Restrictive Moderation and Politics: The Overbearing Forum Experience

[ray b]

this whole forum and politics esp has far more overmoderation
then any other forum I visit
why cannot the free flow of ideas take place here

 

[Moonbear]

It's all explained quite clearly here:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=5374

If you don't like a moderated site, there are plenty on the internet that aren't. We prefer to have some standards here.

 

[ray b]

your standards need baddly to be revised

I semi understand the anti crackpot bit
but think any form of censorship is always WRONG
even those with the best of intent

a better idea is to show why the crackpots are WRONG
useing their mistaken ideas to learn the true facts

religion in the post 9-11 era needs open and frank debate not censorship too
as we were attacked by believers at the same time our home grown believers
have stolen our government and are moving our freedoms FROM the rule of law to WE SAY SO LAND

and a hint of hot feeling saddly is enuff to lock far tooo many threads here
far too often

 

[devil-fire]

but its a political forum in this case.

i agree though, i don't think the rules for a forum of physics are the best for a political discussion.

for example a person can speculate on the intentions of bush or putin regarding the missile shield but if the person can't link complete evidence for the assertion then it is in the same realm is someone trying to seriously debate "overt crackpottery" in that there is zero scientific evidence involved with the debate. history is a big part of politics but aside from debating historical facts, almost anything about politics could be locked because it doesn't deal in solid facts.

 

[Hurkyl]

your standards need baddly to be revised

Empirical evidence and member testimony indicates that our standards are more than adequate for our purposes. What evidence do you have for your assertion?

but think any form of censorship is always WRONG

We disagree.

a better idea is to show why the crackpots are WRONG
useing their mistaken ideas to learn the true facts

The primary prerequisite for being a crackpot is a refusal to "learn the true facts".

religion in the post 9-11 era needs open and frank debate

And the appropriate place for this debate is a physics forum?

and a hint of hot feeling saddly is enuff to lock far tooo many threads here
far too often

I assert your assessment is inaccurate.

(edit: I interpreted your statement as accusing the mentors of locking threads when they get angry. I withdraw my statement if my interpretation is incorrect.)

 

[devil-fire]

religion in the post 9-11 era needs open and frank debate

And the appropriate place for this debate is a physics forum? QUOTE]

before this was moved, it was in the 'politics and world affairs' sub-forum

i think that section is a non-physics related part of physicsforum.com

 

[Moonbear]

your standards need baddly to be revised

We disagree, and will adhere to them. Time has demonstrated they serve us well.

I semi understand the anti crackpot bit
but think any form of censorship is always WRONG
even those with the best of intent

Then this is probabably not the best site for you to participate, because we will continue to enforce the guidelines to which all members agree to adhere to by posting here. If you don't agree to the guidelines, don't post.

a better idea is to show why the crackpots are WRONG
useing their mistaken ideas to learn the true facts

We tried that approach, and found that, as Hurkyl mentioned already, the crackpots have no interest in true facts or learning where their ideas are mistaken. They are zealots.

religion in the post 9-11 era needs open and frank debate not censorship too
as we were attacked by believers at the same time our home grown believers
have stolen our government and are moving our freedoms FROM the rule of law to WE SAY SO LAND

There are vast numbers of sites on the internet where you can post those thoughts and ideas, or even set up your own if you have the inclination. This is NOT the place for it.

and a hint of hot feeling saddly is enuff to lock far tooo many threads here
far too often

Because experience tells us that "hint" of hot feeling, which is generally far more than a hint when we decide to lock a thread, quickly degenerates into flaming and personal attacks, and we prefer to keep discussion here civil. If you can't remain civil, again, this is likely not the right place for you to air your thoughts.

 

[Moonbear]

before this was moved, it was in the 'politics and world affairs' sub-forum

Which is not the correct place to air a complaint about how the forum is run.

i think that section is a non-physics related part of physicsforum.com

The primary goal of the site is science education. There is an additional set of guidelines within the P&WA forum, which again, if people post there, they are agreeing to follow.

 

[devil-fire]

i don't mean to sound hostile. i think the rules you guys have set up here are great for broadening the understanding of physics. i just find that these same rules can be used in a way that prevents some political discussions and opinions from being fully explored.

Which is not the correct place to air a complaint about how the forum is run.

i agree that the poltical and world affairs forum is not the best place to talk about how moderators do their thing. what i was referring too though was that hurkyl's comment "And the appropriate place for this debate is a physics forum" did not apply to the sentence he was quoting, since "religion in the post 9-11 era needs open and frank debate" was not being debated in a physics forum.

The primary goal of the site is science education. There is an additional set of guidelines within the P&WA forum, which again, if people post there, they are agreeing to follow.

i understand that the threads that are being locked violate the agreement, but i don't think this specific agreement is the best suited for a political forum.

 

[drankin]

The only thing I don't like is that EVO ALWAYS GETS THE LAST WORD IN!
:)

 

[Danger]

I tend to avoid issues like this, but since I'm incredibly drunk at the moment, I'm going to weigh in.
To start with, as Moonbear pointed out, the purpose of this site is to educate people in various fields of science. And make no mistake about this... you will never run across such a collection of world-class experts in any scientific field as you have here.
And more to the point, these are experts who are freely giving of their time and knowledge in order to help others. A lot of them could easily charge several thousand dollars for a lecture, the essence of which they boil down here for free. Not only just for free, but you'll note that most of them also are cited as 'contributors', which means that they are paying for the priveledge of educating people. (I'm a contributor, but in this case I am paying for the priveledge of being educated by these people. It's a lot cheaper than going to university, and a lot easier since I never finished high-school.)
I must admit that I was a tad flummoxed by the 'Politics and World Affairs' section even existing, until I stopped to think about it. Political Science is still science, and scientifically minded people will gravitate to a good debate. The point of that, though, is debate, not denigrate or 'flame' the opposition.
When a discussion gets to the point of incivility, it's time to pull the plug.
I'm blaming any typos on the beer, so am not going to edit myself.

 

[Moonbear]

i don't mean to sound hostile. i think the rules you guys have set up here are great for broadening the understanding of physics. i just find that these same rules can be used in a way that prevents some political discussions and opinions from being fully explored.

Yes, they may, but those are not the primary purpose of this site. We are not, first and foremost, a political discussion site, we are a science discussion site. We limit the political discussions, because as has been discussed extensively in the past, the mentors are here first to help guide the science discussions, and we are not going to waste a lot of our time and efforts babysitting political topics that have a long history of spiraling out of control. There are numerous places on the internet dedicated to nothing but political discussion. We are not one of them. We have discussed eliminating the P&WA forum entirely, but as scientific progress is fully intertwined with politics, both in terms of things like federal funding for science and legislation limiting what can and can't be done (i.e., Bush's current veto of the latest bill on stem cell research, or the appropriations bill from the House that increases NIH's funding BELOW the inflation rate for scientific research, effectively cutting funding AGAIN, or energy policy, or the laws governing patenting of research discoveries, etc.), it was decided that within very narrow guidelines, the forum would remain and discussion would be permitted. So, for those topics that directly affect science and scientists, and for some other topics that interest our membership and don't get overly heated, we have kept the forum open. For those topics that frequently get out of hand, create hard feelings among the members, have required repeated mentor intervention in the past, and overall require a lot of babysitting efforts (and yes, for many of the prohibited topics, it's no longer mentoring but plain old babysitting of people who can't have a rational adult discussion), we are not wasting our time. We are not prohibiting you from having those discussions, we are prohibiting you from having those discussions HERE. As the bartender would say, "Take it outside."

As we have stated many times before, this site is not meant to be everything to everyone. We have determined what it is that we can do best, and stick within that scope so that we can maintain a high quality forum for our purpose.

As for the complaint that Evo gets the last word in, she is the mentor who has taken on the majority of the burden of moderating that forum. As such, when she locks a thread, it is necessary to indicate the reason for the lock, so yes, she will have the last post. If she locked the thread without any comment, then people would be in here griping that there's never any explanation given for the lock. You can't have it both ways.

 

[Evo]

This is ridiculous, the OP's statement is completely baseless. Going back to to May 3rd, out of 75 threads in P&WA, only three were locked, and two of them violated religious discussion guidelines. Religious "discussions" quickly turn to religious "bashing" and the thread deteriorates into insults and gets locked.

but its a political forum in this case.

i agree though, i don't think the rules for a forum of physics are the best for a political discussion.

The Politics & World Affairs forum has it's own unique guidelines addressing issues relevant to that forum.

 

[radou]

I tend to avoid issues like this, but since I'm incredibly drunk at the moment, I'm going to weigh in.
...
I'm blaming any typos on the beer, so am not going to edit myself.

Wow, Danger. No typos. You're the man!

The only thing I don't like is that EVO ALWAYS GETS THE LAST WORD IN!
:)

Actually, I must say I like it, because seeing some recent threads getting locked down almost turned me on.

 

[Evo]

Actually, I must say I like it, because seeing some recent threads getting locked down almost turned me on.

:shy:

 

[Danger]

Wow, Danger. No typos.

Hmmm... I guess my fingers can work independently from my brain.
I must say that almost every Mentor here has at one time or another saved my ass by either deleting a stupid post that I made in the heat of the moment or by locking a thread before I could make such a post. Speaking as one who normally can't stand having someone watching over my shoulder, I'm really grateful for the job that they do.
(I also like the auto-censor function; I can just speak my ****ing mind and let the software look out for me. )

 

[radou]

(I also like the auto-censor function; I can just speak my ****ing mind and let the software look out for me. )

Whoa, I didn't know about that!

I'd try it out right now, but I'm too afraid of Evo to even try.

 

[moe darklight]

is that true? I'll try it!

****! ****! barbara streisand!

 

[Hurkyl]

I don't see the big deal. Whenever I type four asterisks in a row, nothing special happens.

 

[Danger]

I don't see the big deal. Whenever I type four asterisks in a row, nothing special happens.

So you're saying that you aren't star-struck?

edit: By the way, Hurkyl is one of the few Mentors who hasn't saved my ass, because this is the first time he hasn't been asleep while I was posting.

 

[Hurkyl]

What do you mean? I'm posting in my sleep right now.

 

[Danger]

That would explain the hair-do...

 

[devil-fire]

We are not prohibiting you from having those discussions, we are prohibiting you from having those discussions HERE. As the bartender would say, "Take it outside."

like i said, I am not trying to be hostile here, I am just putting in my 2 cents of feedback.

its good to know the attitude the mentors have tword this particular forum though

 

[Danger]

its good to know the attitude the mentors have tword this particular forum though

As a relative newcomer to this site, I believe that the Mentors, the Homework Helpers, the Science Advisors, and most Contributors are merely sustaining Greg's vision of what PF should be. In reality, it all comes down to him.
Cheers, Greg, for creating the best damned science site on the net.

 

[moose]

There have been a few thread lockings which I disagreed with. However, those only make up a tiny minority.

 

[ray b]

Empirical evidence and member testimony indicates that our standards are more than adequate for our purposes. What evidence do you have for your assertion?

ANSWER many threads I wish to post in are lockedWe disagree.The primary prerequisite for being a crackpot is a refusal to "learn the true facts".

ANSWER YES BUT others can then see why the idea is wrong
while the crackpot maynot learn others will

And the appropriate place for this debate is a physics forum? ANSWER
in the post 9-11 world anywhere and every where is needed
to show all religions are part of a bigger problem
there is a war of ideas between science and religion
and this science forum is ducking its responceablity
to be part of that fightI assert your assessment is inaccurate.

(edit: I interpreted your statement as accusing the mentors of locking threads when they get angry. I withdraw my statement if my interpretation is incorrect.)

not only mods but any HINT of heat
by any poster
looks to draw an all toooo quick lock
all too often
on other forums I use, locks are rare.
here they are tooo common

and I repeat ALL CENSORSHIP IS WRONG
even if with good intent it is still WRONG

 

[radou]

and I repeat ALL CENSORSHIP IS WRONG
even if with good intent it is still WRONG

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cj9ZILlq1rA&mode=related&search="

 

[Moonbear]

and I repeat ALL CENSORSHIP IS WRONG
even if with good intent it is still WRONG

And I repeat, if you don't like it, go somewhere else that has rules (or lack thereof) that you can abide by. You have offered no examples, no reasons, no support for your argument other than you want to say anything you want when you want. The world doesn't work that way. This isn't a government run site, and that means that we CAN, and DO self-censor what appears here.

 

[jtbell]

Calling PF's editorial policies "censorship" trivializes the real censorship that goes on in places like China and Russia.

 

[ZapperZ]

These people who complain about "censorship" somehow forget one other important issue - being truthful to one's promise. To me, someone who is willing to LIE does not deserve to be listened to because he/she has no integrity.

Why is this relevant here? Read the PF Guidelines. One has to agree to it before one can join this forum. Each one of us has given our word that we will abide by those rules. If the rules require that one can only post on here naked while sitting on one's head during a full moon, and one agrees to it, then that's the rule! No one is forcing anyone to be here and agree to those rules, but when one has given one's word to abide by it, then it is only one's integrity that will make that person abide by it.

To complain NOW, after everything that has already been written and agreed to in the Guidelines, shows the utter lack of integrity. It show to me that you are willing to LIE simply to just be able to say whatever you want to say, regardless of the ground rules that you have agreed to. Censorship or not, it renders what you have to say as worthless, because you are untrustworthy.

Zz.

 

[Hurkyl]

not only mods but any HINT of heat
by any poster
looks to draw an all toooo quick lock
all too often
on other forums I use, locks are rare.
here they are tooo common

If the people on other forums jumped off of a cliff, would you complain that we didn't?

and I repeat ALL CENSORSHIP IS WRONG
even if with good intent it is still WRONG

It's ironic that you're exhibiting one of the very behaviors we want to discourage: someone repeatedly asserting their opinion without support, and without acknowledging what others have said.

 

[ray b]

zapper that is really over the top

to question authority is not = to lie

science is the VERY PROCESS of asking WHY
it is NOT following RULES
but trying to figure out what and why the rules are
and then trying every possible and some impossible tests
to break down the rules

I find your post illogical

 

[Evo]

zapper that is really over the top

to question authority is not = to lie

science is the VERY PROCESS of asking WHY
it is NOT following RULES
but trying to figure out what and why the rules are
and then trying every possible and some impossible tests
to break down the rules

I find your post illogical

This is a private forum, we have rules, you follow the rules, you can stay, you don't follow the rules, you can't stay.

 

[ZapperZ]

zapper that is really over the top

to question authority is not = to lie

science is the VERY PROCESS of asking WHY
it is NOT following RULES
but trying to figure out what and why the rules are
and then trying every possible and some impossible tests
to break down the rules

I find your post illogical

I notice you did not address my point, that YOU have agreed to a set of rules that you do not care to obey. What does that make you?

How PF is run has nothing to do with "science". Science, however, has a lot to do with integrity of those who practice it, something you do not have plenty of.

Whether the rules that PF has set is reasonable or not is irrelevant. NO ONE forced you to be here. The very fact that you agreed to it means that you've given your word. It is highly obvious to me that your word is utterly worthless.

If you don't like it, GO ELSEWHERE! It is obvious you hold those "other" forums in higher esteem than PF. I'm sure we will die a slow, painful death after you are gone.

Zz.

 

[ray b]

Hurkyl

I see the censorship opinion as a truisum

but I guess you donot
it certainly is not my original thought
google gives 1,520,000 hits to that statement
is that enuff citations for you?

and the cliff BS is totally unnecessary
are we debating or scolding

 

[ray b]

the tone is increasingly
WE SAY SO

AM I BREAKING RULES
or debating if the rules are good ones

 

[ZapperZ]

We are only adopting YOUR strategy. You keep saying "censorship is bad", without any "debating". That is the same as "we say so".

We simply are doing the same to you. You just don't recognize it.

And yes, We DO say so. It was stated very plainly in the Guidelines that you have explicitly agreed to.

Zz.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

the tone is increasingly
WE SAY SO

Think of it this way: First and foremost, PF strives to serve as an educational [and professional's] web site. Students don't determine what is taught in class, the professionals do; or in the case of many of our quality members and staff, the Ph.D's do - the experts. And let their be no doubt, there have been many heated debates in the mentor's private forum about how best to achieve our goal of providing the best information available on a wide range of subjects. What you see now at PF is the result of years of work donated by many, many professionals in the sciences, mathematics, and the engineering disciplines, who are dedicated to this goal.

 

[chroot]

I know this thread has already been locked (since it went around in circles for three pages). I also know it's not really fair of me to post after the lock, when no one can respond to me. However, a few things do need to be said:

We have tried almost every moderation strategy known to man at one time or another. We used to freely allow crackpots, religious zealots, and others to post anything they want here. We gradually realized, over a period of years, that these strategies were not successful. Why were they not successful?

Well, if every debate here were carried out with the sensibility and civility of a panel on NPR, we'd have absolutely no reason to moderate anything at all. Indeed, I really do wish eveyone on the planet were capable of having a rational debate about charged topics without descending to personal attacks, deliberately misinforming others, or spamming. I would like nothing more than for PF to be a sort of utopian speakeasy where intelligent folks can talk about anything on their mind without any moderation, but that utopia cannot exist. The majority of people who wish to participate in debates on charged topics just don't know how to keep their arguments impartial and inoffensive. Their posts end up offending other people, and we lose valuable membership, or at least have to do a lot of very tiring clean-up work.

I've seen a number of mentors say in this thread that our goal is to host the greatest discussion of science on the web. If you think in a deeper, more utilitarian fashion, our goal is to satisfy as many people as possible by giving them a forum they wish to participate in. We don't intend to be a private site, so we have to keep our discussions palatable to a large part of the general population. We also have many school-aged children and primary school educators, who really don't want religious propaganda mixed in with their homework problesm.

Finally, it has to be noted that our policies appear to be working very well. PF grows daily, and continually exceeds its previous records of posting and membership activity. We continue to attract school-age children and highly-visible professors alike. We certainly cannot make everyone happy, but we're doing a pretty good job of making most members happy -- and we're proud of that.

- Warren