I, my ever-helpful co-admins, and several members have all noticed that UMSF has begun to get a little bit 'noisy' recently. Its #1 quality is often cited as being the signal-to-noise ratio, and in the last few months, this has suffered to a certain extent. This post is an attempt to explain how and why I think it's happened, and the rules that we are now putting in place and some action that we are taking/will take to attempt to return UMSF to the prior level of discourse.
UMSF started life, as some of you will know, as a much smaller, MER-specific forum, and over time grew to include Cassini, and then essentially everything it covers today. Relaunching as UMSF just over 12 months ago saw the beginning of a more popular forum, and as more people have begun posting, the quality of discussion has, to an extent, suffered. For more than a year, I've been expecting it - it's part of a forum's growth pattern and is often the point at which a forum is made or broken. UMSF has always done well by having an informal, silent but understood agreement between its members which up until the 500-or-so membership level worked beautifully, but as more people have joined, has broken down considerably. As a result these rules are now going to have to be formalised and enforced - forcefully and rapidly. Some of them may alienate some members, some may be seen as an attempt to 'censor' or 'silence' certain trains of thought and, to be brutally honest, in some cases that is not altogether untrue. UMSF exists for the discussion of UMSF...that's the reality of it. If you want to talk about something else, go elsewhere.
1. Acceptable Subject Matter
- 1.1 The clue is in the name of the forum. If what you are posting is not related either to Unmanned Spaceflight, or a directly related matter, it may be deleted without notice.
- 1.2 Politics - the discussion of policy is acceptable, the distribution of money within agencies is a valid and reasonable subject - however this is different to political debate. Discussion of politicians, political parties, various topics of the moment (Iraq, Terrorism) are all very much off topic and posts that include them will be removed.
- 1.3 Astrobiology - Discussion relating to biological instrumentation past or proposed is acceptable. i.e. Viking instrumentation yes - Martian Meteorites - no. This may meet objection, but again - there are other places for this sort of discussion, take it there.
- 1.4 Manned Spaceflight - changes will soon be made to the Manned Spaceflight forum - bottom line, it's fundamentally off topic to this forum, and in combination with 1.2 it is one of the primary sources of arguments and 'ranting'. Most people agree that Shuttle/ISS is a monetary hog - we do NOT need to see it mentioned every other post. This forum does not exist as a platform to be anti-manned spaceflight (despite the title) - do not use it as one.
- 1.5 Conspiracy theories and pseudo-science are totally unacceptable.
- 1.6 Other guidelines may be added as and when they become necessary.
2. Acceptable Behaviour
- 2.1 Every post must remain respectful of the opinion of others, even if contrary to your own.
- 2.2 Posts should make a contribution. Think - does what I am about to post add anything to the discussion. If the answer is no - should you really be posting it?
- 2.3 Before asking a question or starting a thread for which there might be something similar already in existence, have a brief look for a similar thread, or use the forum search tool to search for it first.
- 2.4 Don't rant. If you have a point to make...make it and move on. Do not litter your every post making the same point again and again. If you want somewhere to vent - get yourself a blog. (P.S., this place is a forum or discussion group - NOT a blog...sorry, just a personal rant there, I wont mention it again...see )
- 2.5 Arguments. If an argument between two people begins, take it to email or private message - we don't want to see your fights in the forum.
3. Posting etiquette
- 3.1 Formatting - do not use excessive formatting. It looks messy and childish. Use it only when it is necessary to make your message clear (such as my MRO MOI time line thread).
- 3.2 Images - do not post an image 'in line' (i.e. one that will load when someone views that thread) if it is more than 100kb. This is to maintain the sanity of those who still use slower connections.
- 3.3 Attached images - do not attach an image to a thread that is freely viewable on a server elsewhere - simply link to it.
- 3.4 Scientific papers are always a useful and valuable resource, but many forum members are not fortunate enough to have subscription access to the various bodies that manage them. If you post a link to a paper which will require a log in, say so in the post (i.e. http://dngsdgsadgdsg/asdgdsa.pdf (requires login) ) - to save people without access finding out the hard way. Only post links to papers directly relevant to a discussion and that fit the rules of section 1
- 3.5 Quoting. If you're replying to a post - you don't need to quote it in full, or indeed at all if it's the first reply to that post. It simply litters threads and makes them harder to scroll through. Also, avoid quoting images, it causes the same problem.
That's all for now - but they will evolve and change with time as the need arises - they are a sensible start however. These rules wont be exercised retroactively - what has been posted is done. These rules apply from now and will be enforced without warning.
I've had a struggle with my own conscience about this entire issue - how to address the problem without seeming to be a censor or overly draconian. But at the end of the day, to maintain the high quality this place enjoys, rules are now clearly required. If you object to them, if you find them contrary to your own standards, then perhaps UMSF is not the place for you and you should consider joining other discussion forums instead.
A few members (two) will be getting temporary suspensions with a request to either post within these new guidelines, or leave. A further two have or are about to have a repeated request to change their posting behaviour or, again, leave (they may or may not elect to respond to this thread, but they can't magically remove the damage that they have done over the past few months). This course of action will be deployed more rapidly in the future to maintain standards.
No one here could question my admiration of MER PI Steve Squyres, and last April he was kind enough to send me a brief note about UMSF which made me very very proud of what the place had become - "Both the discourse and the image work are at an impressively high level," he said.
We all need to think a little before pressing 'post new topic' or 'post reply' to make sure that Steve's kind words remain true and UMSF maintains its healthy reputation, high quality of content, and good-natured debate and discussion.
I hope none of this upsets the long-standing, well-respected members of UMSF, the people who are the foundation upon which the reputation and content of this place stand. I often find myself in awe of some people's contributions, and it is because of the content which so often amazes me that I must take this action to keep its home a happy one.
In closing, I wish to thank my co-admins, whose input into making this change in policy has been so valuable, for their ever-helpful opinions and support - Guys, I couldnt do it without you. They are the 'directors' of this place, and I am forever grateful for their help and advice. However, we need people at a step below that - moderators - to help deploy these new rules. If you are a member of more than 6 months, with several hundred posts to your name and might be able to take on the task of looking after a little bit of UMSF, let me know. It's a thankless job, but you get two perks - access to the Administrators forum (the 'board room' for the directors), and if you would like one, an @unmannedspaceflight.com email address.
This has been a big long post, and well done for getting to the end of it - and I hope that it will begin a refocus of UMSF to give it the big long future it deserves.
Doug
I must admit, I often struggle with it. The alternative is this....
go to Google, and search for
callisto ganymede site:unmannedspaceflight.com
That will search just here, for those keywords. Because quite a lot of people link to UMSF, Google keeps a healthy eye on us and catalogues most of the content, so it's usually quite succesfull in finding things. It always links to the 'lo-fi' version, i.e. sans-graphics, but you can always then click back through to the pretty version once you know where you've got to go
Meanwhile, I'm going to have a look into improving the sites search tool anyway - see if any other invision users have advice about getting it working a little better.
Doug
So at last you did it, Doug.
I think it is better to remove a thread from the beginning than after let feel to the contributors that they are not welcome. For instance there was recently a thread which topic was despising the Kaaba (the muslim sacred stone) and you removed it at once, Allah may reward you . It was off topic, it was ranting and uselessly despising, starting anyway from a nutter document. A similar concern was about the thread on Intelligent Design. Here with the gratuitous despising of spirituality I felt very not at ease, and it is why I involved into this thread (not all members of UMSF are atheist fundamentalists!). But such a discution needs to be conducted in a fair and constructive way, or not at all. So, frankly, from experience, I prefer that in the future such topics are removed. (for interested people I have a forum on spirituality on my own site http://www.shedrupling.org. But anti-spirituality is off-topic and will be removed!! ). A recent thread like "alien rain on Kerala, possible evidence of panspermia" evolved in an interesting way, as some contributors were able to unearth the science reoports and kill the wild speculations. The only "suspicious" thread I ask you to maintain is the one of SETI, as I think the subject is a valid science research (as it is conducted by the SETI institute, of course). But as the forum owner you set the limit about if it is space flight ot not.
Some remarks in random order:
-There is a link "Forum Guidelines - Please Read" at the top of every page. This is the place to write your rules
-about quotes, there was in the former version of the forum a little arrow in quotes, which led to the original posting. I think it was useful.
-About Bruce Moomav, I think he is a well informed person, who often makes interesting contributions. So I think it would be a pitty if he was out of the forum. Please Bruce follow the rules and keep with us. And, if you repeat our ideas to others, alway quote who is at the orign of the idea!
-I see that this forum is still very MERocentric (centered on MER and Cassini). There are thousands of posts on these topics. But when I tried to lauch discutions on other kinds of missions (I proposed a lunar rover, a venus lander...) there are little contributions. Pity, I think.
-There are many threads launched by people who don't have much scientific/technical knowledge, and are rather demands of information or beginner speculations. For them it is important, but it takes place in the forum. Perhaps a specific sub-forum??
-I used to make Google searches on the site as you tell. It often works, but sometimes I was unable to find a thread (Damn, I though, this time Doug did it, he suppressed the thread!). It was relatively ancient threads, so I don't think it is a Google problem.
Item 3.5 is useful.
O.K. Doug ... no offence to the 'Newbie' forum-members asking questions about unmanned spacecraft and the solar system in general ...
On the contrary, take a look at the "Huygens-probe question " started in the Cassini-Huygens > Titan part of the forum ... that question went on into a great topic !
While we are talking about the forum in general, the only thing I have a problem with is the flood control. I understand its purpose, but is there a way to turn the dial a bit to make it kick in a bit later?
I often log on and do a couple of quick clicks and find myself locked up. In this fast-paced day and age, 20 seconds is an eternity, but more so, it's just frustrating.
Otherwise I'm happy as can be with the site and the rules.
I try to avoid esoteric terms and concepts, but Google is a keyclick away and is an excellent reference source, the online environment makes it hard to talk over someone's head for long. If I'm trying to tie an obscure concept to some feature we see, I'll weave a close explanation.
I agree with OGD, I have the bad habit of double-clicking and have to frequently do the 20-Second Thumb Twiddle.
Good job of rulemaking.
--Bill
I had no idea on the flood control - perhaps us admin's don't experience it. I've set the normal member flood control time out to 10 seconds - I hope that's not too bad. It helps keep the SQL load under control, or something...
I'm not too keen on FAQ's. There are 1001 places to go and learn about a mission, a planet, an instrument etc. This isn't an encyclopedia, it's a discussion forum. I do agree on the 'questions and answers' sort of sub forum though. People are always going to ask the more simple question and if they're going to do so, it would make sense for there to be a home for it, perhaps a 'Beginners Forum' - for the more basic questions.
However - this isn't a forum for 'everyone' - I don't think it's fair to ask people to consider the layman in every post, it's just inappropriate. To have a thread tackle something from the ground up in the 'beginners forum' would make sense.
Doug
I personaly agree with what you're saying. I understand how hard he can be to balance between a high standard and a free forum. Administrators rule have to be THE rules.
May be one suggestion. If technicaly possible, you may include reading "the rules" in the inscription form for Newbie ?
Then, I also understand how hard it can be for you to keep the site "up and clean" but, we, Newbie, members, etc, we realy need your expertise/moderation on the topics even more. I'm too new here without any authority, but I'd love too help any time in the future if needed... and if I'm not on the "2-4 list"..
I think a link to the rules, once properly sorted and made final, will go into the 'welcome to' email to all new members - I can sort that no problem.
Doug
Do you want threads on topics such as Seti and LIGO discontinued?
I think they are relevant, because of the close association between LIGO and Gravity probe B, for example,
and they compete with unmanned space for funding and VLA time. But it is your call.
Thanks, Doug,
Their focus, however ,is on observational astronomy and physics - which don't relaly fit under the UMSF banner at all - but then nor do the Hubble images of Mars that I've been playing with. It's a difficult call, and will probably be made on a case by case basis, depending on where the thread is going.
Seti, yes, that thread is not to continue. It's not UMSF in any way shape or form, unquestionably. There are other places to talk about it.
Doug
This is a plea for allowing 'newbies' to continue posting in mainstream discussions, rather than being relegated to a part of the forum the experts will ignore. There's a huge amount to say but I'll try to be short.
Everyone can have useful ideas, including farmers(!) and especially young people. When it comes to spotting connections between widely separated fields of expertise even the inexpert is in with a genuine chance. Of course it is the various experts who form the heart of the forum and most newbies like myself are more likely to be looking for answers to questions than posting new information. I have never - anywhere - found the answer to a question I wanted to ask in a FAQ list. On the other hand I have learned much, for example, about Titanian weather from excellent summaries by a certain B.M. (surely not one of those 'on report' for polemics??). Professionals like volcanopele have not only generously posted fantastic insider insights keeping forum readers well ahead of the game on the interpretation of Cassini images, but he and others have been willing to respond to casual points and queries raised by a wide range of members. Long may this continue. (But where is the new blog - are we allowed to know?)
If spaceflight itself (not just this forum) is to have a great future the excitement of millions of people must be engaged. This is where the will and means for exploring the universe must come from in the end, not just from the odd maverick billionnaire. I think UMSF has an immensely valuable role to play here by enabling interested 'newbies' to participate genuinely, in however small a way, in the discourse of discovery.
People who rightly praise the forum for its immediate value as an academic fringe resource should not overlook the time dimension and the wider social context in which science operates. There will be a future world and a future space programme - and they will be run by newbies.
I think it needs to be determined exactly what is and is not wanted for the
UMSF forum.
Here is my take on the matter:
Apparently just because a spacecraft is unmanned (robotic), that does not
automatically qualify it for discussion here.
If the robot craft is designed for exploring planets (besides Earth), moons,
planetoids, comets, and the interplanetary medium, that is okay.
Space-based robot observatories like Hubble are not, even though they
have imaged various bodies in the Sol system. Personally I think excluding
such satellites gets into murky waters, as the science and the Universe are
not subject themselves to strict borders and definitions as created by humans.
All manned missions are out, even if their destinations are among the above-
mentioned celestial objects.
SETI, interstellar spacecraft drives, and speculations on the Cosmos are out,
even though the missions of virtually all space probes are to analyze a part
of the mysteries of the Universe. And how often have we heard from NASA
that finding extraterrestrial life is one of their ultimate goals, poor as their
current behavior with astrobiology budgets are?
What about space probes designed to look for alien life on other worlds? If
the said target is not intelligent, does that make it okay? This would make
MER okay, as its discovery of ancient water on Mars does not necessarily
lead to intelligent alien natives of the Red Planet. And Cassini's exploration
of Titan and Enceladus are okay because the highest life forms on those
worlds could not be more than microbes and maybe segmented worms.
Europa is okay, even if its life forms might reach the jellyfish and fish level.
What about other worlds we currently do not think could have life? This could
change as we continue to explore and discover new things about these worlds.
You say there are other places to discuss many of the topics I have brought up.
I haven't found many with the quality level I find here. Either the discussions
and information levels are nil, or they degrade into Hoaxland territory. It is a
true shame that in the year 2006, talking about alien life is still being placed in
the science ficiton and science "ghetto" category, even decades after we have
found creatures that can live miles under the ocean next to boiling hot
hydrothermal vents. Recent satellites have even determined that simple
microbes can handle being directly exposed to space.
My suggestion is that UMSF split into two forums, one for the unmanned probes
to other worlds and the other for the rest of the Universe. I would hate to lose
all the great info and talk that has gone on here already, to say nothing of losing
some valuable members who may not be intimately involved with, say, the geology
of certain areas on Mars or know how to process their own moon maps, but who
are valuable nonetheless.
I also do not want to see "newbies" chased away, as everyone was new to the field
at one time, and if someone turned them off to the subject, their loss to the field
would be ours as well.
And while I cannot host such a second forum physically, I would put my money
where my mouth is by offering to help moderate and build such a forum.
It seems to me that the essence of what we are talking about could be summed up as "Unmanned Space Exploration". Its where robots are, will be, or might be sent in place of humans. It is about those spacecraft that we all would kill to get a seat on if we could.
If you think like this, Cassini and the rovers are a dead cert, and things like LIGO and Hubble, while worthy in their own right, don't fit.
Chris
One place that interested folks could take discussions of SETI, cosmology, etc. would be The Planetary Society Members Forum (if, that is, you are members). Because it's members-only it should screen out some of the kooks. We have a very open policy toward the topics that can be discussed on that forum, because it's really meant just to be a meeting place for our members to discuss whatever is on their minds, though we have a strict policy against conspiracy theories and outright looniness. We would be delighted to see some of the quality discussions that Doug is trying to excise from this forum moved there.
http://planetary.org/members/
--Emily
I was hoping you would mention that Emily - I didn't want to pimp it (not my forum) but currently it's a quiet, but well maintained place and I'm sure some great discussion could kick off over there!
And frankly, if you're not a TPS member - then you should be ashamed
Doug
Doug,
I don't agree with your implicit statement as what subjects like SETI or astrobiology would necessarily attract kooks, and subjects like MERs would not. If you remember some experience on "another forum" there was a full team of kooks commenting the MER images. From my own experience in other forums, any subject will atract kooks, stalkers, spammers, etc. I remember a painful experience with a forum on 3D modeling (the kind of place where I could meet you) where I was insulted and attacked in a very deloyal way for not being some sort of punk, and also on another forum of a non-violent organization!
Basically what makes the quality of a forum is a proper management, including a discrete but firm hand to expell the kooks, stalkers, spammers, etc as soon as they appear. Usually people with unpleasant behaviour start in a friendly way, and only little by little they become unpleasant, up to open conflict when other posters try to defend of them. But there is no way to really defend correct posters if the forum manager don't remove the unpleasant/useless messages. And this can happen on any forum, provided that the moderator lets do, either he is weak, stupid or accomplice. (In a legal case, he will be considered accomplice).
So, you want to restrict your scope, that is your right, you have good reasons, you don't need to justify with such motives as above. I think it is possible to lead a forum on any subject, including fringe ones, provided that bad posters are rebuffed at once.
So I shall look at elakdawalla's planetary society forum. The idea to make another forum is interesting too, but unfortunately I am not in a situation to do so. And, what makes the interest of UMSF is not only the absence of kooks, but also the presence of several competent scientists working directly in the field, witth the best data at hand. I am afraid they will not follow if someones opens another forum or more general or more fringe topics, so that it may be better to go on other existing forums.
I remind interested people that I have several embryonic forums on my own site http://www. shedrupling.org on topics like epistemology, relations between science and spirituality, 3D virtual worlds, and in a general way on how to make our world and lifes better. But I am worse than Doug: moderation a priori (I publish a message only if it fits my limits).
As one who has made several requests for clear posting guidelines, I am pleased to see them available now, though it would have been to my advantage if they had been available a few months earlier. I am in agreement with those rules currently available and will try to post in accordance with them. So long as they are applied uniformly, I see no serious difficulties in all members accepting them.
I have had some difficulty using the new "Insert Image" button in the format tool bar ( as opposed to the older system which seemed to automatically convert images to thumbnails for the post.) A brief summary of techniques for using this button properly with images not on the web would help me to avoid infringements of the image rules. If such guidance is already in the Help section, I have been unable to locate it.
Since I do not have the time to work through the entire forum, but enter on the MER page, a brief notice and/or link here to any new additions to the rules would also be helpful.
I might just note that a couple of minor issues not yet addressed in the rules are humor and 'coarse' or 'vulgar' language. They are difficult and subjective issues to precisely define, but they are a potential source of disagreement about "Acceptable Behaviour" and what is "Off Topic". It would be helpful if at least broad guidelines were available.
Well, I'm sure that Doug will observe a certain moderation in his application of these rules, since there are certainly many, many posts here (even in the past day or two) which have absolutely nothing to do with unmanned spaceflight, even by the most liberal reading of Doug's definition. Including one or two by Doug himself -- though, to be fair, while a picture of a drone rover in the Antarctic has nothing to do with UMSF, Doug *did* sort of tie it in by noting a resemblance (that I couldn't see) of the scene to Meridiani's plains. And he posted it in the "this has nothing to do with UMSF" forum, which, if you're going to ignore the rules about posting about things other than UMSF, is I guess the right place to put it...
In other words, I don't think Doug is planning to be generally unpleasant about all of this -- eh, Doug? I think we all trust you to be rational about it. And a good, general codification of the rules *has* been well received, I think.
We know you make sacrifices to keep this place as good as it is, Doug. Please don't ever think we don't appreciate it.
-the other Doug
With my opinion, humour can be accepted, and limited only if a joke completely hijacks a thread. But coarse language or vulgarity are not necessary for making jokes.
Thanks for the guidelines Doug.
There are some other forum management techniques you may already know about:
Another option is to hide parts of UMSF from search engines using the http://www.robotstxt.org/ protocol. http://www.robotstxt.org/wc/exclusion.html prevents spiders from indexing designated pages, and certain words and phrases, and would enable you to control what the searchable footprint of UMSF is, e.g., no search for 'seti' would lead here.
For the damage already done you can also ask google to remove parts of a site from their cache using this http://services.google.com:8882/urlconsole/controller utility. By applying it to certain parts of the board it would effectively erase them from the web for people searching for them. This could be used to undo damage caused by off-topic threads providing search fodder for undesirables.
These are pretty standard techniques for hiding stuff on the web.
I'd like to suggest that non-cosmology oriented space observatories, like Kepler and TPF, be included in scope of UMSF, as they are specifically designed to provide data on planetary bodies. Similarly, I think technology demonstration missions like the ST flights of the New Millenium Program also fit in the scope of UMSF.
My 0.02.
Doug,
What about setting up a place dedicated to personal (or not?) stories we could share about Unmaned probes ? For exemple, I went twice in Pasadena, for Voyager 2 encounter with Neptune and then for Spirit landing. I personaly can share what I've seen, felt, etc... OK, I can put this under Planetary Society topic since the event I went to was organized by the PS, but, I feel that more people can (want ?) share their experience too, like Astro0 coming back for JPL-KSC recently. What I do like in Planetary exploration is all the humans stories that make it happen.
Thanks
Climber
I think that would sit quite nicely in the Communtiy Chit Chat sub forum - by all means get lyrical therein
Doug
Doug and Bob,
I let you do it... sometimes, as I said previously, my english could turn to englitch
Yes, FAQ's were mentioned.
I think it's the keep it simple approach! Wikipedia is full of everything. I was just looking at the entire history of Soviet unmanned Mars probes that I knew nothing about !
Of course, polite, humble new members should not automatically be thrown out just for not knowing something. A polite nudge towards wikipedia, or Google ?
The signal is about the probes, the images and data and the day to day news in this culture, that's what should be tuned in on.
I've been on many, what are cited as "open and free" forums and frankly they are NOT. They often turn into a nightmare sadly. It's a balance as always, moderate but don't become over zealous I guess.
DJ Barney
..and there are many knowledgeable people who have cancelleled their accounts or who read but do not post here. Something to think about...
There's about a 100-1 'lurk' ratio at a best guess - i.e. for each regularly contributing member there's about 100 unique visitors per month.
I have spoken to people who would be classified as knowledgeable people who like the place, visit regularly, but don't contribute because they don't have the time or are worried about saying things that they shouldn't etc. BUT - they still enjoy the place and will occasionally send an email or put something on a website somewhere so we can keep ourselves informed..informally.
There is a cut off made in terms of subject matter and quality. If that cut off retains more high quality activity than it eliminates - then it's doing the right thing.
At the end of the day - this isn't the only place in the world to talk about this stuff - there are others - and if people are not happy with the 'slice' made on the types of discussion or people involved here, they can always contribute to other forums (I visit the BAUT forums a lot for instance - for stuff that wouldn't quite fit here )
I've had some fairly nasty emails and get called some fairly nasty things on other forums because of it - but it's a price worth paying for the positive feedback that outweighs it significantly.
Doug
Or how about people listen to the mods and think before posting and then we don't have to do any cleaning up at all?
Only if you spent you entire time here with your eyes closed would you think that the sorts of posts that were culled were ever going to be acceptable. I don't intend to leave further reminders for people. There is a big fat reminder in the form of the Forum Guidelines : specifically
2. Acceptable Behaviour
- 2.1 Every post must remain respectful of the opinion of others, even if contrary to your own.
- 2.2 Posts should make a contribution. Think - does what I am about to post add anything to the discussion. If the answer is no - should you really be posting it?
- 2.3 Before asking a question or starting a thread for which there might be something similar already in existence, have a brief look for a similar thread, or use the forum search tool to search for it first.
- 2.4 Don't rant. If you have a point to make...make it and move on. Do not litter your every post making the same point again and again. If you want somewhere to vent - get yourself a blog.
- 2.5 Arguments. If an argument between two people begins, take it to email or private message - we don't want to see your fights in the forum.
If people wish to ignore those rules, they'll find their posts deleted without warning and continued behaviour in breach of those rules will result in accounts getting deleted. It's how it's been for 3.5 years - it's how it'll continue to be. If you can't figure out how to stick to those rules without a trail of rule-breaking crumbs - then you shouldn't be posting at all.
CR + Stephen,
If you really want the full ding-battedness, you can sign up for immediate email notification of all posts. Those notifications are sent out as soon as the post is made, before the moderators get ahold of them. It's probably not worth it, btw. Which reminds me, time to send in donation to UMSF!
I'm not familiar with the dispute from the old thread, but I would like to take this moment to thank the Admonistrators for their tenacious D
I try really hard to avoid posting, but I look at UMSF every day, admiring from afar!
Cheers,
Bradford Ellis
Speaking of contributions, I'm surprised there's not a convenient link somewhere on the page for contributions. Or is money not really much of an issue for UMSF?
--Greg
It's actually not an issue. I don't pimp the idea of donations etc - but those who do want to contribute, can. We get enough from the tidy text ads at the bottom of each page to pay for the hosting - and combined with the odd donation it leaves enough to do things like the 2000 Sols posters or treat Steve to dinner and beers at Wagammama's in Milton Keynes.
Doug
You took him to Milton Keynes? Will he still associate with us?
Ted
He was already there We got utterly, entirely, totally lost on the way back from food to his hotel though.
Doug
Ah. A literal pub crawl, then?
Fog - a Ford Focus - and 28,000,000 roundabouts.
Doug
I can dig it; New Jersey is much the same way!
I've been told this is an apt description of Milton Keynes:
http://www.thisischurch.com/intercession/intercessionsordinary29year2004.htm
"We now join together in saying the prayer which Jesus taught his disciples, saying together:-...."
Oh God, why did I go to Milton Keynes.
Doug
I haven't been to Milton Keynes myself but first heard of it in an (extremely funny) book by Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett: "Good Omens".
In this book the resident angel and devil in the United Kingdom both take a considerable interest in building activities (the circum-London motorway for example being one of the devil Crowley's most successful creations).
As for Milton Keynes neither was actually responsible "but both reported it as a success".
...nice line, TTY!
Don't feel bad, James; my home town is much maligned as well. (It's called "Butte", so you can easily guess which end of the jokes it gets for starters... )
Everyone I know has been to Butte -- once.
See what I'm saying?!??
When I was in junior high, I recall a family trip to Seattle, and we did go thru Butte on the way there.
I also recall returning to the midwest via Oregon and Utah . . .
Now that hurt, Tasp; surely the logical exit point from the western US was Butte!
(Sorry, Doug, but we sure are trashing the title of this thread... )
As a brand new board member, just accepted last night, I wanted to let Doug know that his forum rules were one of the reasons I was pleased to join up. I don't know how much knowledge I have to contribute that will seem new and fresh—and it may be I'll end up lurking to soak up information and learn new things—but just knowing that this place won't be cluttered with electric universe gobbledygook or torrid political rambling makes me happier than I can easily express.
This is going to be awesome.
And I would feel remiss not to shout out to Veronica for suggesting it in the first place.
Here´s why we need moderators, quoted from kottke.org:
---------------
Does the broken windows theory hold online?
The Economist reports (http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12630201)that experimental tests of the controversial "broken windows theory" of social behavior indicate that the theory is correct.
The most dramatic result, though, was the one that showed a doubling in the number of people who were prepared to steal in a condition of disorder. In this case an envelope with a EUR5 ($6) note inside (and the note clearly visible through the address window) was left sticking out of a post box. In a condition of order, 13% of those passing took the envelope (instead of leaving it or pushing it into the box). But if the post box was covered in graffiti, 27% did. Even if the post box had no graffiti on it, but the area around it was littered with paper, orange peel, cigarette butts and empty cans, 25% still took the envelope.
Here's the 1982 Atlantic article (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/198203/broken-windows) in which the theory was first discussed in a popular forum. (Great article, BTW.)
At the community level, disorder and crime are usually inextricably linked, in a kind of developmental sequence. Social psychologists and police officers tend to agree that if a window in a building is broken and is left unrepaired, all the rest of the windows will soon be broken. This is as true in nice neighborhoods as in rundown ones. Window-breaking does not necessarily occur on a large scale because some areas are inhabited by determined window-breakers whereas others are populated by window-lovers; rather, one unrepaired broken window is a signal that no one cares, and so breaking more windows costs nothing.
Reading these articles, I wondered: how does the broken windows theory apply to online spaces? Perhaps like so:
Much of the tone of discourse online is governed by the level of moderation and to what extent people are encouraged to "own" their words. When forums, message boards, and blog comment threads with more than a handful of participants are unmoderated, bad behavior follows. The appearance of one troll encourages others. Undeleted hateful or ad hominem comments are an indication that that sort of thing is allowable behavior and encourages more of the same. Those commenters who are normally respectable participants are emboldened by the uptick in bad behavior and misbehave themselves. More likely, they're discouraged from helping with the community moderation process of keeping their peers in line with social pressure. Or they stop visiting the site altogether.
Unchecked comment spam signals that the owner/moderator of the forum or blog isn't paying attention, stimulating further improper conduct. Anonymity provides commenters with immunity from being associated with their speech and actions, making the whole situation worse...how does the community punish or police someone they don't know? Very quickly, the situation is out of control and your message board is the online equivalent of South Central Los Angeles in the 1980s, inhabited by roving gangs armed with hate speech, fueled by the need for attention, making things difficult for those who wish to carry on useful conversations.
But what about a site's physical appearance? Does the aesthetic appearance of a blog affect what's written by the site's commenters? My sense is that the establishment of social norms through moderation, both by site owners and by the community itself, has much more of an impact on the behavior of commenters than the visual design of a site but aesthetics does factor in somewhat. Perhaps the poor application of a default MT or Wordpress template signals a lack of care or attention on the part of the blog's owner, leading readers to think they can get away with something. Poorly designed advertising or too many ads littered about a site could result in readers feeling disrespected and less likely to participate civilly or respond to moderation. Messageboard software is routinely ugly; does that contribute to the often uncivil tone found on web forums?
------------
I sometimes think it's a bit like a school... you've got the really cool kids who are the centre of attention and always sit on the best bench in the yard or best chairs in the 6th form wing, sharing in-jokes; the cool-ish kids who hang around the really cool kids, chipping in now and again when they feel confident enough to; the not-cool-but-interested kids who watch from a distance, happy just to be involved and witnesses to the cool stuff; the not-cool-and-resentful kids who lurk in a corner of the playground glaring at everyone else, hating them for being so popular but too timid to do anything disruptive; the annoying clown kids who run in and out of the other groups generally being pains in the **** but sure in their own minds they are hilarious, and the wrecking kids, who share no real interests with any of the others and just come into the yard or the 6th form wing now and again to try and cause trouble, just for the sake of it, then strut away laughing...
(raises a single eyebrow) Fascinating....
Stu...I don't feel like I fit in any of your groups...should I ask for being transferred?...
Fascinating concept, the broken window theory, and one that fits very nicely into what I've always called the "Will to be stupid" theory.
People in general (with the exceptions that prove the rule, of course) tend to do what they feel they can get away with... and driving that function is what I call the will to be stupid. It's the powerful desire to act on impulses that you can easily determine to be negative, disruptive or just plain not in anyone's best interests. The disruptive/self-indulgent/just-plain-stupid act almost always brings with it some very transient gratification, but is characterized by immediate remorse and realization that, even if you can get away with it, it's still a wrong (or at least completely non-useful) thing to do.
However, even when you realize you did something stupid, the immediate response when challenged on the action is usually either "You'd have done it, too" or "Everyone was doing it." It's the anonymity of the mob that drives the self-justification; after all, most people would never do, as individuals, what mobs are known to do.
So yes, policing is always necessary. The great pitfall in the policing function is when a megalomaniac gets into a position of power over the policing function, and attempts to limit all discourse to that which supoprts his/her own opinions. That becomes an oppressive environment which may maintain order, but at the expense of the free flow of ideas.
I do feel that Doug has come across the primary means of avoiding that pitfall, though -- appointing a team of moderators that can self-check itself against any one person imposing such an oppressive limit on discourse. And Doug has selected as his mods people who weren't necessarily desirous of being the "board cops," but instead those people he thought would be good at it. That's important, since megalomania is one of the more powerful motivators for seeking authority over others. (In other words, you don't want the police to be composed entirely of people who *want* to do the job, because the desire to impose your will onto others is precisely the trait that ought to disqualify you from achieving such power.)
It's good to remember, though, that the will to be stupid is omnipresent, and just because you wear a badge (or have "Moderator" pinned next to your name) doesn't mean you're immune. I'm pleased to say that, for the most part, the mods here have done a good job of avoiding mob-think amongst themselves and allowing discordant opinions (when presented respectfully, and when in keeping with the mutually-agreed subject matter limitations of the forum) to be expressed.
-the other Doug
This discussion is pretty fascinating to me. Just as you guys are curious about the day to day operations on the rovers, I'm curious about what's behind the UMSF pages I see every day. From the hard/soft-ware down to the "mod"-ware. I'm all ears (hint hint hint).
Paolo
I think my only important point was that mods don't always agree on everything. Now I think I'd better drop the topic, before I tick off the mods.
Yup
I'm good with it. I get to be the hood who hangs out in the smoking area all day, waiting till I turn 18 so I can run off & join the Army! (Well...Air Force... )
yikes!
...Well, from the director's cut (by "cut" I mean what Doug might do to my throat after this...)
(F) Summer nights, black as molasses....
(M) Summer nights; take off your sunglass-es...
(F) Summer nights, what's that I see-ee?
(M) It's my tricked-out 20cm S-C-Teee!
(Both) Summer nights, starry & dark
We get weird looks from the folks in the park...
(Crowd) Wa-wa-wa-wa-wa-wa, wa!
Tell me more, tell me more
Can you see Ay-lee-uns?
...argh. That's enough!
Would anyone care to look at the title of this thread again?
The temptation to re-write the lyrics for a certain US pop singers latest creation 'Womanizer' is exceedingly high...
Rover Driver, Rover-Rover Driver
You're a Rover Driver
Oh, Rover Driver, oh
You're a Rover Driver, baby
You, you, you are
You, you, you are
Rover Driver, Rover Driver, Rover Driver,
etc.
Next time you hear it on the radio or whatever, trust me, you'll be singing along now.
I thought the UMSF was the one place on Earth safe from Britney references.....aarrghh...I said her name....aarrrghh!
I swear - hand on heart - I was going 'Rover Driver, Rover Rover Driver' before the Lorry version hit the Moyles shoe
And did those feeeeet.....
I would say that it's the Buzz Aldrin Show, but I'm afraid that's a banned subject....
-the other Doug
Dear Admin
I just wonder if my account of the M9 earthquake in Japan might be of help to the forum members.
Pandaneko
Glad you're safe Pandaneko.
I'm sure many of us would be interested to hear your story, and the thread that centsworth_II pointed you to would be the right place for it.
James
Yes, we've been wondering about how you were doing in all this P.N.
nice to hear again from you Pandaneko!
Just bumping this rather elderly thread back up to reinforce a crucial point. We the admin/mod team have received a few observations--and complaints--from long-time members about the quality of discourse on the Forum of late, and this is a matter of significant concern.
For 17 years we've done our best to make this place the premier place on the web for not only amateur space enthusiasts but also space professionals to interact and jointly share the wonder of robotic exploration of the Solar System. A major part of that is preserving the signal-to-noise ratio in discussions, and of late the noise level has become unacceptably high.
We ask that all members--and esp. our newer ones--carefully read the Rules and Guidelines. More than that, though, before posting please consider whether or not your post will further a given discussion in a productive and cordial way. If it won't meet that standard than it's probably not worth posting.
Thanks!
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)