Converstations with more than 6 members

[Bandersnatch]

Would it be possible to remove or increase the limit on the number of participants (currently six) in a single conversation?

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

What is this large party you are having? Why am I not invited? :D

 

[Bandersnatch]

Well, you know. We've moved the crackpot watch and mocking to a place we deemed safer w/r to forum rules, but we're already at the limit and Om's not even there yet.

I can see why you might not want to lift the limit completely (so as not to create de facto private forums removed from the rest of PF), but maybe pushing it up to 10 or so wouldn't be too much of a problem?

 

[RonL]

What is this large party you are having? Why am I not invited? :D

To assure that it's not discriminatory to crackpots I'm one of the six :w or maybe they just wanted to be able to say "we have your six" :D

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I can see why you might not want to lift the limit completely (so as not to create de facto private forums removed from the rest of PF), but maybe pushing it up to 10 or so wouldn't be too much of a problem?

Conversations with 10 people might as well be a public discussion?

 

[phinds]

Conversations with 10 people might as well be a public discussion?

But it's NOT public. We would not invite the crackpots and that's somewhat the point. We agree w/ the forum rules not to make fun of anyone in the public forum, but you got to admit, some of the posts we get on this forum are doozies and we like to banter about them and their creators without hurting anyone's feelings.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

But it's NOT public. We would not invite the crackpots and that's somewhat the point. We agree w/ the forum rules not to make fun of anyone in the public forum, but you got to admit, some of the posts we get on this forum are doozies and we like to banter about them and their creators without hurting anyone's feelings.

Honestly I'm not really thrilled with the idea that there are private cliques, especially out judging people.

 

[phinds]

Honestly I'm not really thrilled with the idea that there are private cliques, especially out judging people.

Yeah, I can see that and I respect it. I can't speak for anyone else, but you already KNOW full well that I am a judgmental bastard so that can't be any surprise to you

 

[DrClaude]

Honestly I'm not really thrilled with the idea that there are private cliques, especially out judging people.

I thought that was what the mentor badge was for ;)

 

[Bandersnatch]

Honestly I'm not really thrilled with the idea that there are private cliques, especially out judging people.

The purpose of the conversation is not to be judgemental beyond what is proper, be it according to the forum rules or simple human decency, but to share and preserve the posts that are routinelly deleted by the efficient actions of the mods.
Yes, one can derive pleasure from studying human foibles and fallacies. No, it doesn't mean there is, or at least should be, any malice or desire to make anyone's life miserable behind it.

 

[Intrastellar]

Even if it does not bring any harm (and that is unlikely, in my opinion), it definitely does not bring any good to the forum. Please do not do it.

 

[phinds]

Even if it does not bring any harm (and that is unlikely, in my opinion), it definitely does not bring any good to the forum. Please do not do it.

Perhaps after you've been here a bit longer you'll begin to get a feel for how entertaining some of the crackpot posts can be. The good news / bad news is that the mods are very efficient in removing them quickly and some of us would like to see them but they're gone before we get a chance so the point is to copy those posts over to a private conversation.

 

[Borg]

Getting away from the subcontext of why a particular group wants it expanded, I don't see the private conversations to be much different than if a group of members decided to share private email addresses and do the same thing. Other than the convenience and the ability of the admins to monitor the conversations, what's the difference in this respect?

Full disclosure: I was added/invited to the conversation that's been mentioned. I have reservations about the potential for it to get out of hand and will drop out if I think that it is getting away from its primary purpose of finding and archiving blatent crackpottery.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Other than the convenience and the ability of the admins to monitor the conversations, what's the difference in this respect?

The conversation feature is not really meant for long term topical discussion with a group of members. It side steps the purpose and effectiveness of PF which should be as public as possible so all can benefit. I will continue to think this over.

 

[RonL]

The conversation feature is not meant for long term topical discussion with a group of members. It side steps the purpose and effectiveness of PF which should be as public as possible so all can benefit.

Knowing and understanding your opinion (and agreeing) I would not want to risk being banned over something like this:(, it would need to be really serious crackpottery:D I'll get back to toeing the line

 

[Borg]

The conversation feature is not really meant for long term topical discussion with a group of members. It side steps the purpose and effectiveness of PF which should be as public as possible so all can benefit. I will continue to think this over.

I'm mainly commenting here because I am part of the conversation that was mentioned. I agree about the high potential for things like this to undermine PF but I was trying to avoid that part of the equation. The question that I was trying to ask was whether a PF conversation was much different than members sending emails to each other. I'm not sure. I do know that, like the others, we are very watchful for misbehavior in a conversation just as if we were posting in a thread. If you want us to not use the conversation tool in this manner, I will happily comply.

 

[ShayanJ]

I'm one of the six too. For me, this has nothing to do with mocking or judging people. This is serious to me because I'm really curious about the series of events and thoughts that causes someone to become a crackpot. Is it only ignorance? Will it always go away when the the person learns more? Its a serious scientific question for me and I see "crackpotology" as a subset of psychology which needs the attention of specialists from other areas of science. So I want to read more and more crackpot claims and discuss them with other people. But there are several reasons that make us think this isn't going to work in public. I don't speak for others, but I'm not going to judge or mock anyone, so this is not one of those reasons.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I'm really curious about the series of events and thoughts that causes someone to become a crackpot

This is something that can be discussed in the open, as long as you aren't being specific to a member. After all I am interested in this as well :)

 

[Bandersnatch]

This is something that can be discussed in the open, as long as you aren't being specific to a member. After all I am interested in this as well :)

But without quoting the source material.

See, it's against the rules either way :(

But seriously, it's not a big deal if you'd rather not have the conversation exist on your forum. Just say a word.

 

[ShayanJ]

This is something that can be discussed in the open, as long as you aren't being specific to a member. After all I am interested in this as well :)

But this is something that requires much observations. We need to be able to talk about all those crackpot claims subject by subject. We need to be able to address their threads and keep what they write. I think these are going to annoy the staff if seen on public.
Anyway, I'm not going to discuss this for long. If this can't happen, then its OK.

 

[ZapperZ]

But it's NOT public. We would not invite the crackpots and that's somewhat the point. We agree w/ the forum rules not to make fun of anyone in the public forum, but you got to admit, some of the posts we get on this forum are doozies and we like to banter about them and their creators without hurting anyone's feelings.

Oh man, this sounds like a lot of fun, despite what Greg said!

:)

Zz.

 

[phinds]

Oh man, this sounds like a lot of fun, despite what Greg said!

:)

Zz.

Well, lean on him to up it to 10 and you're in

 

[OmCheeto]

Well, you know. We've moved the crackpot watch and mocking to a place we deemed safer w/r to forum rules, but we're already at the limit and Om's not even there yet.

Still haven't figured out how to join the conversation.

But, I'm very happy, that my virtual friends, here, let me, lean...

​

"I just might have a problem, that you'll understand"

​

ps. I'm not really a nice person. Nor, do I consider myself "funny"...... as, I will expose all:

Hello Z-man,
Unfortunately, my knowledge electromagnetic propulsion is extremely limited, and the complexity of the problem is beyond my current capabilities.

I would recommend following Evo's instructions, and post the question in the General Physics section of the forum.

You should, as I recommended, show that you've studied the problem. If you merely post that you saw a youtube video, and want everyone to explain why it isn't possible, then you will probably be ignored.
Om

 

[Bystander]

public as possible so all can benefit. I will continue to think this over.

as long as you aren't being specific to a member

That was the problem I was avoiding when I initiated the conversation. The thread in GD was not getting out of hand, but ---- uncomfortable.

this sounds like a lot of fun

"Yes," in the same way it's hard not to watch train wrecks. "No," in the sense of hating to be part of an audience to other peoples' embarrassments, be they aware of them or not.
I had the odd notion that there might be something to be gained with exchange of observations among the small group. Catch a slightly larger sample and spot trends/common flaws in reasoning that might be remedied simply. Right now, it looks very much as though the range of misconceptions is way beyond what I'd anticipated, and that there's no way to deal with "out of bounds" posts other than the current "zero tolerance," n warnings/strikes and "they're out." Subtle is not going to cut it.

 

[Bandersnatch]

@Greg Bernhardt , can we at least have the option of bringing in a new member to the conversation once another one leaves? Right now the limit holds even if every participant unsubscribes.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

@Greg Bernhardt , can we at least have the option of bringing in a new member to the conversation once another one leaves? Right now the limit holds even if every participant unsubscribes.

I think that is a limitation of the software, nothing I can set.

 

[phinds]

@Greg Bernhardt , can we at least have the option of bringing in a new member to the conversation once another one leaves? Right now the limit holds even if every participant unsubscribes.

If someone did leave, you can always just start a new conversation with the 5 existing participants plus the new person.

 

[Bandersnatch]

Fair enough. Thanks for a quick answer.