Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Converstations with more than 6 members

  1. Jan 13, 2015 #1

    Bandersnatch

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Would it be possible to remove or increase the limit on the number of participants (currently six) in a single conversation?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 13, 2015 #2
    What is this large party you are having? Why am I not invited? :D
     
  4. Jan 13, 2015 #3

    Bandersnatch

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    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?
     
  5. Jan 13, 2015 #3

    RonL

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    To assure that it's not discriminatory to crackpots :oops: I'm one of the six :eek::w or maybe they just wanted to be able to say "we have your six" :D
     
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2015
  6. Jan 13, 2015 #4
    Conversations with 10 people might as well be a public discussion?
     
  7. Jan 13, 2015 #5

    phinds

    User Avatar
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    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 gotta 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.
     
  8. Jan 13, 2015 #6
    Honestly I'm not really thrilled with the idea that there are private cliques, especially out judging people.
     
  9. Jan 13, 2015 #7

    phinds

    User Avatar
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    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 :smile:
     
  10. Jan 14, 2015 #8

    DrClaude

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I thought that was what the mentor badge was for ;)
     
  11. Jan 14, 2015 #9

    Bandersnatch

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    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.
     
  12. Jan 14, 2015 #10

    Intrastellar

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  13. Jan 14, 2015 #11

    phinds

    User Avatar
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    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.
     
  14. Jan 14, 2015 #12

    Borg

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  15. Jan 14, 2015 #13
    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.
     
  16. Jan 14, 2015 #14

    RonL

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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:nb)
     
  17. Jan 14, 2015 #15

    Borg

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  18. Jan 14, 2015 #16

    ShayanJ

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  19. Jan 14, 2015 #17
    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 :)
     
  20. Jan 14, 2015 #18

    Bandersnatch

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    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.
     
  21. Jan 14, 2015 #19

    ShayanJ

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  22. Jan 14, 2015 #20

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

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

    :)

    Zz.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Converstations with more than 6 members
Loading...