people for pointing it out.
    • See more at bautforum.com
  • Have fun! If you're not enjoying yourself, then what's the point?

What do you think?
Would having an optional set of rules like this make the forum better?
What about the suggested rules? Are they crap?
What problems do you think we'll run across?
Would you use the Alpha option in threads you start? Always? Never? Sometimes?
Would you post to Alpha threads?

After a bit of discussion, I'd like to run a test with one thread only to begin. Something controversial, to make it a good test.

Pete

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Isn't bautforum where Phil Plait lets some of his members use others as whipping boys and then bans the whipping boys if they don't like it?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"bautforum"?

"Phil Plait"?

I thought it was sciforum.

And D. W. .

And so does my attorney.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Pete;

It all goes back to the integrity ( and scientific ability ) of the administrator and the administrator's boss. If D. W. ( I ain't talking about Daryl Waltrip ) theoretically wants to suppress some particular field of honest scientific discussion then the official rules still don't mean squat until the discrimination lawsuit is settled. Or, if the administrator is incompetent in some field of science, but intends to bully and bluff his way through at the detriment of honest debate.

No matter what the official rules are, my skeptical opinion is that certain individuals will be permitted to argue without having to utter one specific factual reason supporting their position, utter voluminous profanely vulgar and offensive language, and go off topic at the drop of a hat, all to support the Standard Model status quo and whatever imaginary profit goals are dreamed to be seen there.

However, the form ( even if hollow ) of a more civilized forum is vastly preferable to the current one resembling Tombstone, Arizona in 1875.

 

Hi CANGAS, thanks for the reply.
Dave doesn't own SciForums any more. He is really irrelevant to this experiment.

That is precisely what this experiment intends to address. I'm tempted to jump in like Wyatt Earp, editing and deleting the offensive posts with both barrels, but I think a softly-softly approach is safer.

If this works, and people get used to quality discussion in Alpha threads, then maybe (just maybe!) that will lift the tone in other posts as well.

So you think it's worth a try?

I notice you mentioned profanity, which is something I haven't mentioned in the Alpha rules. Do you think a no-profanity rule is required?

Pete

 

I don't think *all* direct questions should have to be answered. If for example I am posting an equation that has say a proper time derivative which is likely to happen a lot, I don't think I should have to answer, but doesn't the time dilation lead to such and such paradox... for the five thousandth time.

 

Pete;

Thank you for thanking me.

I am no stranger to hearing and saying every vulgar profanity that exists. In my personal experience, in the real world, the degradation of mutual respect, down to the low level of exchanging personal insults and spewing profanity, is the very next step before violent physical combat. In the unreal world of cyberspace, safely seperated by who knows how many miles and the impossibility of actually being found and touched by an adversary, it is too easy for an immature person to cast down the profane gauntlet of combat for free. When an immature punk waves the red flag of vulgarity at me, my real world reaction is to become filled with adrenalin and become ready to rip its real head off to defend myself. This is not productive for examining and thoughtfully responding to intellectual matters. I think that a strictly enforced non-profanity format would be very attractive to many who want to discuss science rather than try to pick Saturday night brawls.

In general, I am relatively in favor of any change which would absolutely enhance the opportunity to completely fairly and honestly debate science opinions, including any of the sacred cow subjects.

I am an old man with many experiences. There have been times that I have somehow found myself in the position of being an administrator of sorts even though I was not an expert. I know how there can be pressures and temptations to try to save face and bluff and bully. But I am totally fed up with such unfair and insulting treatment in these hallowed halls.

So, I am in favor of any experiment(s) that might act toward pulling this lead sled out of its nose dive.

It is important to me that you ( all ) realize that my wealth and fame and success have NO relation to this forum. It has been fun. And, in ways of no crucial importance to any of my strongest goals, actually substantially helpful to me to participate. But I could erase your site address the next minute and never worry about it. And I am sure that my blood pressure would go down.

 

Sounds like a good idea Pete. Well worth a whirl.

 

Hi Pete,
.........Or you could just sign up to sf.org where orders must be obeyed at all times.

 

Hi Trilairian,
There are ways of dealing with that problem. That particular case may be treated as an off-topic sidetrack, depending on the particular thread.

When a question is likely to lead to a major sidetrack, it is acceptable to invite the questioner to start a new thread to discuss it.

I also intend to update the FAQ, so that if you don't feel like going through a hackneyed discussion again you can just say "Read the FAQ."

I'm not sure how this will go. I don't want to lean too heavily in favour of the mainstream. I'm expecting to cop a fair bit of flak from all sides, and some pretty extensive discussion in the "Rules Violations" thread about particular rulings.

But if everyone gives it a fair go, and tries to be patient with me, I'm hoping it might make a real difference to relationships between members. That's the bottom line, really... I just want people to be able to discuss things intelligently, and learn to deal with frustrating disagreements in constructive ways.

 

I've modified the Alpha rules to include a "No Profanity" clause.
This basically means that crude euphemisms for copulation, faeces, genitalia, breasts, buttocks, and anuses will be edited out, whether they form part of an insult or not.

I've also added a clause about reporting violations using the normal "report" button. A private message to me is also OK.

 

Hi imaplanck,
I know there are forums with strict rules, but SciForums is not one of them.
If these rules were applied to all threads without option, it would suck.

 

Dick

 

It's kind of like what The Man With No Name told Tuco, "There are two kinds of men. One kind has a loaded gun. And one kind doesn't and takes the shovel and digs."

In a science forum, one kind of man has a motivation to honestly discuss science conjectures. And one kind doesn't and just wants to take an easy opportunity to engage in social activity in the form of contrived arguments.

A civilized man who wishes to honestly engage in sincere debate about divergent science ideas should have no problem with submitting to rules concerning civility and mutual personal respect.

 

That's what you do every time you post one of your ill-informed anti-relativity rants. And when you are given factual reasons as to why you are wrong, you discount them as "jibber jabber" and pretend that those reasons have nothing to do with your argument.

 

Pete, I'll only point out to you that at BAUT, this is a rule that applies to the Against the Mainstream and Conspiracy Theories fora. There's a good reason for that: It's a wacko deterrent for people who want to push ATM and CT ideas that have no basis in reality.

BAUT doesn't expect that every mainstream scientific statement should have to be defended as vigorously, and there's a good reason for that too: The information is so readily available that anyone who has the ambition and intelligence to obtain it and read it can do so. If I am making a point about relativistic dynamics, and some crackpot (who is determined to disagree, no matter what I say in response) asks me "direct questions", I see no reason why I should have to say anything other than something such as, "See Section 12.2 in Jackson's Classical Electrodynamics", and then get on with it. Speaking for myself, I don't see why I should have to prove well-known and well-established physics to anyone. That's why textbooks are written, and that's why courses are offered.

 

Yes, that response would be appropriate. If the point was pressed, it would likely be considered off-topic.

It will depend on the thread topic, and the context.

I'm adding a clause to say that interpretation of the rules is at the discretion of the moderator. Suggestions regarding interpretation may be made, and the moderator will consider those suggestions, but the final say is the moderator's alone.

And please, lay off the bickering. If you can't be polite to CANGAS, perhaps you could ignore him.

 

On BAUT, this rule omits “regarding your statements”, and is abused by the mod there. Irrelevant questions, or questions whose relevancy is far from clear, are upheld by the mod. So people who wish to censor the discussion simply ask a boatload of time-consuming irrelevant questions thinly disguised as relevant. For example, in a discussion about some fine point of general relativity they’ll ask a question about an unrelated aspect of the theory. There's no onus on them to show relevancy.

I like the Alpha rules. I would add to “defend your statements” a clause that the relevancy of a question may need to be shown (if challenged) before it must be addressed.

 

Good idea. Clause added.
It's going to be an interesting experiment, and will obviously depend a lot on the moderators. It's going to take some practice to find the right balance, so that quality discussion is easier, but no discussion is stifled.

Everyone,
Please feel free to make your next thread an (Alpha) thread. We'll use this thread to discuss violations while we sort out what works. If the experiment is a success (defined by increased quality of discussion, and measured by poll and some objective analysis), I'll make a fresh sticky with the rules for future discussions.

 

The last Alpha rule is Have fun!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!