Thread closures - Why?

[stinky]

The thread "The Universe is no accident" was closed with NO reason given. Why? (In the past vague reasons have been given - now it's just closure)

See: http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/showthread.php?t=7646

[[1ponders]]

There was a reason give. Pending moderation. A similar thread was just closed.

[stinky]

With all due respect - that is not a reason. Can you please enlighten us as to the reason 'pending' moderation is required? (And certainly you are correct no moderation has been applied at this stage - only closure.)

[[1ponders]]

Read the forum title for a start. Astronomy Science. By definition ID and discussions relating to it don't belong there. Two, the two previous ID/bigbang discussion were closed because of the confilict arising from them.

[stinky]

I think you just passed judgement that not all might agree with.

For one I don't think ID is based on science - others say that it is. You just killed that debate (raised as an interesting topic by the founder of the forum in the General Chat forum).

In the Astronomy/science forum the discussion was about science and enquiry.

In the other thread - well you are correct - there is conflict between the ID and big bang mob - The whole reason the thread was started! By YOUR founder.

Granted - the discussion, in the initial thread, was heated - but not rude, disgusting or profane - was interesting and educational. A golden opportunity to understand others points of view.

The second thread was purely on science.

If you have a problem with the points of view expressed surely it would be better to join in on the discussions - to moderate.

And 'good on ya' for coming back with a reply - in this 3rd thread.

[RB]

With all due respect Stinky, I think Paul is right.
These types of discussions seem to lead into personal mud slinging matches.
The same applies to threads started on the topic of Politics.

I for one have seen enough in the previous threads on ID (and politics) to realise no-one will be convinced enough to accept the other sides argument and in the end the only thing achieved is to have peoples feelings hurt.
So why continue and why continue to question every action the moderators and Mike take on these issues?

Lets move on to other topics that bring the community closer not divide it apart. We all know where each of us stand on these issues, lets just leave it at that and move on.

[Orion]

I agree.:)

[ving]

these things always end in tears... we know that!

[janoskiss]

Stinky, the ID thread was getting ugly. I get the impression that you find this sort of thing entertaining, and I must admit there is nothing like a nasty fight to pull the crowds. That is why soap operas have so many *****-fights and such. People love to watch that sort of thing. I cannot deny that I too get curious when it occasionally happens here.

But people feuding, getting personal and insulting each other (which is where things were heading on the ID thread) is very unhelpful for the site. It isolates people rather than bring them together, so it goes completely against the point of IIS.

[fringe_dweller]

Stinky, if you want to get involved in this discussion - go to an American forum - they seem to have a genuine love of free speech over there (lets face it - thats how modern ID originated and evolved - from free speech) and dont just pay it lip service. ie: they did invent the internet
Also they seem to be able to intelligently debate difficult topics without resorting to thread ending schoolyard name calling - and keep there frustrations in check for the benifit of the debate.
Also I dont think the debate started as pointless brawling at all, it stemmed from the the very real *recent* threat in australia and the rest of the world (remember 70 000 aussie scientists and science teachers felt compelled to unitedly reject it in a petition), and possible continued reccurring threat in the future, of religous views surreptiously veiled as science running roughshod over real science.
Its funny how as the years go by, aussies more and more move to an American style society - user pay's, anti medicare, market forces rule, every man for himself, the rise and rise of fundamentalist christianity, low taxes ect, baseball caps.
but we resist some of their most cherished rights/beliefs - ie the right to free speech. remember resistance is futile hehe
anyway - go to http://www.bautforum.com/ for a open and grey matter stimulating debate - hit 'todays posts' :) enjoy

[iceman]

Kearn, It's not about free speech in my opinion. It's about keeping unity in our small community.

BAUT has over 10,000 members, most of them with a much more scientific background than IIS. IIS has a lot of newbies buying their first telescope. There just isn't a big enough community with the same interest in healthy debates - it ends up getting personal.

BAUT has restrictions on so called "free speech" as well, just check their guidelines. But I do agree with you, that stinky, or anyone else, who wants to have a vigorous healthy debate on ID, do it over at BAUT. It's obvious that IIS isn't a big enough, mature/evolved enough community for that right now.

[jjjnettie]

Unity in our small community.
Well said Mike.
We already know that most members here support one side or the other of the ID debate. How about agreeing to disagree from the very start because we know that neither side is going to convince the other to change their minds.

[fringe_dweller]

Yes, I fully understand and appreciate what your saying Mike, personally I think/agree it was given a fair run/go in here, and I agree the results speak for themselves, unfortunately. Maybe, one day :)

[janoskiss]

Or hit 'BAUT BANNED posters log' (and read the rules also) to see how far their "genuine love of free speech" stretches. :P

[davidpretorius]

i thought this was a sewing thread, oops sorry

[fringe_dweller]

I have Steve - and it goes a little further than it would here, the threads arent shut down for one thing - just the offending post (and poster sometimes) is removed so that not everyone suffers from one persons outburst/transgression

[Argonavis]

I agree. So why are you imputing motives to Stinky of which you have no knowledge? I think you owe an apology.

And yes the ID thread was getting out of hand, which is why I withdrew and started another thread on tha accidental universe. It certainly looked like astronomy to me.

[mick pinner]

when you live in an undemocratic society or are a member of an undemocratic forum then you must submit to the will of those in charge.

[janoskiss]

Argo, re Stinky, just my impression. Does not mean it is correct. And if it is, I wouldn't hold it against him.

[janoskiss]

We could elect moderators by popular vote, every few weeks/months, I suppose. And maybe even a president to take Mike's place. Maybe we can do all the states one after the other, and perhaps NZ too. :whistle:

[Astroman]

scuse my dumbness but whats ID?

[iceman]

Or choose to go elsewhere?? :shrug: Find a more democratic forum? :shrug:


Check a recent thread in the Astronomy Science forum Andrew.

[mickoking]

Try saying GW Bush is a knob on a US forum and see how far you get, Free speech? sometimes.

[cjmarsh81]

Hello All.

I may seem a bit naive, but my opinion is this.

IIS is a forum for amateur astronomers to get together and talk about things related to astronomy, whether it be about sightings, equipment or techniques. To post pictures and recieve feedback.

So I don't fully understand why I keep seeing these heated debates over the origins of life or free speech. I don't see any direct connections between these topics or astronomy. As for the topic of ID, while it is interesting I still do not see any correlation between their beliefs and astronomy. If these topics should be discussed then I believe they should be discussed on another forum that is set up to do so.

I personally think that Mike and the other Moderators do a great job keeping this site going with all the different users and their differing opinions. I also think that to imply they are limiting free speech is insulting. All they are trying to do is keep IIS a harmonious environment for everyone involved.

[Argonavis]

Mick - what is and is not democratic or undemocratic would make for an interesting, if pointless, discussion. Some would say democracy is a tyranny of the majority.

As I do not pay to use this forum I have no objections to those in charge closing threads, or whatever.

How about getting back to the astronomy?

[mickoking]

This forum is a beaut, every one settle down and chill out :) We are all here cos we all share a common bond 'ASTRONOMY'. Lets not let a few little things get us down.

[mick pinner]

l was stating a FACT, the fact that this forum is not democratic has been stated by Mike and the moderators on numerous occassions so there term not mine, l must add Mike that if you have the attitude that if people don't agree with you then just leave l suggest you address your attitude, you started this forum and if you thought everyone was going to have the same attitute to you on everything you were naive, if people complain about some of these topics being slightly to far from what this site was intended to address and that being astronomy then make it astronomy specific and do away with all the talk about ridiculous soap operas and sponge bob etc.

[fringe_dweller]

cj, in my limited experience a lot of AA's have a science bent/interest, at least 50% surely, thats the connection, thats why some think that way.
if not, why does it appear on other astro related sites as a common theme?
co-incidence?
or maybe there's just a lot of ratbag troublemakers in AA? hehe

sponge bob rox!

[Argonavis]

Andrew. I am not sure that the recent thread on ID (following a program on this topic on SBS) actually explained what Intelligent Design actually is. With the indulgence of the moderators, I would be happy to give an brief explanation. You could probably google it, but you would come up with so many entries that I suspect you would have many hours reading.

A good place to start is here:

http://aer.noao.edu/AERArticle.php?issue=7&section=4&article=2

Creationism is a doctrine that has arisen from fundamentalist Christianity which sees the world around us as being the handiwork of God, and not of any natural evolutionary processes. There is not a single creationist viewpoint, as there are several "schools" of thought of young earth and old earth etc creationists.

Some time ago, the US Supreme Court held that the teaching of creationism in US public schools was unconstitutional, as it did not preserve the separation of church and state. Teaching religion in US public schools appears to be a big no no, and creationism fell into this category.

After this decision, the creationists changed their "creation science" into an "ïntelligent design" science. This appears to accept (although there are many divisions of thought amongst the ID people) that the universe is the product of natural evolutionary processes, except for the creation of man bit. They regard the human species as so special that there can only be some intelligent ceator behind it.

I would have liked the opportunity to explain some of the natural evolutionary processes that created the Universe as we currently behold it in the thread on "the Universe is not an accident". However the thread was closed off even though the discussion had been very cordial and reasonable to that point.

see also:

http://aer.noao.edu/AERArticle.php?issue=7&section=4&article=3

http://www.astrosociety.org/education/publications/tnl/56/index.html

hope this helps

[Starkler]

Mick a couple of points. Firstly your post about the "undemocratic" nature of this forum I'm sure was not just an innocent throw away comment, but intended as a barb, drawing an understandable response from Mike as above.

Some people of late have made a sport of baiting and pushing mods/admin, seeing how far they can push it, all the while not appreciating the wonderful resource they have been given for FREE by virtue of the work of people who make this forum available to them.

Secondly, Mike has made it clear ( I thought ) what kind of topics are acceptable on the forum and that our chief objective is to have a harmonious astronomy based community and with controversial topics such as religion and politics best avoided. Yes Mike started a thread to discuss an SBS program covering ID, and in hindsight maybe it was best avoided. As for "ridiculous soap operas", they are of interest to some people obviously, but I dont anticipate any personal attacks arising from such threads.

[mick pinner]

did l state a fact or not Geoff? whether it was a barb or not would be dependant on how you took it. l really do not think l would be classified as one of the pushers as you put it and just to clarify l am one that does appreciate greatly the benefits of this site and all it offers. having said that l get really sick of being told this is a free site and how hard everyone works, if it's that hard don't do it. my main point being the site allows a general chat section and then suspends or removes threads that don't follow the guidlines, surely this tells you the guidlines are not specific enough.
throughout the offending threads of the past and including this one people keep repeating lets get back to the basics of the site and keep it astro related which seems to be what the majority wants yet Mike and the moderators continue to allow unrelated threads to be started and then after it has taken of it has action taken and usually removed.
if it isn't obvious to you that some people are very confused then l suppose there is no point worrying about it and just let it continue.

[astroron]

Why don't you leave the thread alone ?let the discussion go on but deleat the the Agro ones that call people names, Isn't that what the Moderators are for?
Whith over seven hundred subscribers there is sure to be many different views.
If people don't like the thread they wont read it.
As most people live a long way from each other nowone is going to get hurt, it is only words that are printed and unless your thin skinned it shouldn't bother you.
ID and Evelution is to do with Astronomy as well as other physics, and I think a lot of interesting information has come out of this discussion.

[iceman]

How much more specific do you need them? The guidelines are undergoing change right now and are being amended as a result of the latest debacles, but people shouldn't need to be hand-held. You can't put a guideline around "don't be stupid".
You can't make guidelines too specific, because it just gives people a reason to delibaretly go just outside them and say "it wasn't in the guidelines".


I think you're way over-generalising.. I don't think a few responses can be seen as the majority. Yes this is an astro forum and yes most discussions should be about astronomy. But the general chat forum is for just that, general off-topic chat. I don't know how many forums you've been a part of before, but every forum i've been a part of, always has an off-topic area - whether it's another astro forum, a programming forum or a woodworking forum. There's always an "off-topic" area where people can get to know each other and talk about things that aren't on topic.

As Geoff said, it's been made clear what's acceptable in general chat, and it seems to me from the posts being made, that people enjoy chatting in general chat, learning about each others lives and talking about stuff outside astronomy.


Not at all Mick.. I would never expect everyone to have the same attitude as me. My point was, you have the most democratic right of all - choice.

Regarding ID discussions, there has been some valid points made by Kearn, ArgoNavis and AstroRon about what is moderated and how. In some cases, offending posts would've been better removed and let the discussion continue rather than locking the thread outright. I'll discuss this with the moderators and see if we can learn from this experience.

[Portmac]

My 2 cents on this, normally I would stear clear of these threads....

Closing a thread because of some name calling and personal attacks is in my opinion just plain wrong....why?

1. The people participating in the correct manner are also penalised.
2. The problem is never resolved (name calling and personal attacks).
3. Creates more problems, now the people participating nicely want to know why it was closed.

Every other forum I attend does not allow for any name calling or personal attacks, first time....warning...second time...ban. Its as simple as that.

EDIT

Why was http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/showthread.php?t=7645 closed, seems to be a valid thread/discussion?

/EDIT

[iceman]

Valid point Portmac, and was addressed in my post above:



It was closed pending moderation while the moderators discussed it. I expect we will re-open it soon.

[Astroman]

Thanks Argo for that brief look at ID, I thought it was something like that.

[Portmac]

Then maybe a post stating that at the end of the thread would avoid such questions.

[iceman]

There was, and that's exactly what it said.

I've removed it now since I've re-opened the thread.

[Portmac]

I take it you did not look at the thread linked in my post......

[iceman]

Oh sorry, I thought you were referring to the one in Astronomy Science.

That was closed because the question was answered. The reason for the outage was given. Ongoing discussions about hacking and/or security were way off-topic from the original thread topic, and don't belong in the public arena either.

If anyone has concerns about hacking or security, please feel free to contact me via PM or email.