Expansion of Banned Topics within forum Rules & Guidelines

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dembadon
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
Members can propose additional topics to be included in the forum's banned topics list, aimed at enhancing the clarity of the rules. While this may increase the workload for staff due to the need for auditing suggestions, it could lead to a more comprehensive guidelines document. The forum currently focuses on commonly discussed topics like perpetual motion, but there is openness to adding more specific sub-topics to reduce moderation issues. Suggestions can be made publicly or privately through reporting threads. The forum encourages community input to improve its rules and guidelines.
Dembadon
Gold Member
Messages
658
Reaction score
89
Expansion of "Banned Topics" within forum Rules & Guidelines

Is there a way for members to ask for a certain topic to be included in the list of quackery or crackpot topics at the end of the forum rules? I realize this might make more work for the staff, as they would have to audit each suggestion to see whether it should be added, but I think it would make for a more robust rules document.

I also realize there are probably thousands of topics that could be included in the banned topic section, and many of them fall under the umbrella of topics already listed. However, explicitly stating a few of the more infamous/popular sub-topics might decrease the frequency, or the need, to moderate threads that were created out of ignorance or some personal crusade against Science.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Once, the mentors decided that we wouldn't make the banned topics list to be all-inclusive. We would just list some topics that show up a lot (like perpetual motion) and list that. In principle, every crackpottery that is not listed is still forbidden, but we don't list it explicitely since it doesn't come up much, or since it is obvious crackpotteryy.

But if you have a suggestions, then you can go ahead and suggest something. We will certainly consider it. If you don't want to publically suggest it, then you can always report your thread and suggest it in there.
 
I understand. Thank you, micro.
 
I want to thank those members who interacted with me a couple of years ago in two Optics Forum threads. They were @Drakkith, @hutchphd, @Gleb1964, and @KAHR-Alpha. I had something I wanted the scientific community to know and slipped a new idea in against the rules. Thank you also to @berkeman for suggesting paths to meet with academia. Anyway, I finally got a paper on the same matter as discussed in those forum threads, the fat lens model, got it peer-reviewed, and IJRAP...
This came up in my job today (UXP). Never thought to raise it here on PF till now. Hyperlinks really should be underlined at all times. PF only underlines them when they are rolled over. Colour alone (especially dark blue/purple) makes it difficult to spot a hyperlink in a large block of text (or even a small one). Not everyone can see perfectly. Even if they don't suffer from colour deficiency, not everyone has the visual acuity to distinguish two very close shades of text. Hover actions...
About 20 years ago, in my mid-30s (and with a BA in economics and a master's in business), I started taking night classes in physics hoping to eventually earn the science degree I'd always wanted but never pursued. I found physics forums and used it to ask questions I was unable to get answered from my textbooks or class lectures. Unfortunately, work and life got in the way and I never got further the freshman courses. Well, here it is 20 years later. I'm in my mid-50s now, and in a...

Similar threads

Replies
0
Views
8K
Replies
0
Views
6K
Replies
1
Views
22K
Replies
3
Views
16K
Replies
1
Views
5K
Replies
2
Views
502K
Replies
183
Views
79K
Back
Top