What is PF doing having a Politics section

[SOS2008]

No, read my lips. (and we like you SOS), no flaming, no baiting, no sensationalism, no sarcasm, no insults, no redundant posts, no mindless lemming mentality. The mentors here are actually fairly divided between right and left. If we're doing our job, you can't tell who's right and who's left because we don't take sides but call anyone to task that is posting questionable information or is just plain out of line.

I've always found it amusing that the conservatives think I'm liberal and the liberals think I am conservative.

Not to belabor this further, I was referring to the members in general, not so much the mentors. (I personally feel you, Moonbear, etc. are moderate, and of course fantastic at making green apple martinis.) The workload has certainly increased because participation has increased. There are the occasional flames, usually associated with a new member, and I can understand the distraction. Restrictions may have a trade off of less participation and a slower, less interesting board. This would probably be a good thing for me—I might actually increase productivity in other areas of my life.

 

[Anttech]

But think about this. If you want to discuss political issues, you look for ... er ... a PHYSICS FORUM? What's wrong with this picture?

That makes as much sense as me going to a Psychology forum wanting to discuss the controversy between the phonon picture and the spin-fluctuation picture as the mechanism for High-Tc superconductor. Unless, of course, I'm full of it and I am hoping that people who actually know about such area of study would not tend to be in such a forum. That way, I can bluff my way through all of it, and there wouldn't be that many people who can dispute me.

The "experts" in many of the issues being discussed are not here, the same way that there is very little chance that experts in physics would be found in a psychology forum. If one thinks one has a valid point, then go test it out at the obvious place where there are people more familiar with the issues hang out. Or is this not obvious?

Zz.

Dont take this personally, but it is obvious you don't know how SEO works, or how google page ranks work, traffic is the life and soul of a forum, and to be honest PF right now is not doing as well as it was, so perhaps Greg is right to change some stuff. But again, if you remove this forum, it will effect the whole site, and really you don't want to happen here what happen to "talk root"

On the other points you made, I aggree. The mentors who post in this particular forum are typically biased, and arent experts. I think this is also a problem here, because it fustrates many people like me and escalates problems casuing people to go to extreems with these views...

My 2 Eurocents

The mentors here are actually fairly divided between right and left. If we're doing our job, you can't tell who's right and who's left because we don't take sides but call anyone to task that is posting questionable information or is just plain out of line.

So what are you saying then? The mentors arent doing there job, its obvious where all your opinions are. To be honest Moonbear is the only one I don't really know where her stance is. I aggree with some of your (The Mentors) views and some I dont, but to say you are all neutral is streaching it.

 

[ZapperZ]

Dont take this personally, but it is obvious you don't know how SEO works, or how google page ranks work, traffic is the life and soul of a forum, and to be honest PF right now is not doing as well as it was, so perhaps Greg is right to change some stuff. But again, if you remove this forum, it will effect the whole site, and really you don't want to happen here what happen to "talk root"

I am certainly hoping that it WILL effect the whole site - many of the mentors can now really do their job in paying more attention and time to the forum they are already monitoring, rather than babysitting this forum.

What you did was speculation. I suppose that is a common practice in this sub-forum without anyone raising an eyebrow, but speculation nontheless. And yes, I am aware that there are people who found the Politics sub-forum via a net search. But that still doesn't detract from the fact that this isn't a forum dedicated to that discussion. I've found "physics" forum in an antigravity forum. I certainly wasn't going to STAY there just because they opened a platform to discuss "physics", unless I wish to talk about quackeries.

My point still stands. There is a greater probability that a forum dedicated to Politics would have people who (i) are very inclined to carry such discussion (ii) have a greater expertise and background of various political issues, history, knowledge, statistics, etc. To me, using PF solely for political discussion means that one wants to be a big fish in a small pond.

Zz.

 

[Pengwuino]

I want to chime in with Antarctica's official position on this argument.

I agree with Anttech that this sub-forum probably attracts an enormous amount of traffic but one must really wonder how much of the traffic does this website really need? How many people really came to this forum looking for political discussion and actually stayed to make meaningful scientific discussion contributions (and remember, this is opposed to people who came in for scientific purposes and stayed/simply contribute to the PWA forum)? If someone wants to make serious political discussion... I'm fairly certain they wouldn't stick around this forum as there are, as others have noted, many other places where there are actual experts in the field. There are just a lot of people who just want to go around arguing with everything that moves.

If you really do look at the "regulars" of PWA, past and present, they have 95-100% of their posts in the PWA forum. You may also want to note that it's probably a 1:20 ratio of science-related:non-science related threads that are created here. If you restricted the discussions to science-related threads only, its effectively shutting down this sub-forum. Also, it should be obvious to anyone who does spend any time on this forum that, as others have noted, there is basically no content that could be considered political science. The methedology of pulling up some NY Times article to start threads is equivalent to someone bringing up a Mythbusters episode to start a serious scientific discussion in the physics section.

And does anyone ever really try to compare arguments in the physics section vs. arguments here? The science arguments tend to have a feeling of exactness to them while these political arguments are just all over the place and you can just toss all scientific principles out the window. I honestly wouldn't see any loss towards the forum if the PWA section was taken out or heavily modified.

 

[Anttech]

What you did was speculation. I suppose that is a common practice in this sub-forum without anyone raising an eyebrow, but speculation nontheless. And yes, I am aware that there are people who found the Politics sub-forum via a net search. But that still doesn't detract from the fact that this isn't a forum dedicated to that discussion. I've found "physics" forum in an antigravity forum. I certainly wasn't going to STAY there just because they opened a platform to discuss "physics", unless I wish to talk about quackeries.

My point still stands. There is a greater probability that a forum dedicated to Politics would have people who (i) are very inclined to carry such discussion (ii) have a greater expertise and background of various political issues, history, knowledge, statistics, etc. To me, using PF solely for political discussion means that one wants to be a big fish in a small pond.

Well since we are in the "sub forum" then I suppose you can also speculate on the intent of people who post here.

I am not arguing with your point. I was making another point, that you will find a negative effect on Google statisics, page rankings, traffic through this site, backlinks, pay per clicks, if you close this forum.

That aside, if you close this forum I would also suggest you close the GD forum, so everyone can consentrate on Science, and go elsewhere to disuss General Politics and day to day stuff

 

[Pengwuino]

What is the GM forum?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I would think that on a good forum you would want to provide the members with sections to discuss what ever they want rather than send them somewhere else to discuss certain topics. Especially when there is an obvious popular interest in the discussions among the members in general.
I'm happy to see that the P&WA forum isn't going to be closed and that it doesn't look like it will only be geared toward science in politics either.
I'm sorry that I am not a physicist or scientist and I rarely do more than read what is posted in the other forums. I do love this site though. I did not contribute because I received help with anything but because I really appreciate how much this site helps others. I wanted to contribute monitarily because I have no expertise to contribute. I post mainly in GD and P&WA because I just like having a place to talk to nice and intelligent people. If the scientist 1337 don't like that then I'm sorry.

 

[Anttech]

What is the GM forum?

opps

 

[ZapperZ]

Well since we are in the "sub forum" then I suppose you can also speculate on the intent of people who post here.

I am not arguing with your point. I was making another point, that you will find a negative effect on Google statisics, page rankings, traffic through this site, backlinks, pay per clicks, if you close this forum.

If we get page rankings because of the catfight and mudslinging in the Politics forum, I personally can do without that. While people in the entertainment industry go by the philosophy that any publicity is good publicity, for a SCIENCE forum, bad publicity means no credibility. And in the practice of science, once you lose credibility, it takes another lifetime to regain it. Ask Fleshman and Pons, and Hendrik Schon.

That aside, if you close this forum I would also suggest you close the GD forum, so everyone can consentrate on Science, and go elsewhere to disuss General Politics and day to day stuff

And you seem to be missing another of my point that OTHER forums that aren't directly related to science are highly moderated with mentors who have a good grasp of the subject matter. Have you seen the kind of nastiness existing in the GD forum, for example?

I personally don't care if those go away. I came here because of what this forum was called and have no delusions that it can be everything to everyone. However, there are many members here who do find other forums beneficial and even entertaining. And if PF has the resources (as in HUMAN resources) to moderate and monitor those forums, so be it. Evo doesn't get paid to monitor GD and this sub-forum and can't be here all the time. The rest of us have other forums to monitor but also lend a hand in looking after GD. But even *I* gave up on the Politics forum. The effort required to maintain even a level of civility for this forum has EXCEEDED its role as a minor player in the whole scheme of things. It has taken a disproportionate amount of attention, and a distraction away from what PF is.

Again, this is an issue of "big fish in small pond" scenario. I would never stick around a non-physics forum (even if they make a sub-forum for it) and hope to be able to discuss physics issues. I know I'm very weird that way.

Zz.

 

[Anttech]

If we get page rankings because of the catfight and mudslinging in the Politics forum, I personally can do without that.

No Google isn't that clever! You get page ranks and hits, due to the content and Traffic

I fail to see how your or anyone elses credibity will wain due to a Political sub forum

 

[vanesch]

I personally don't care if those go away. I came here because of what this forum was called and have no delusions that it can be everything to everyone. However, there are many members here who do find other forums beneficial and even entertaining. And if PF has the resources (as in HUMAN resources) to moderate and monitor those forums, so be it. Evo doesn't get paid to monitor GD and this sub-forum and can't be here all the time. The rest of us have other forums to monitor but also lend a hand in looking after GD. But even *I* gave up on the Politics forum. The effort required to maintain even a level of civility for this forum has EXCEEDED its role as a minor player in the whole scheme of things. It has taken a disproportionate amount of attention, and a distraction away from what PF is.

As ZapperZ says here, the main problem with the PWA section is the disproportional amount of mentor effort and time it takes ; a good deal of the reported posts for instance, find their origin in the PWA section - and we have to find a solution for that. The mentors and admins are discussing what solution should be adopted because the way it is now, it cannot continue. But we're divided too: ZapperZ for instance would like to ZZZap it , others like me would like to keep it, but with one or other solution so that we can get back to civilised discussion (which essentially means that it takes less moderation effort). Moreover, it is difficult to do so much moderation without creating at least the suspicion of partiality. So this leaves us with a double frustration: the yellling participants think that they are being persecuted, and the moderators wished they could do other things than cutting away uncivilized (or illegal) behaviour.

I fully agree with ZZ that, the way things are now, for something which should be an auxiliary item on an essentially science/physics forum, it takes way too much "room" (not so much "diskspace" or "bandwidth" but human space) and makes too much trouble. I think that on that point we all agree. However, I'd like it to be less radical than him in the Endloesung

So we're brainstorming on how to be able to keep a PWA section which does not require so much effort, and where civilised discussion and exchange of viewpoints and arguments is possible.

 

[alexandra]

I used to find it so refreshing to come in here and read threads where people were airing differences of opinion without bickering; it was so different from all the other places I see politics discussed, because it was being done in the same manner as all our other science debates where evidence was presented, and various interpretations and conclusions discussed, and it wasn't necessary to "win" or browbeat everyone to your side as long as you had fun in the process of debating and learned something by having to support and explain all your arguments. Unfortunately, that quality has been declining, and rapidly, so we're trying to find ways to re-focus the forum to either re-attain that quality or know we gave it our best effort before pulling the plug.

One of the things that attracted my attention about this forum was that while some people involved in dicussions here were trying to present evidence and discuss interpretations and conclusions based on that evidence, others were completely ignoring both their evidence and their arguments.

In any case, I just wanted to point out that it is not all contributors to this sub-forum who do the 'bar-room brawl' sort of argument (except, perhaps, occasionally when they are driven to distraction by the lack of logic of those arguing against them) - quite a few contributers are careful to back their views up with evidence. It's just that there's a core group of participants who consistently sabotage them and ignore all evidence presented. Then the whole discussion degenerates into childish name-calling that's a waste of time and unpleasant to read. Perhaps asking people to just be civil to one another and to carefully consider arguments presented and evaluate the evidence provided would help to bring back the more intellectual level of discussion that you mention used to occur here?

 

[Art]

To address a couple of the issues raised.

A drain on mentors time.

The inference here is the mentors moderating this sub forum have no interest or dislike the subjects raised by the members and see it as a distraction from their primary focus of contributing in the science forums. Perhaps a simple solution is to find a mentor to moderate this section who's primary interest is politics and current affairs.

Restricting subjects to science related topics only.

The complaint from Nereid is that only a handful of people showed any interest in the thread relating to censorship at NASA. Do you think trying to force people to discuss subjects you find interesting is a workable strategy?

The quality of the discussions

Politics is by definition opinion based. There is no definitive right answer to any political issue and so disagreements without conclusions is part and parcel of political discussions. It is also an emotive subject where passions can run high and so unfortunately tempers are going to flare now and again. This is simply something that goes with the territory.

Equally regarding sources quoted to promote a point of view, there are no peer reviewed political papers available to provide definitive analysis of a current affairs subject and so what constitutes a 'good' source or a 'bad' source is entirely subjective with 'beauty' being in the eye of the beholder.

Part of the perceived problem appears to be that some mentors who are used to the strictures surrounding admissability of evidence in the hard sciences expect to find the same here whereas in reality that kind of exactness simply doesn't exist in the world of politics. The result being a reaction of intellectual snobbery with the 'serious scientists' looking with distain on what they see as people promoting unproven theories but the reality is political theories are unprovable.

In conclusion I'd like to say I think you will find the vast majority of people who contribute to the politics section on a regular basis will tell you they have learned a lot from the topics, information and sources that have been provided.

Again I would ask that if it is decided to change the format of this section that as per Moonbear's suggestion the restriction on advertising other sites be lifted for a short time to allow those members who wish to continue as is to find a new home.

 

[ZapperZ]

No Google isn't that clever! You get page ranks and hits, due to the content and Traffic

And that's what I meant. If we get ranks because of the page traffic due to the content of nastiness in this sub-forum, that is a publicity and I do without.

I fail to see how your or anyone elses credibity will wain due to a Political sub forum

It is by your own speculation that PF has been getting A LOT of hits and traffic due to this sub-forum. It stands to reason that THIS sub-forum provides the main impression of PF. And for people who really don't care about the REST of PF's forums, this is the image of PF.

Let me ask you this: are you aware of PF's reputation and caliber as a PHYSICS forum?

Zz.

 

[alexandra]

I think P&WA can remain as is, if we tighten the posting rules. That way people that are serious and can post in a non-combative, non-redundant, non-sarcastic/insulting manner can enjoy participating.

The others can find more appropriate places to post.

Yes, this sounds like an excellent solution. It would be great to feel like one can safely present one's arguments (with evidence) here and invite debate about them without being personally attacked. I, for one, would feel a lot more comfortable about posting here if that happened, in any case. I have hated both the personal attacks I've been subjected to and the personal attacks I've seen others subjected to in these discussions. Apart from how awful such attacks make me feel personally, they also sabotage the discussion itself and the issues do not then get the attention they deserve.

 

[ZapperZ]

The quality of the discussions

Politics is by definition opinion based. There is no definitive right answer to any political issue and so disagreements without conclusions is part and parcel of political discussions.

Equally regarding sources quoted to promote a point of view, there are no peer reviewed political papers available to provide definitive analysis of a current affairs subject and so what constitutes a 'good' source or a 'bad' source is entirely subjective with 'beauty' being in the eye of the beholder.

And I would like to remind you of that next time a mentor comes in and delete/edit one of your posts. Would everyone participating in this sub-forum be undertanding and respectful of that? So far, I've seen nothing but griefs and accusations of certain mentors being "liberal" or "conservative" for taking actions on various posts around here. I see no sense of understanding of the "beauty being in the eye of the beholder".

Zz.

 

[Art]

And I would like to remind you of that next time a mentor comes in and delete/edit one of your posts. Would everyone participating in this sub-forum be undertanding and respectful of that? So far, I've seen nothing but griefs and accusations of certain mentors being "liberal" or "conservative" for taking actions on various posts around here. I see no sense of understanding of the "beauty being in the eye of the beholder".

Zz.

I personally have no objection to impartial moderating. I do object when a mentor picks an argument loses it and then 'deletes' his embarrassment. Which goes back to my suggestion if the current moderators see this sub forum as a waste of their time then put in a moderator who's primary interest is politics and who will moderate impartially.

Edit - As an observation see how easy it is to slip into the sort of behaviour you denounce? Here we are having a general discussion about a new format for PWA and you start to personalise it.

 

[russ_watters]

Politics is by definition opinion based. There is no definitive right answer to any political issue and so disagreements without conclusions is part and parcel of political discussions.

On the contrary: political science is by definition a science and while a lot of what is discussed is matters of opinion in application, a lot of what is discussed here is a matter of fact and logic. My biggest problem here is that people don't correctly differentiate between what is opinion and what is not.

 

[vanesch]

I personally have no objection to impartial moderating. I do object when a mentor picks an argument loses it and then 'deletes' his embarrassment.

This rarely happens, you know. Often it is *another* moderator who does the cleaning-up than the one you're discussing with !

And, as you say yourself, in politics, there are no definitive answers, so there is no true impartiality. Every decision of moderation has _some_ form of partiality in it - in the very decision of "this goes over the line", and "this doesn't".

It is the heavy need of moderation that creates this sentiment of persecution. We'd all like to see civilized, well-argumented discussion so that we do NOT have to intervene.

 

[ZapperZ]

I personally have no objection to impartial moderating. I do object when a mentor picks an argument loses it and then 'deletes' his embarrassment. Which goes back to my suggestion if the current moderators see this sub forum as a waste of their time then put in a moderator who's primary interest is politics and who will moderate impartially.

And what exactly is an "impartial" moderating? Where do we find such a perfect human creature? Are you yourself capable of being impartial? And what you call "impartial", someone else can easily argue to the contrary.

Can someone here truly claim that he/she can always make an impartial decision without all the baggages and personal views surrounding his/her decisions? Seriously?

Zz.

 

[vanesch]

Can someone here truly claim that he/she can always make an impartial decision without all the baggages and personal views surrounding his/her decisions? Seriously?

Me, of course!

(although that by itself, may be a partial claim... )

 

[ZapperZ]

Edit - As an observation see how easy it is to slip into the sort of behaviour you denounce? Here we are having a general discussion about a new format for PWA and you start to personalise it.

Sorry, that wasn't meant as a personal editorial. But I "personalized" it because you want us to take a "high road" in terms of this forum, but from what I have seen, it doesn't corespond to your actions in the past.

It is one thing to say something. It is another to truly abide by it. I truly question if people who want this forum to survive can really adopt that philosophy.

Zz.

 

[ZapperZ]

Me, of course!

(although that by itself, may be a partial claim... )

Sorry vanesch. You have been brainwashed by many-world theory. :)

And I have been brainwashed by emergence world view. So there! :)

Zz.

 

[Anttech]

Let me ask you this: are you aware of PF's reputation and caliber as a PHYSICS forum?

Yes... look at my first ever post, I was interested in PHYSICS!

 

[Art]

And what exactly is an "impartial" moderating? Where do we find such a perfect human creature? Are you yourself capable of being impartial? And what you call "impartial", someone else can easily argue to the contrary.

Can someone here truly claim that he/she can always make an impartial decision without all the baggages and personal views surrounding his/her decisions? Seriously?

Zz.

Yes I personally have no problem in being impartial. As a firm believer in free speech I may disagree vehemently with someone else's opinions but I would argue as hard for his opinions to be heard as I would my own.

Russ- On the contrary: political science is by definition a science and while a lot of what is discussed is matters of opinion in application, a lot of what is discussed here is a matter of fact and logic. My biggest problem here is that people don't correctly differentiate between what is opinion and what is not.

This forum is self moderating to a large extent. If somebody continuously posts silly, unsubstantiated posts then they are soon ignored by their peers.

 

[Anttech]

This forum is self moderating to a large extent. If somebody continuously posts silly, unsubstantiated posts then they are soon ignored by their peers.

I aggree... This whole thread seems to be an exercise in "Fix it till its broken"

 

[ComputerGeek]

Re. Nereid's OP, it's a bit maddening that the voice of experience can post twice to the thread, explaining that "editorial review" procedures for government labs have been in place for many years, and are not "censorship."

Lets stay on topic shall we?... (you have no idea how much I want to speak to that)

 

[Art]

Sorry, that wasn't meant as a personal editorial. But I "personalized" it because you want us to take a "high road" in terms of this forum, but from what I have seen, it doesn't corespond to your actions in the past.

It is one thing to say something. It is another to truly abide by it. I truly question if people who want this forum to survive can really adopt that philosophy.

Zz.

As interesting as discussing me is I would be interested in hearing your opinion on the content of my post.

 

[daveb]

People write about what they have direct knowledge or experience (and sometimes opinions). Everyone has an opinion, knowledge, and experience of politics to some degree. Not everyone can discuss the intricacies of cosmology. Also, sometimes, when I read something, if I don't have something specific to add, I won't regurgitate something someone else has said 5 posts back.

 

[ComputerGeek]

perhaps a good solution is that people have to actually cite evidence for their opinions (when appropriate).

that would raise the level of critical thought on the issues, keep the yahoos out because they do not want to put forth the effort to support their claims (mostly because the form opinion based on some emotional rant from an editorialist in the media), and give the moderators a simple way to judge if the post should be moderated or not.