Are Rules Really Rules? And is There a Duty to Truth Here?

[Russ_Watters]

I've had a couple of exchanges with Kittamaru regarding these issues and wanted to bring them here:

Technically speaking, it's in the right sub-forum *shrug* There are no forum rules against not understanding science after all

If not understanding were his only issue, the thread would have wrapped up in minutes. I get that the forum rules are interpreted to include no intellectual responsibility, but it seems to me that that's just an interpretation: the rules are there, but are just not enforced. Among relevant ones in the specific thread we were in:

• Post clearly and coherently.
• Support your arguments with evidence.
• Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.
• Avoid logical fallacies.

• Abide by basic standards of good manners and courtesy. Remember the human who is reading your post.
• Avoid straw-man arguments.

Those are not listed under the "behavior that may get you banned", so perhaps they should be removed from the rules altogether or the section should be re-labeled "suggested conduct that we won't enforce" or something of the sort. That would make it clearer that such conduct will not be enforced.

Under "behavior that may get you banned":

• Knowingly posting false or misleading information.

• Repetitive or vexatious posting.

And this one is escaped via catc-22:

• Being a repeat-offending drain on moderator time and effort.

Tough to be a repeat offender if there is no moderator action to begin with...though having to check-in on problematic threads may qualify as "time and effort".

Now, the "duty to truth" thing is a little more problematic. Earlier in the same thread:

...just stick to the facts please.

And:

If you all feel TC has no desire to learn, or to work with facts... then simply stop replying, and let the thread fall to the dredges.

Both of these imply that facts matter, thought he second implies that moderators will take no action for lack of facts. Most of the suggestions in the "rules" seem to fit that. But both "Knowingly posting false or misleading information" and "repetitive or vexatious posting" are symptoms of a failed duty to truth. The problem is, that it is near impossible to to prove someone is posting false information knowingly.

For that reason, in other context in the real world and in the suggestions higher up in the "rules", the duty is affirmative, not passive. You can't just say whatever you want without consequences, you have to show what you are saying is true with sources and evidence.

Ironically, this implies a dismay over the current state:

Why has this thread nearly made it to 40 pages 0o'

But this says it is up to the users, not the moderators:

If you all feel TC has no desire to learn, or to work with facts... then simply stop replying, and let the thread fall to the dredges.

My wish and suggestion is that moderators take responsibility for the quality of the forum and not just leave it up to the members.

 

[leopold]

I've had a couple of exchanges with Kittamaru regarding these issues and wanted to bring them here:
If not understanding were his only issue, the thread would have wrapped up in minutes. I get that the forum rules are interpreted to include no intellectual responsibility, but it seems to me that that's just an interpretation: the rules are there, but are just not enforced.

moderation includes more than jumping down someones throat, locking threads, and banning people.
ever hear of a concept called justice?
you can easily define what it is, very much harder to apply it.
you also need to remember that not everyone feels like you do
anyway . .

Among relevant ones in the specific thread we were in:

• Post clearly and coherently.
• Support your arguments with evidence.
• Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.
• Avoid logical fallacies.

• Abide by basic standards of good manners and courtesy. Remember the human who is reading your post.
• Avoid straw-man arguments.

Those are not listed under the "behavior that may get you banned", so perhaps they should be removed from the rules altogether or the section should be re-labeled "suggested conduct that we won't enforce" or something of the sort.

i feel like the mods need to be the strictest (relatively) in the science forums.
somewhat less strict in others.
other sub forums might not need hardly any moderation, only to throw out the most blatant violators.
spam, consistently demeaning posts, not contributing (maybe), hateful posts directed to specific members, etc.

That would make it clearer that such conduct will not be enforced.

it would be a bad move.
hint, the posters determine what goes on here, believe it or not.
do you believe that people can't smell intelligence?

Under "behavior that may get you banned":

• Knowingly posting false or misleading information.

this should apply to the science sections only.
but then again, what is "knowingly false" information?
the mods have to deal with that question, you DO realize that don't you?

• repetitive or vexatious posting.

i'm not sure what that means, and it needs defined.

And this one is escaped via catc-22:

• Being a repeat-offending drain on moderator time and effort.

probably why sock puppets are almost across the board banned when found out.

Tough to be a repeat offender if there is no moderator action to begin with...though having to check-in on problematic threads may qualify as "time and effort".

moderators here are volunteers, they do not punch a clock or get paid.
and you must ALWAYS remember . . . justice.
justice is the real ass kicker here.
"what is right in this particular instance"
next topic comes up, even if it's the very same thing it's:
"what is right in this particular instance"
now the mods job is sounding just a tad harder isn't it.

The problem is, that it is near impossible to to prove someone is posting false information knowingly.

yes, mainly because of the nature of the 'net.
it would be a lot different if this was a pay to join secure site.

For that reason, in other context in the real world and in the suggestions higher up in the "rules", the duty is affirmative, not passive. You can't just say whatever you want without consequences, you have to show what you are saying is true with sources and evidence.

sounds reasonable, in the science sections
but again, you have that justice thing hanging over your head.

But this says it is up to the users, not the moderators:

My wish and suggestion is that moderators take responsibility for the quality of the forum and not just leave it up to the members.

maybe that is why sciforums has been around for so long, because it has learned to roll with the punches.

 

[Kittamaru]

Russ, part of the issue is simply this:

If we were to enforce the rules per litteram legis, a large number of the forum population would find itself banned in short order... and quite honestly, it would likely include yourself and several other highly-active, highly-productive members...

 

[James R]

It is unreasonable to expect the moderators to be the arbiters of what is and isn't true on any given topic. We can't be experts on everything. Besides, I don't think anybody wants a dictatorship in which the moderators enforce a list of things you are and aren't allowed to say about certain topics.

We receive many complaints that amount, essentially, to "What member X posted is clearly wrong. This isn't science! They should be warned or banned." To act on such complaints would demand, in many cases, that the moderator view the supposedly-offending post(s), then read back through the relevant thread in order to (a) deduce the topic of the argument, (b) form an opinion on who is right or wrong, (c) to decide if, in the context, the complained-about statement is right or wrong, and (d) to rule on an appropriate penalty for being wrong. This involves a lot of work for the moderator, and also puts him or her into a god-like position of making pronouncements about issues based ultimately only on his or her own knowledge and opinions and judgment.

We could, in principle, list off a few no-go areas in which topics would be shut down and members punished or banned. These might include, for example, questioning Einstein's theory of relativity, proposing anti-scientific "alternative theories", denying evolution, posting information that the moderator team regards as non-politically correct and so on. This would make sciforums a forum that pushes a particular party line, rather than providing a platform for open discussion of ideas.

So, in general, we do not moderate people for being wrong, or for being stupid or for being uneducated. There are forums out there that do. We are not one of them.

Instead, we urge our members to post on our forum to expose incorrect ideas, to point out dishonesty where it occurs, and to help those who are in doubt to learn to distinguish real knowledge from pseudoscience, superstition and fraud.

You may notice that we have some "Posting Guidelines", and a list of things that "may get you warned or banned". We do not have a list of "Rules" that say "Do this or don't do that, or else!"

This is good advice for posters:

• Post clearly and coherently.
• Support your arguments with evidence.
• Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.
• Avoid logical fallacies.
• Abide by basic standards of good manners and courtesy. Remember the human who is reading your post.
• Avoid straw-man arguments.

But if you don't follow it, we won't immediately ban you. If, hypothetically, we did decide to ban anybody who didn't follow all of these points (even just the 6 points listed here), then we'd probably immediately have to ban half our current membership.

We have entire areas of the site dedicated to what is, essentially, bad science or non-science or just plain nonsense. Those areas are full of incoherent posts, arguments without evidence, extraordinary and unsupported claims and logical fallacies. I don't think that the members who post in those areas would like us to close and delete those areas of the forum.

What we can do is to corral bad science to the Fringe subfora, and try to keep the Science sections for real science. This is not, however, always easy to do, for reasons that aren't hard to work out.

 

[billvon]

My wish and suggestion is that moderators take responsibility for the quality of the forum and not just leave it up to the members.

The bottom line question here - can you ban someone for being wrong? I would argue no; banning (or taking other action against them) simply because they are wrong is inconsistent with a forum that caters to people who ask questions about science, often by non-scientists. I agree that trolling (asking questions and being difficult purely to generate responses) is bannable, as are personal attacks, spamming and sock puppetry.

Why is it important not to ban people who are wrong? Because in many areas that is subject to interpretation. Imagine, for example, a new moderator banning someone for claiming that EM radiation consisted of photons, since he has heard of wave-particle duality. That would be contrary to the objective of the forum. A far better solution is to move them to a forum that makes it clear they are not posting real science or asking real questions. That way they can get responses - and who knows? As unlikely as it is in most cases, they might eventually learn something.

 

[Russ_Watters]

Russ, part of the issue is simply this:

If we were to enforce the rules per litteram legis, a large number of the forum population would find itself banned in short order... and quite honestly, it would likely include yourself and several other highly-active, highly-productive members...

Well here's the thing: if you start enforcing the rules, people might start following them!

 

[Russ_Watters]

Russ, part of the issue is simply this:

If we were to enforce the rules per litteram legis, a large number of the forum population would find itself banned in short order... and quite honestly, it would likely include yourself and several other highly-active, highly-productive members...

Well here's the thing: if you start enforcing your own rules, people might start following them!

Anyway, as I've said/asked before: I suppose you have the forum you want. [sigh] A site dedicated to crackpots and people who like bashing crackpots.

 

[Russ_Watters]

It is unreasonable to expect the moderators to be the arbiters of what is and isn't true on any given topic. We can't be experts on everything.

Many topics are obivious and, fortunately, the topics that attract the most crackpots are generally pretty basic since it is a key trait of crackpots that they don't know much -- so they aren't even aware of the more obscure topics. That's part of why Relativity attracts so many crackpots -- it's basically the first thing people are exposed to that they didn't learn in high school.

For the rest, the "affirmative duty to truth" would be based on providing sources/evidence for claims. It would make it a lot tougher for people to just make crap up as they go along if they were forced to find sources (even better: quality sources) for their claims.

Remember, James, you (the moderating staff) already judge four different quality grades including one that is deemed unacceptable.

 

[Kittamaru]

Well here's the thing: if you start enforcing your own rules, people might start following them!

Anyway, as I've said/asked before: I suppose you have the forum you want. [sigh] A site dedicated to crackpots and people who like bashing crackpots.

If that is your viewpoint... then why are you still here?

What do you want us to do? Remove everyone that doesn't have the ability to recite statistics from a high school chemistry book? Or maybe college physics? Where do we draw the line? When do we decide someone is "too ignorant" and cannot be taught... because that is the exact distinction you are asking us to make.

If someone like TC makes posts that fly in the face of science... correct them. If they don't listen, let the post be - it'll fade into nothingness soon enough.

Honestly, there's enough to deal with around here (spammers, trolls, assholes, etc) that we mods don't have TIME to try and play "IQ Police"

 

[Jason.Marshall]

If that is your viewpoint... then why are you still here?

What do you want us to do? Remove everyone that doesn't have the ability to recite statistics from a high school chemistry book? Or maybe college physics? Where do we draw the line? When do we decide someone is "too ignorant" and cannot be taught... because that is the exact distinction you are asking us to make.

If someone like TC makes posts that fly in the face of science... correct them. If they don't listen, let the post be - it'll fade into nothingness soon enough.

Honestly, there's enough to deal with around here (spammers, trolls, assholes, etc) that we mods don't have TIME to try and play "IQ Police"

lol

 

[C C]

What do you want us to do? Remove everyone that doesn't have the ability to recite statistics from a high school chemistry book? Or maybe college physics? Where do we draw the line? When do we decide someone is "too ignorant" and cannot be taught... because that is the exact distinction you are asking us to make. [...] Honestly, there's enough to deal with around here (spammers, trolls, assholes, etc) that we mods don't have TIME to try and play "IQ Police"

Yah. If this place was supposed to be one of those groups for classroom assistance that educational institutions created on Usenet back in the early days of the 'net (or solely a discussion nexus for non-laypersons), then the forum should blatantly and clearly state at the top that it is for that narrow purpose. But along with such a missing "neon-sign" and the diverse chit-chat categories featured here, SF is apparently not that; and thus unsurprisingly invites the unwashed hordes that began with Eternal September days.

SciForums could be a board for lax conversation that only sports science as its major interest; or it could be a strict workshop for the latter which brooks no deviation of treating science as mere hobby melded with a cluster of other sideline avocations. Instead it sometimes seems to be left hanging as, or legislated as, an ambiguous gray area between those two which generates these intermittently confused posters. Who are at odds with each other because they believe the forum is, or should be, a black and white situation of either one function or the other.

 

[krash661]

I've had a couple of exchanges with Kittamaru regarding these issues and wanted to bring them here:
If not understanding were his only issue, the thread would have wrapped up in minutes. I get that the forum rules are interpreted to include no intellectual responsibility, but it seems to me that that's just an interpretation: the rules are there, but are just not enforced. Among relevant ones in the specific thread we were in:

• Post clearly and coherently.
• Support your arguments with evidence.
• Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.
• Avoid logical fallacies.

• Abide by basic standards of good manners and courtesy. Remember the human who is reading your post.
• Avoid straw-man arguments.

Those are not listed under the "behavior that may get you banned", so perhaps they should be removed from the rules altogether or the section should be re-labeled "suggested conduct that we won't enforce" or something of the sort. That would make it clearer that such conduct will not be enforced.

Under "behavior that may get you banned":

• Knowingly posting false or misleading information.

• Repetitive or vexatious posting.

And this one is escaped via catc-22:

• Being a repeat-offending drain on moderator time and effort.

Tough to be a repeat offender if there is no moderator action to begin with...though having to check-in on problematic threads may qualify as "time and effort".

Now, the "duty to truth" thing is a little more problematic. Earlier in the same thread:

And:

Both of these imply that facts matter, thought he second implies that moderators will take no action for lack of facts. Most of the suggestions in the "rules" seem to fit that. But both "Knowingly posting false or misleading information" and "repetitive or vexatious posting" are symptoms of a failed duty to truth. The problem is, that it is near impossible to to prove someone is posting false information knowingly.

For that reason, in other context in the real world and in the suggestions higher up in the "rules", the duty is affirmative, not passive. You can't just say whatever you want without consequences, you have to show what you are saying is true with sources and evidence.

Ironically, this implies a dismay over the current state:

But this says it is up to the users, not the moderators:

My wish and suggestion is that moderators take responsibility for the quality of the forum and not just leave it up to the members.

agreed. in my opinion, it seems activity is the focus rather than accurate data and true interest in science and discussion.
i have personally tried numerous times, on many science site, it's the same nonsense on them all. it's just how these types of sites are.
i do wish i can give some people here access to nonpublic servers, but i can't. i know they would seriously appreciate those sites.

 

[krash661]

also, a lot of the problems in this topic can be solved just by limiting the postings of the accused in certain boards only.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

I am not really a person whom likes to get involved in the rules on a forum, especially a science forum, however after reading several posts in this thread I feel the need to defend us so called trolls. Science forums should understand that they will have on their forums a wide variety of people from different walks of life with different levels of intelligence and different levels of knowledge, science should also understand that many people discover a piece of science information from viewing youtube videos and the likes of, and often think they have discovered the next best thing so find a forum and start a discussion often misunderstood by the person posting and even sometimes the poster does not have the ability of literacy to explain their ideas properly to be understood.
If members got their way, all people like this would be banned reducing the population of the forum and making conversation rather dull has no one would try to create talking points of a nature that was different to present information.
In no way does any person making outstanding claims have any effect on science or the forum, people are being offended by their own lack of patience, they do not have to reply to something they deem to be fallacious or deem the person to be a nut job.
Your anger or hate is self inflicted, the persons posting do not intend to or try to make you hate them in any sense, when the individual considers themselves to be trying to help science.
I agree in keeping ideas without real evidence out of the main forum, but there is no harm in a post has long as it is in the correct section. There would be very little purpose in having other sections if nobody was in there to post.
Posters like myself do not force people into replying , that is your own choices, a choice you seem to think that in some way the mods should bow down to your every whim when you have a complaint about a person, when it is you who post in reply so make your own problems by choice.
Your choice being the words of importance, you choose to reply , yet you choose to try and get the person posting banned when you have the choice to simply ignore.
In my opinion the behaviour of trying to get people banned is a trolling offence in its own right, what is the purpose of you being here if your only aim is to ban people with less knowledge than yourself, what does this achieve accept sock puppets in return.
You would make terrible teachers, patience is required and professionalism, without the profanities and insults.
I agree get rid of the God trolls, preachers do not belong on here.

 

[billvon]

also, a lot of the problems in this topic can be solved just by limiting the postings of the accused in certain boards only.

That's a very good point. Posters who exhibit a tendency to post woo would be best kept in (for example) pseudoscience. Then anyone who is bothered by such posts could simply avoid that forum.

 

[Jason.Marshall]

agreed. in my opinion, it seems activity is the focus rather than accurate data and true interest in science and discussion.
i have personally tried numerous times, on many science site, it's the same nonsense on them all. it's just how these types of sites are.
i do wish i can give some people here access to nonpublic servers, but i can't. i know they would seriously appreciate those sites.

Krash661 you are among the most intelligent on this site along with a few others, you must remember to not waste your energy, if you notice that you may engage in conversing with a fool, then you will be donating energy that is not deserved or earned. Allow them to bask in false securities of their own ignorance to dignify them with a response serves no purpose other than you Krash661 becoming too generous with your time with those that are unworthy and obviously intellectually deficient. You must remember here on planet earth the smartest man was Steven Hawkins and the rest of the inhabitants have all their functional senses available to them but still contain less intellectual capabilities than the mentally handicap. So this follows that you must allow them to watch sports and saturday morning cartoons like a child taking milk from its mother they are dependant on their ignorance to survive. While this planet is being dominated in plain sight they will not even notice like animals awaiting slaughter in the stables of a barn. "The Matrix".....Easter and the rabbit hole....4.17....

Sometimes harsh words are necessary, but I am still in love with the inhabitants of earth.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

I went to bed last night and woke up with a fresh idea about this forum, it is without doubt an importance to science that members of the public post fresh and new ideas, without fresh and new ideas science will be at a stand still, to stereotype these posters has idiots is not a valuable asset to science, I consider that thought of any description is a valued asset to science on the basis that even an idiot or someone without great science knowledge can get lucky with an idea.
Imagine if Faraday had been ignored.
I suggest why not openly invite the so called trolls here and simply rename one of the sections to Trolls personal theories, a simplicity of forum place that will be full of ideas, some of these ideas may be true some might not be true, but this way there is an assured certainty that the next big thing will not be missed.

 

[Kittamaru]

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/pr...sts-from-posting-in-science-subforums.144244/

Go here and cast your voices

 

[krash661]

That's a very good point. Posters who exhibit a tendency to post woo would be best kept in (for example) pseudoscience. Then anyone who is bothered by such posts could simply avoid that forum.

yes. also, they can be banned from boards like regular site banning, ban them for days or such. if they continue, make it permanent.
it's work on other sites. it keeps the traffic/activity and keeps actual science clean and correct.
just a thought.

 

[C C]

Many of the people who are irritated by cranks do not try to avoid them in the Fringe section, though. They instead seek them out there and scatter them back to the top of SF again. So here we go back to that crazy merry-go-round of a few months ago of pretending that the "Fringe" groups serve as some kind of refuge for the unconventional, that those places are not held to the same standards as the legit science subforums. When one ban / warning after another in the past has demonstrated that's not consistently the case. If the eccentrics are going to be complained about even in Fringe, then what the devil incentive is there for them to stay there, to comply to any voluntary banishment there? Back then, CH and CK pointed-out the absurdity of that kind of hollow solution (given the actual situation in Fringe), and here it is being resurrected in all its impotent glory again.

OTOH, if the software limitations of this board have been altered by upgrade since then, to where a pseudo-sci poster can now by Mod control panel be banned specifically from individual sub-forums or sections (no voluntary agreement induced by greater threats required), then that at least adds a little meaningful punch to this Vote. "Stan the anti-gravity man" would be genuinely confined to SciForum purgatory no matter how much he got flamed / harassed in Fringe, unable to revenge-fully kamikaze into the "suits and lab-coats" party transpiring at the top.