Is this possible

[leon]

This may be a stupid question, however would it be possible for the founders of IIS and the Moderators to allow and/or have a section of the forum to discuss, political, religion and such, and have it moderated that it needs a password, or something to enter this only segment of IIS.

Sometimes we, the members would like to talk about other stuff without being deleted or shut down.

OK is it possible :shrug:

Is it worth discussing :shrug:

Leon:thumbsup:

[Bassnut]

Ditto, without the password, the havoc nutcase section, YES. (BTW, in that vain, what the HELL happened to Lesters Creation thread :mad2:)

[bartman]

Heya Leon,
I agree that voicing an opinion is a must in any forum.
Restricting certain topics is also a must, as they can get out of control and nasty for certain viewers/ readers.
I'm thinking that if a password would be put into place, who would be accessible to it?
Anybody could say that they would be willing to participate to the thread and get a password. I can only see spam and trolls entering such a debate.
Who would be the "allower" to the thread? Who would be 'the ' moderator to that?

Maybe a chat room would be the go...???? but they have mods too....

Its a catch 22
I'm with you on the free to speak, but there are boundaries...?????to some extent........
ah Im a fence sitter;):P:D:question:
um I think my name is
Bartman

[alocky]

Why do you want to give oxygen to creation scientists, conspiracy theorists and even garden variety internet trolls? Especially on a site dedicated to amateur science? Although it sounds like a fair idea to isolate it behind a password, what's the point? Sign up to one of the usenet groups dedicated to that kind of thing and entertain yourself there, or go on facebook or twitter. Stick to astronomy here and save the bandwith for more relevant things. I like laughing at morons as much as the next guy, but there's adequate opportunity without adding it here!
cheers,
Andrew.
and don't forget: pastafarianism is the only truth...

[iceman]

There's a zillion other forums out there to discuss politics or religion. Do a google search, you'd be surprised.

If you want to discuss it with fellow IceInSpace members, organise a group of you to go there, or join a chat room together (Doug's?).

It's not going to happen on IceInSpace. It's just not worth the trouble it causes to satisfy the few.

[Bassnut]

Duh, entertainment dude, sheer (remotely relevant) entertainment on one handy site. Why the hell not in a relavent nutcase section :shrug:. Are you that precious that you cant handle a bit of contraversy in a section you dont have to read?.

Now that the egomaniacs have gone from the science forum, a bit of spice is missed. Theres nothing better than a decent bun fight to stir interest, as long as it doesnt cause liability (or trouble) issues for IIS. I totally respect Mikes need to shut down a thread for liability issues.

Lesters recent missing Creation thread is a classic example, detailed and entertaining, just asking for a massive entertaining bun fight, pity its gone.

[bartman]

Frak, Fred, you hit the bass cord fair and true ..............not that I even heve seen Lesters (?) thread.

.......
bartman

[Astro_Bot]

Many people, perhaps a majority, find it very tiring to be confronted with that stuff on their way to extracting useful information - I'm certainly in that group.

I help run another forum that has a similar policy - we delete all such material, and in fact we're much firmer in implementation. I've been on forums or bulletin boards since 1994 and am presently a member of 30 or so. I have never seen a religious or political thread end well - they are always acrimonious and divisive. And there's simply no need for it.

Mike is right: there are thousands of forums and chat rooms out there for anyone to find like minded people and discuss religion and politics to their hearts' content.

[Allan_L]

Nice thought Leon,
But unfortunately there are people who are so [insert your own word here] that they cannot tolerate the existence of the alternate views (or even questions) of others.
The sad part is, strangely enough, that they seem to actively seek these out.
Then being unable to supply logical discussion, resort to name calling and derision.

And even an innocent little thread, discussing the possibility of such a thread, will soon produce such an example.

...IMHO

[acropolite]

Mike's right, if you're in to religion, go to church or a like minded group to discuss your views, they'll all believe you, it's wasted on people with no religious belief such as myself. (I'll probably get stoned for that....are there any women here...??? ) :P

[sjastro]

Bad luck the half wits that incite the spice haven't disappeared.

[stephenb]

I see IIS as an astronomy forum provided for amateur astronomers which just happens to have a General Chat area more out of courtesy than necessity. When even passive, seemly benign General Chat topics can turn pear-shaped at the blink of an eye - even to the point of abuse though PMs, then it proves some people cannot handle/tolerate even the mildest topics. I'm sure the mods have other things to spend their time on.

Stephen

[marki]

Seen this have we???

http://www.davidreneke.com/lice-in-space/

Mark

[Larryp]

Interesting, Mark. But I am a new member, so I will not comment.

[leon]

That's fine with me Mike, I do understand how this could be a problem, it was just a thought, and no i would rather not go to any other Forum, like it here.

Leon

[clive milne]

You guys are such spoil sports....
I find Devil's advocacy to be sorely needed in this forum.

Heck, I would even lend myself to a plead a case I didn't believe in, even if for no other reason than to challenge the surety with which the majority proclaim the Earth to be flat.... or some such thing, you get my point.


Personally, I would welcome the freedom to discuss such things.

[alocky]

I got no problem with the scientific 'left field' - they must play by the rules of evidence, observation and logic too. It's the creation scientists and similar who have a strong political agenda that I feel 'precious' about. Having seen the depths to which they'll sink to discredit opposing views to further their political agenda first hand, I am worried about even giving them air. Being roasted in a public forum is pretty mild compared to being burned at the stake!
Anyway - these are all opinions. The decision aint ours to make, and IIS is not a democracy.

[overlord]

Eeeek. I remember the politically-correct adolescent reaction when some people trashed my astrology thread for defending the merits of mundane astrology based on new evidence I have uncovered which I cannot disclose. They incorrectly cited the example of the current astrology entertainment industry and dared compare it tried and tested mundane astrology, as perpetuated by the Sumerians, the Mayans and Indians, for millennia I might add, thus denigrating their achievement. Then they claimed to have 'science' on their side because 'we all know' that 'astronomy superceded astrology in 1666'. Gee, thanks for telling me. I was totally unaware of the enlightenment. :rolleyes: Obviously I had not the good sense to realize that the presence of our enlightenment invalidates every single ancient discovery dating to the bronze age and earlier, and recorded in the babylonian annals. The threads then had to be CLOSED before people exploded in their breakfast cereal as they could not perpetuate the tired already-well-cited carl-saganism with sufficient acuity to relieve the faster-rising internal bladder pressure of their mismanged morning metabolism.

"Angry people labour under the delusion they are correct"

-Myself.


Now i'm going to bunnings to get firewood and silicon for my fish tank.

[stephenb]

Chucky, you'll need something more watertight than firewood for a fish tank :lol:

[clive milne]

They're tropical fish.... it's winter.

[Astro_Bot]

This is kinda what I meant by "tiring". I'd much rather be doing something else than defend science against the onslaught of quasi-science and hokum that, enlightenment or not, refuses to go away.


I believe you are right. Hopefully, what I write next is not it. :shrug:

A few years ago, I dated a lady who had recently left a fundamentalist religious organisation (I would call it a cult). She told me some things about the aims and objectives of that organisation, but more interesting was her description of their methods. She, and others, had been given the task of joining the Australian Skeptics and other "scientific" groups to appear as normal members while gathering intelligence on their inner workings, to report back to the "cult". She told me that there were forums that the "cult" members had joined to "spread the message". They were particularly anti-science and saw science in general as a threat.

Personally, I am happy for people to believe what they want to believe, and for my part, I happen to be a church-goer, but I think it is prudent to keep in mind that some fundamentalist forum posts may have more behind them than might at first be apparent.

In any event, prohibiting religious and political material to avoid the inevitable acrimony is quite justifiable on its own.

[clive milne]

Hmmmm... does that qualify as a conspiracy theory?

[Astro_Bot]

If I hadn't actually met someone who did it, yes it would.

[avandonk]

I am all for the free exchange of information and ideas. Many exchanges on the science forum used to be interesting driven by just a few. If anyone takes offence to anything that is against their faith based beliefs so be it.

I am not offended by ignorant devil dodgers that base their world view on any book that is defined as holy and containing all knowledge. Their utter stupidity in propounding arguments based on circular logic never fails to amuse me. What I find offensive is that they complain with manufactured concern for their sensibilities being confronted and then rather than face this confrontation they call for its censorship!

It is their modus operandi.

Even this post has the half life of a soap bubble!

Bert

[blink138]

no hes just going to burn the (so long and thanks for all the.....) fish!
a "rubber room job"
pat

[bloodhound31]

I remember her posting here not long ago and I read about half of it.

What happened? I can't find the post anymore.

[TrevorW]

The controversy about that particular post annoys me.

If I had a theory would I not prove that theory beyond all reasonable doubt (in little more than 4 paragraphs) with the necessary maths and models then prepare a paper for submission to the appropriate scientific bodies for assessment and not to amatuers (which most of us are, no offence meant)

As has been said befroe this is Mike's site, not a democracy, his rules etc stand.

Therefore I will avoid posting anything derogatory or controversial sticking to what I know, most of the time.

[Vegeta]

I know a guy in my Chemistry class that got his Starcraft 2 Account blocked for trolling and spamming. He would basically enter a game and attack his own team mates for the fun of annoying them. Imagine what this guy, and others like him would do on IIS if they found a section like that.

The point i'm trying to make is that the idea is not a bad one, but there are people out there who would exploit it for havok, and spark issues between legitimate users.

[Octane]

http://www.wired.com/gaming/virtualworlds/magazine/16-02/mf_goons?currentPage=all

A classic article.

H

[Baddad]

Hi Leon,

I like your idea. I would love to see the idea develope to fruition.
Unfortunately Mike and others have pointed out that there are idiots who would abuse the system.

I assume that the concept will naturally die out. I personally would enjoy the heated sessions that it may have generated.

Such is life.

Cheers

[leon]

OK, people we have all different views and that is fine, :thumbsup: and i thank you for your input, yep i do, ;) but i can understand the views of this forum and their rules, and so be it. :thumbsup:

Leon :thumbsup:

[dugnsuz]

"O wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!"

Robert Burns, "To a Louse"