Request for Input - SubForums and Mission Statement

[James R]

And apart from spammers I see no point in permanently banning someone...give then time to think about their action...repeat nonsence ban them again...and again and again...

Please post how you would run the ban/warning system in the thread dedicated to discussion of that.

 

[James R]

Either put the emphasis on science, or change the name of the website.

Which would be easier?

What do you see as the current emphasis, and what would you do to put the emphasis on science, instead?

 

[birch]

What do you see as the current emphasis, and what would you do to put the emphasis on science, instead?

Are members prevented from posting science in science subforum? Is the fringe being construed as a tempting unhealthy food option that people cannot resist such as candy versus carrot sticks?

and these are adults?

 

[James R]

also, obviously human science , science and society and comparative religion should be removed from the hard-science section and combined with philosophy, politics, religion etc. they are sociology and psychology, which is also evident by the topics in those subforas.

Human Science is a bit of a catch-all subforum. It can include topics about biology, anthropology, sociology, culture, psychology. So, hard to tell where best to put it. An argument could even be made to split it...

As for Science and Society, arguably it could fit within Human Science, or some other subforum spun off from there.

also, subforms specifically more tangible can be created in the hard-science section such as anthropology, archeology etc.

Breaking things down too much does not seem warranted. See, for example, the almost non-existent traffic that Chemistry gets, for example. Another problem is that we have no expert moderators who specialise in things like archeology or anthropology.

technology subforums can be combined with science as it is very closely related and interdependent.

I think there is an argument for merging Computer Science with Intelligence and Machines. Maybe we should have an "IT and AI" subforum, or something.

both life and world subforas can be combined.

Nothing much would be gained by merely combining categories, as far as I can see. Maybe "World Events" could be renamed to something like "In the News", but maybe that's not necessary. Both WE and Politics are high-traffic. Arguably we could kill both of them and expand the the result across a few more-specific categories. For example, threads about US politics generally overwhelm everything else in Politics.

 

[James R]

I can't see how merging the fora into one helps any of the participants - whether they be proponents or opponents.

Certainly an argument can be made that more specific categories make things easier to find, and easier for mods to move around as necessary.

 

[James R]

Much less moderation time woud be needed in a non-scientific fringe area...

We already have a largely non-scientific Fringe area. It hasn't resulted in a reduced workload for the moderators. Somewhat the opposite, in fact, if I had to estimate it.

much less moderation time woud be needed in the hard science areas sinse everbody woud ether back up ther argument or be baned to the one fringe area.!!!

We already move a lot of threads from Science to Fringe.

From an ease-of-moderation point of view, one catch-up pseudoscience dumping ground is easier to manage. If a thread needs moving out of Science, a mod doesn't have to make as nuanced a decision as to where to put it, for starters.

 

[birch]

We already have a largely non-scientific Fringe area. It hasn't resulted in a reduced workload for the moderators. Somewhat the opposite, in fact, if I had to estimate it.

that's because you make it difficult for yourselves. if you would give the fringe area the contextual room it deserves to operate, then you wouldn't need to moderate it except for the blatant namecalling which focuses more on the person than the topic. in the case of MR, specifically, i don't fault him entirely because he was often rudely backed into a corner, i noticed by others who believed they were more correct and that premise was only based on ignorance of the subject itself ironicly. i don't see that as a superior position, merely a convenient one. moderators should just leave discussion alone or participate but not squelch.

the elephant in the room that is ignored is any topic that is of no interest will not have participants. if someone wants to participate in a topic that is illogical or superstitious to them, then neither is the guilty party. and GIA's and MR's topics garnered plenty of traffic. why? because they were interesting and made you think/consider in a different way, whether people admit it or not.

the micro-managing is unnecessary especially considering there is equal opportunity for either side of a topic.

it is also condescending to your audience to control discussion and how it's discussed as if they cannot think for themselves and make their own conclusions. that type of micro-managing is taking that choice away and is the antethesis of thought.

 

[Seattle]

Since the site is the way it is, perhaps it makes more sense just to moderate overt name calling and leave it at that. I think it would make more sense to have the Fringe area just be that...the fringe...no need to subdivide it.

Although, if it were me, I'd change the name of the site from Sciforums to Discussion Board or something like that. That what is actually is, just a general discussion board where anything is on topic.

 

[birch]

Although, if it were me, I'd change the name of the site from Sciforums to Discussion Board or something like that. That what is actually is, just a general discussion board where anything is on topic.

That does not even make sense. It has science as the core focus. But other subjects are related to science. Even the fringe is related to science in possible discovery. all subjects in life are closely or loosely related to science. That's why they are in order of priority with science at the top of the page. Everything is discussed here, even the fringe, with an emphasis on questioning or analyzing it's possibility, validity, rationality or existence. If people payed attention, they could notice that. General discussion forums don't have that emphasis.

 

[Seattle]

That does not even make sense. It has science as the core focus. But other subjects are related to science. Even the fringe is related to science in possible discovery. all subjects in life are closely or loosely related to science. That's why they are in order of priority with science at the top of the page.

Politics isn't related to science, nor is the economy, religion, all of the fringe, philosophy. Only the "nut jobs" who aren't interested in science think they have a "scientific" theory.

It's a general discussion board.

 

[birch]

Politics isn't related to science, nor is the economy, religion, all of the fringe, philosophy. Only the "nut jobs" who aren't interested in science think they have a "scientific" theory.

It's a general discussion board.

General discussion boards don't have an emphasis on science or have this many science subforums. try again.

besides, there is no problem with the science section. there is just a problem with tolerance. i'm kind of amazed at how much flack that the fringe section recieves as it's just a few subforums on the bottom of the page. it is not even half or predominant.

i also noticed it was precisely the fringe section and it's topics that started this whole issue by a few members who hypocritically participated the most within it but want it deleted but say otherwise. it's a tactic. it wasn't the religion, philosophy or politics etc that set them off, even though there is just as much or more bullshit there.

they must be very anal people and you can tell by their posts as well. lol

for a forum of members who believe they are so logical i just wondered why someone's even admitted belief in ufo's/aliens, ghosts, etc is unacceptable and not tolerated but religion is.

that's smack-dab conservative ideology. christians and islamists also think these fringe subjects and those who believe or are curious about such are nutjobs.

 

[birch]

the point is that this forum is proving itself to be a mirror of a conservative society and some members are pushing for it. without fringe, that's science plus religion. typical.

it's telling that MR, the most prolific contributor to fringe was bullied and GIA, the more intelligent (besides the usual athiest vs theist conventional line that is redundant) contributor to religion was bullied away too.

 

[Bells]

From an ease-of-moderation point of view, one catch-up pseudoscience dumping ground is easier to manage. If a thread needs moving out of Science, a mod doesn't have to make as nuanced a decision as to where to put it, for starters.

From my perspective..

General Science & Technology should not be on top. To the one, it has no real category and mousing over it shows 'if it doesn't fit anywhere else' is not really encouraging or conducive to scroll down... It should be merged with Science and Society to be "Science, Society and Technology" and that can cover scientific ethics, etc, that Science and Society currently covers. It can continue to be the catch all, but it should not be on top of the forum list. I would also recommend merging Eastern Philosophy with Religion (since the majority of the threads in that sub-forum fall under the guise of Eastern religions to begin with)

From the top down, the list should be:

Science

Physics & Maths
Astronomy, Exobiology and Cosmology
Earth Science
Chemistry
Biology & Genetics
Human Science - so that it works as a subset of sorts to biology and genetics.
Science, Society and Technology - which is a merging of "General Science & Technology" and and "Science and Society"
Linguistics
Comparative Religion

Technology

Stays the same as it is now.

Philosophy

Philosophy
Ethics, Morality & Justice
Religion - which would encompass all religions, including Eastern Philosophy (which should be merged with this sub-forum)

World

Stays the same as it is now order wise. Perhaps a name change for World Events to be "World and Current Events".

Life

Stays the same as it is now

On the Fringe

Should be renamed to "Fringe", as on the fringe gives the implication that it somehow or other hovers just outside the realm of normal science.
Merge Alternative Theories and Pseudoscience
Merge Parapsychology and UFO's, Ghosts and Monsters sub-forums to be called something along the lines of "Supernatural and UFO's", which would cover all of those subjects.
Leave Conspiracies just where it is, so that those topics don't end up migrating to the other sub-forums.

So under the Fringe banner you'd have:

Alternative Theories and Pseudoscience
Supernatural and UFO's
Conspiracies

Sciforums.com

Stays the same as it is now. Although moving Archives down to the bottom of the list might not be a terrible idea, but that's neither here nor there.


On a general note..

I would also recommending having the rules be a bit more distinct in regards to posting in the non-science forums, such as with the Fringe subforum, where when we try to adhere to the rules regarding evidence, we have the veritable shit-storm that inevitably follows. So I would recommend the rules being a little bit more descriptive in regards to what classifies as "evidence", for example.

 

[Seattle]

The point is that this site isn't primarily about science. It's about the fringe primarily and it's about tolerating racist and bigoted posters (that's all Timojin is for example).

The Science isn't very interesting either on this site, it's mainly fringe or someone just posting links to daily scientific subjects.

I think it would be better to just call and consider this a general discussion board and then attempt to keep nut job posters to a minimum , conversation as civil as possible, and discourage (and eventually ban) posters who mainly post racist, bigoted threads.

The beauty of various points of view would still be there and that is the main attraction of this discussion board.

 

[exchemist]

That's what our current mission statement says.


I initially envisaged tighter controls on Alternative Theories. For example, I suggested that posters to Alternative Theories should actually present argument or evidence in support of their ideas, rather than the kinds of random musings and flights of fantasy that we mostly see in that subforum. Nobody (not the people who expressed an interest in the topic, anway) was keen on that restriction at the time, so it went nowhere.


Right now we have 5 forums in the On The Fringe section.

Parapsychology doesn't see much action. Pseudoscience tends to be a dumping ground for failed threads from the science forums, but a few threads start there. UFOs, Ghosts and Monsters is topic-specific. I'm not sure how much of the current activity there is centred around Magical Realist's spam, and how much is generated by other posters. Conspiracies is also specific, but it tends to attract one-issue nutters who only post there and who otherwise aren't much interested in the rest of sciforums. (All of these are generalisations and my own impressions.)

I would suggest possibly merging Parapsychology into Pseudoscience. I would like to see some restrictions on posting in Alternative Theories. I'm in two minds about conspiracies, mainly because I wonder where conspiracy threads will land if that subforum isn't there. Other than that, I'd be willing to ditch that forum. UFOs etc. could be merged into pseudoscience, possibly.

Alternatively, we could conceivably compress the whole of the Fringe down to a single subforum, as it used to be. It would be called simply "On the Fringe", or "The borderlands of Science", or we could name it in line for some kind of vision for the sort of discussion we want there - perhaps "Critical evaluation of unusual claims" (not very catchy, that one), or even "Debunking crazy ideas" (though that sets up a perception of bias right there in the title, which I don't necessary like), or something else...


I agree with keeping Philosophy. I'm not sure we need a separate Eastern Philosophy...

Ethics, Morality and Justice is a high-traffic forum that should stay separate, IMO.


We have a Comparative Religion subforum under Science, which was supposed to do exactly that sort of thing. It doesn't get a lot of traffic.

Most of our Religion discussions end up being fairly uninteresting battles over whether God is or is not real. My observation is that religious people are not warmly welcomed here, even in the Religion forum.

I have a personal, non-expert interest in religion, so I would be sorry to see the Religion forum go. However, I would like to see a better level of discussion and debate there, instead of the my-God-is-bigger-than-your-noGod kind of thing that we mostly see. I'm not sure what the best way to encourage that is, though. Religion inevitably seems to attract certain kinds of posters, including fanatics from both sides of the fence.

Interesting to read the history of it all.

I don't in fact have huge problems with the current structure. I was just responding to the request for feedback. The way I read the request was that mods find too much time taken up on the high level of traffic in the Fringe subsections, possibly due to attracting posters who do not respect, or understand, the mission statement, viz. that discussion is to be from a scientific perspective, even when on non-science or pseudoscience topics.

I find the Religion section the most disappointing by a stretch. There are serious and detailed ideas in the thought of various religions that are interesting to discuss, and significant in the development of society and civilisation, whether or not one personally subscribes to them. I suspect a lot of it is poisoned by the modern American media style of "debate", which seems to consist of hurling abuse from an entrenched position, without trying to understand one's interlocutor. (Same is true, by the way, for anything involving sexual politics, but that's another story.)

 

[birch]

The way I read the request was that mods find too much time taken up on the high level of traffic in the Fringe subsections, possibly due to attracting posters who do not respect, or understand, the mission statement, viz. that discussion is to be from a scientific perspective, even when on non-science or pseudoscience topics.

it can't. that's why it's pseudoscience or for fringe, all the info is not in yet.

then you contradict your position with the next statement. No stringent scientific method mentioned there.

There are serious and detailed ideas in the thought of various religions that are interesting to discuss, and significant in the development of society and civilisation, whether or not one personally subscribes to them. I suspect a lot of it is poisoned by the modern American media style of "debate", which seems to consist of hurling abuse from an entrenched position, without trying to understand one's interlocutor. (Same is true, by the way, for anything involving sexual politics, but that's another story.)

Personal opinion. i didn't know you were this much of a bigot like a few of those who have attacked the fringe so much to have caused this problem in the first place.

Not only that, your logic flew out the window. well, you are human.

 

[exchemist]

it can't. that's why it's pseudoscience or for fringe, all the info is not in yet.

then you contradict your position with the next statement.



Personal opinion. i didn't know you were this much of a bigot like a few of those who have attacked the fringe and have caused this problem in the first place.

Not only that, your logic flew out the window. well, you are human.

What can I say, but Quod Erat Demonstrandum?

Perhaps you could give your views on the subject of this thread, then.

 

[Seattle]

Just make this a general discussion board and quit trying to tie everything to "science". Let's it be largest peer regulated.

 

[birch]

ironically, i see the members who have tried to shut down the fringe section on a 'science' board the deceivers of reality and keep people ignorant, even vulnerable and believing in the 'what you see, is all there is' propaganda. this is because life is much more complicated and life experience shows you that much of reality is going on 'underneath' what is visible. and ironicly, the more you realize this, the stronger and wiser you become. they don't want it to be taken seriously so imo, they are the public's enemy just the same.

this board should just delete the fringe altogether and keep the science and religion. otherwise, those with the evil eye toward the fringe will continue to complain about it like some undercover devils. if it's gone, nothing to complain about.

 

[Thales]

Yesterday, I put: "Yes - Condense The Fringe to one sub-forum but leave Religion as it stands"

However, I've just implemented a few slight modifications, in re-casting my vote for: "No - Leave things as they are"