Keeping UMSF at an 'impressively high level', Please take a moment to read Options

[djellison]

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

[ljk4-1]

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.

[djellison]

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'd be happy for there to be a spin-off forum for things outside the remit of what UMSF has always been about (going places and doing science basically) - I'm not sure if it's easy to do, but I'm sure there's a way to export a subforum or set of posts to transfer them over if using Invision board elsewhere. It's not something I could do - UMSF already limits what spare time I have, there are so many things I want to do (mosaics, 3d anims, maps, the book ) but they all have to move to a back burner when it comes to maintaining this place (and that means basically reading every single post that gets made). I'd be happy to advise and give guidence if someone wants to start a 'spin out' for Observational Astronomy or Cosmology, Astrophysics that sort of thing.

This place started with a very very specific focus - MER imaging. It spread to other Mars spacecraft, and then to Cassini, and now to where it is today - which I consider too broad. However - it is totally impossible to have simple guidelines that dictate what can and can not be discussed - and it's always going to be a case by case basis on the 'edge' of the cut off. One can go on and on about it, get anal to the n'th degree - but it's simply going to be a judgement call by me at the end of the day. Seti, Astrobiology, they're the subject most likely to attract the sort of person I simply do not want here. There are about 15, 20 posters here who make up the very core of this place. For it to retain the quality it must, then UMSF must be the perfect forum for those few people - not everyone - just a few.

Just because this is a forum with a good SNR, that doesnt immediately make it a home for topics for which people can not find somewhere else . To justify the discussion of SETI here because the SNR is good isn't going to cut it - one might as well say "well - there's a forum for Man Utd, but it's really noisy - let's talk about it here!" - No - this place was founded with a specific group of people in mind, a specific type of discussion at its heart - and whilst it's grown beyond that - it's not going to cover anything and everything. Ask yourself why there are no high SNR boards about SETI and astrobiology...then imagine bringing that sort of discussion here...and you can see why it's just not going to happen. I will not let the scope of this place grow to the detriment of it's core subjects and values - that's going to dissapoint some people, it's going to turn some people away, but I'm afraid that's 100% OK in my opinion to maintain the UMSF that is considered with high regard by professional scientists and engineers.

Chris has it about right - this forum is about those mission that go to explore, the things they do, the data they collect, and the magic people can work with that data. It's not a catch all for space science and astronomy, and it never will be. It is small and focused, and because of that it produces great things. If it becomes big, fat and bloated, it's achievments will be lost in the noise.


Doug