Request for Input - SubForums and Mission Statement

Discussion in 'SF Open Government' started by Kittamaru, Nov 28, 2017.

?

Should the non-science sub-forums be rearranged / changed?

  1. Yes - Condense The Fringe to one sub-forum, including Religion

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. Yes - Condense The Fringe to one sub-forum but leave Religion as it stands

    6.7%
  3. Yes - Eliminate The Fringe entirely (combine with The Cesspool), this is a Science site

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  4. Yes - Eliminate The Fringe and Religion entirely (combine both with The Cesspool)

    26.7%
  5. No - Leave things as they are

    66.7%
  6. Other - Please Explain Below

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,644
    Please post how you would run the ban/warning system in the thread dedicated to discussion of that.
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,644
    What do you see as the current emphasis, and what would you do to put the emphasis on science, instead?
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. birch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,101
    Are members prevented from posting science in science subforum? Is the fringe being construed as a tempting unhealthy food option that people cannot resist such as candy versus carrot sticks?

    and these are adults?
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,644
    Human Science is a bit of a catch-all subforum. It can include topics about biology, anthropology, sociology, culture, psychology. So, hard to tell where best to put it. An argument could even be made to split it...

    As for Science and Society, arguably it could fit within Human Science, or some other subforum spun off from there.

    Breaking things down too much does not seem warranted. See, for example, the almost non-existent traffic that Chemistry gets, for example. Another problem is that we have no expert moderators who specialise in things like archeology or anthropology.

    I think there is an argument for merging Computer Science with Intelligence and Machines. Maybe we should have an "IT and AI" subforum, or something.

    Nothing much would be gained by merely combining categories, as far as I can see. Maybe "World Events" could be renamed to something like "In the News", but maybe that's not necessary. Both WE and Politics are high-traffic. Arguably we could kill both of them and expand the the result across a few more-specific categories. For example, threads about US politics generally overwhelm everything else in Politics.
     
  8. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,644
    Certainly an argument can be made that more specific categories make things easier to find, and easier for mods to move around as necessary.
     
  9. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,644
    We already have a largely non-scientific Fringe area. It hasn't resulted in a reduced workload for the moderators. Somewhat the opposite, in fact, if I had to estimate it.

    We already move a lot of threads from Science to Fringe.

    From an ease-of-moderation point of view, one catch-up pseudoscience dumping ground is easier to manage. If a thread needs moving out of Science, a mod doesn't have to make as nuanced a decision as to where to put it, for starters.
     
  10. birch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,101
    that's because you make it difficult for yourselves. if you would give the fringe area the contextual room it deserves to operate, then you wouldn't need to moderate it except for the blatant namecalling which focuses more on the person than the topic. in the case of MR, specifically, i don't fault him entirely because he was often rudely backed into a corner, i noticed by others who believed they were more correct and that premise was only based on ignorance of the subject itself ironicly. i don't see that as a superior position, merely a convenient one. moderators should just leave discussion alone or participate but not squelch.

    the elephant in the room that is ignored is any topic that is of no interest will not have participants. if someone wants to participate in a topic that is illogical or superstitious to them, then neither is the guilty party. and GIA's and MR's topics garnered plenty of traffic. why? because they were interesting and made you think/consider in a different way, whether people admit it or not.

    the micro-managing is unnecessary especially considering there is equal opportunity for either side of a topic.

    it is also condescending to your audience to control discussion and how it's discussed as if they cannot think for themselves and make their own conclusions. that type of micro-managing is taking that choice away and is the antethesis of thought.
     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2017
  11. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,537
    Since the site is the way it is, perhaps it makes more sense just to moderate overt name calling and leave it at that. I think it would make more sense to have the Fringe area just be that...the fringe...no need to subdivide it.

    Although, if it were me, I'd change the name of the site from Sciforums to Discussion Board or something like that. That what is actually is, just a general discussion board where anything is on topic.
     
  12. birch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,101
    That does not even make sense. It has science as the core focus. But other subjects are related to science. Even the fringe is related to science in possible discovery. all subjects in life are closely or loosely related to science. That's why they are in order of priority with science at the top of the page. Everything is discussed here, even the fringe, with an emphasis on questioning or analyzing it's possibility, validity, rationality or existence. If people payed attention, they could notice that. General discussion forums don't have that emphasis.
     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2017
  13. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,537
    Politics isn't related to science, nor is the economy, religion, all of the fringe, philosophy. Only the "nut jobs" who aren't interested in science think they have a "scientific" theory.

    It's a general discussion board.
     
  14. birch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,101
    General discussion boards don't have an emphasis on science or have this many science subforums. try again.

    besides, there is no problem with the science section. there is just a problem with tolerance. i'm kind of amazed at how much flack that the fringe section recieves as it's just a few subforums on the bottom of the page. it is not even half or predominant.

    i also noticed it was precisely the fringe section and it's topics that started this whole issue by a few members who hypocritically participated the most within it but want it deleted but say otherwise. it's a tactic. it wasn't the religion, philosophy or politics etc that set them off, even though there is just as much or more bullshit there.

    they must be very anal people and you can tell by their posts as well. lol

    for a forum of members who believe they are so logical i just wondered why someone's even admitted belief in ufo's/aliens, ghosts, etc is unacceptable and not tolerated but religion is.

    that's smack-dab conservative ideology. christians and islamists also think these fringe subjects and those who believe or are curious about such are nutjobs.
     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2017
  15. birch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,101
    the point is that this forum is proving itself to be a mirror of a conservative society and some members are pushing for it. without fringe, that's science plus religion. typical.

    it's telling that MR, the most prolific contributor to fringe was bullied and GIA, the more intelligent (besides the usual athiest vs theist conventional line that is redundant) contributor to religion was bullied away too.
     
  16. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,200
    From my perspective..

    General Science & Technology should not be on top. To the one, it has no real category and mousing over it shows 'if it doesn't fit anywhere else' is not really encouraging or conducive to scroll down... It should be merged with Science and Society to be "Science, Society and Technology" and that can cover scientific ethics, etc, that Science and Society currently covers. It can continue to be the catch all, but it should not be on top of the forum list. I would also recommend merging Eastern Philosophy with Religion (since the majority of the threads in that sub-forum fall under the guise of Eastern religions to begin with)

    From the top down, the list should be:

    Science

    Physics & Maths
    Astronomy, Exobiology and Cosmology
    Earth Science
    Chemistry
    Biology & Genetics
    Human Science - so that it works as a subset of sorts to biology and genetics.
    Science, Society and Technology - which is a merging of "General Science & Technology" and and "Science and Society"
    Linguistics
    Comparative Religion

    Technology


    Stays the same as it is now.

    Philosophy

    Philosophy
    Ethics, Morality & Justice
    Religion - which would encompass all religions, including Eastern Philosophy (which should be merged with this sub-forum)

    World

    Stays the same as it is now order wise. Perhaps a name change for World Events to be "World and Current Events".

    Life

    Stays the same as it is now

    On the Fringe

    Should be renamed to "Fringe", as on the fringe gives the implication that it somehow or other hovers just outside the realm of normal science.
    Merge Alternative Theories and Pseudoscience
    Merge Parapsychology and UFO's, Ghosts and Monsters sub-forums to be called something along the lines of "Supernatural and UFO's", which would cover all of those subjects.
    Leave Conspiracies just where it is, so that those topics don't end up migrating to the other sub-forums.

    So under the Fringe banner you'd have:

    Alternative Theories and Pseudoscience
    Supernatural and UFO's
    Conspiracies

    Sciforums.com

    Stays the same as it is now. Although moving Archives down to the bottom of the list might not be a terrible idea, but that's neither here nor there.


    On a general note..

    I would also recommending having the rules be a bit more distinct in regards to posting in the non-science forums, such as with the Fringe subforum, where when we try to adhere to the rules regarding evidence, we have the veritable shit-storm that inevitably follows. So I would recommend the rules being a little bit more descriptive in regards to what classifies as "evidence", for example.
     
  17. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,537
    The point is that this site isn't primarily about science. It's about the fringe primarily and it's about tolerating racist and bigoted posters (that's all Timojin is for example).

    The Science isn't very interesting either on this site, it's mainly fringe or someone just posting links to daily scientific subjects.

    I think it would be better to just call and consider this a general discussion board and then attempt to keep nut job posters to a minimum , conversation as civil as possible, and discourage (and eventually ban) posters who mainly post racist, bigoted threads.

    The beauty of various points of view would still be there and that is the main attraction of this discussion board.
     
  18. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,624
    Interesting to read the history of it all.

    I don't in fact have huge problems with the current structure. I was just responding to the request for feedback. The way I read the request was that mods find too much time taken up on the high level of traffic in the Fringe subsections, possibly due to attracting posters who do not respect, or understand, the mission statement, viz. that discussion is to be from a scientific perspective, even when on non-science or pseudoscience topics.

    I find the Religion section the most disappointing by a stretch. There are serious and detailed ideas in the thought of various religions that are interesting to discuss, and significant in the development of society and civilisation, whether or not one personally subscribes to them. I suspect a lot of it is poisoned by the modern American media style of "debate", which seems to consist of hurling abuse from an entrenched position, without trying to understand one's interlocutor. (Same is true, by the way, for anything involving sexual politics, but that's another story.)
     
  19. birch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,101
    it can't. that's why it's pseudoscience or for fringe, all the info is not in yet.

    then you contradict your position with the next statement. No stringent scientific method mentioned there.

    Personal opinion. i didn't know you were this much of a bigot like a few of those who have attacked the fringe so much to have caused this problem in the first place.

    Not only that, your logic flew out the window. well, you are human.
     
  20. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,624
    What can I say, but Quod Erat Demonstrandum?

    Perhaps you could give your views on the subject of this thread, then.
     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2017
  21. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,537
    Just make this a general discussion board and quit trying to tie everything to "science". Let's it be largest peer regulated.
     
  22. birch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,101
    ironically, i see the members who have tried to shut down the fringe section on a 'science' board the deceivers of reality and keep people ignorant, even vulnerable and believing in the 'what you see, is all there is' propaganda. this is because life is much more complicated and life experience shows you that much of reality is going on 'underneath' what is visible. and ironicly, the more you realize this, the stronger and wiser you become. they don't want it to be taken seriously so imo, they are the public's enemy just the same.

    this board should just delete the fringe altogether and keep the science and religion. otherwise, those with the evil eye toward the fringe will continue to complain about it like some undercover devils. if it's gone, nothing to complain about.
     
  23. Thales Registered Member

    Messages:
    24
    Yesterday, I put: "Yes - Condense The Fringe to one sub-forum but leave Religion as it stands"

    However, I've just implemented a few slight modifications, in re-casting my vote for: "No - Leave things as they are"
     

Share This Page