Thread closures - Why? - Page 2

Astroman (Andrew Wall) · #21 14-02-2006, 08:48 PM

scuse my dumbness but whats ID?

iceman (Mike) · #22 14-02-2006, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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

Or choose to go elsewhere??

Find a more democratic forum?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Astroman

scuse my dumbness but whats ID?

Check a recent thread in the Astronomy Science forum Andrew.

mickoking · #23 14-02-2006, 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

enjoy

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

cjmarsh81 · #24 14-02-2006, 09:31 PM

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 (William) · #25 14-02-2006, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · #26 14-02-2006, 10:00 PM

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 · #27 14-02-2006, 10:12 PM

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 · #28 14-02-2006, 10:42 PM

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 (William) · #29 14-02-2006, 10:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Astroman

scuse my dumbness but whats ID?

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?i...on=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?i...on=4&article=3

http://www.astrosociety.org/educatio.../56/index.html

hope this helps

Starkler (Geoff) · #30 14-02-2006, 11:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · #31 14-02-2006, 11:48 PM

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 (Ron) · #32 15-02-2006, 12:08 AM

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 (Mike) · #33 15-02-2006, 06:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mick pinner

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.

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".

Quote:

Originally Posted by mick pinner

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mick pinner

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

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 · #34 15-02-2006, 07:07 AM

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/s...ead.php?t=7645 closed, seems to be a valid thread/discussion?

/EDIT

iceman (Mike) · #35 15-02-2006, 07:36 AM

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by iceman

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Portmac

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

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

Astroman (Andrew Wall) · #36 15-02-2006, 08:05 AM

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

Portmac · #37 15-02-2006, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iceman

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

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

iceman (Mike) · #38 15-02-2006, 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Portmac

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

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

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

Portmac · #39 15-02-2006, 08:42 AM

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

iceman (Mike) · #40 15-02-2006, 08:50 AM

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.