From: noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,news.groups,sci.misc,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: How about sci.physics.speculation as well?
Date: 9 Jan 93 00:39:55 GMT
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)

In article mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson) writes:
>In article noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring) writes:

>[According to Matt's straw-man, "clearly inappropriate postings include:"]
>>>	(1) Personal attacks;
>>>	(2) Discussion that isn't about or related to physics; 
>>>	(3) Multiple responses that all say the same things; and
>>>	(4) Crackpot postings that are "not even wrong."
>>
>>
>>Items (1) to (3) sound good and unambiguous.  However, I believe that item
>>(4) should be clarified.

>As a prospective co-moderator, I'm not entirely comfortable with this
>definition either.  Problem is, we couldn't come up with anything better.
>In any event, crackpottery (at least to me) may have less to do with content
>than with style.  A post that starts with "THEY LAUGHED AT GALILEO, THEY
>LAUGHED AT EINSTEIN, NOW THEY'RE LAUGHING AT ME!", all in capital letters,
>looks more crackpottish than one with exactly the same content but without
>the hysteria.  Think of it this way: the items unacceptable under condition
>4 are the crackpottery likely to lead to postings unacceptable under the
>*other* conditions.  Crackpottery *not* likely to lead to that is more
>likely to be accepted; remember that one of Matt's points is "light"
>moderation.


I can see this.  Maybe the newsgroup proposers should consider setting up a
posting guideline which outlines what things done (e.g., all caps) and said
(e.g., "I'm being persecuted..."), etc., would cause the post to be
automatically rejected regardless of its content.  Of course, if it met
the base criteria but in the moderator's opinions did not meet more
"subjective" requirements, it could also be rejected.  These objective
posting guidelines can be easy to establish - just go through lots of prior
posts and search out the obnoxious things, such as excessive use of
CAPS, etc., that anybody, even my 9 year-old son, could use as a first
filter.

Also, I believe the moderators should make a small effort to inform the
poster of a rejected post as to why it was rejected, and what steps could
be done to make it acceptable - and leave the door open for posting it when
the objections are dealt with.  That's only fair.


>>Thus, to protect the integrity of the proposed system, as well as to protect
>>the moderators from charges of taking advantage of a fuzzy rule (e.g., to
>>disallow posts because they don't like their "implications"), I suggest that
>>(4) be more carefully defined, and that the extent of the definition be 
>>pre-approval by the sci.physics community before going for the full-bore
>>CFD/CFV.

>Well, make a suggestion.  You wouldn't *believe* the amount of e-mail that
>Matt and the prospective co-moderators exchanged trying to get the
>wordsmithing right ...  As noted, I'm not all that happy with point 4
>either, but I sure can't think of anything better; I'd be more than happy
>to listen to alternatives.

I see your point about setting up some more guidelines as being very
difficult.  It is something akin to the Supreme Court Justice who said
that he knows pornography when he sees it, but can't define it.


>...
>That's not what's at issue, and even if it was, the co-moderators are a more
>heterogeneous group than you seem to think they are; certainly you will find
>no general agreement among us on what constitutes "heterodoxy," even if we
>felt it appropriate to suppress it (which I for one don't).  I think you'll
>be pleasantly surprised at the number of highly heterodox things that make
>it through the moderation process -- if the proponents of heterodoxy simply
>make their points in a way that is cogent, consistent, non-repetitive, and
>not personally insulting.

Well, if the newsgroup passes the stringent creation process, there'll be
several people keeping their eyes on the group to see if this comes to
pass.  I hope so.  Of course, I may reconsider my position as to not
serving as a moderator sometime in the future, but I'm not sure if the rest
of sci.physics would be ready for me, the crackpot par excellence.  :^)


>> And let me
>>go on to offer an olive branch and propose that along-side a
>>sci.physics.research (it should really be called sci.physics.orthodox), that
>>a parallel moderated newsgroup, called sci.physics.speculations be created
>>as well (I'd be happy to be a moderator for such a group).

>Without judging the merits of such a group, let me note that *my* main
>reservation about sci.physics.research is just that its creation may delay
>or prevent a more global reorganization of sci.physics -- and other groups
>where similar questions exist (ever read sci.med?  Hoo, boy...) -- along
>preferable lines, whatever they may be.  But that reorganization is a subject
>for another place and time.  Want to get a discussion of s.p.speculations
>going?  Fine with me, although I will stay out of it and probably wouldn't
>vote one way or the other on it.


How about it?  If you'd like to see a sci.physics.speculations (moderated)
and a sci.physics.speculations.d (unmoderated), then let me know.  This is
just a straw vote.  One advantage that a sci.physics.speculations has over
sci.physics.research is that it would fit in better with any future
reorganization of the sci.physics.* hierarchy.  Speculations are speculations
(like parts is parts).


Jon Noring


-- 

Charter Member of the INFJ Club.

Now, if you're just dying to know what INFJ stands for, be brave, e-mail me,
and I'll send you some information.  It WILL be worth the inquiry, I think.

=============================================================================
| Jon Noring          | noring@netcom.com        | I VOTED FOR PEROT IN '92 |
| JKN International   | IP    : 192.100.81.100   | Support UNITED WE STAND! |
| 1312 Carlton Place  | Phone : (510) 294-8153   | "The dogs bark, but the  |
| Livermore, CA 94550 | V-Mail: (510) 417-4101   |  caravan moves on."      |
=============================================================================
Who are you?  Read alt.psychology.personality!  That's where the action is.
Newsgroups: sci.physics